/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060825.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, August 25, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 169
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Penn. Court Approves $28.8M Settlement in "Meijer"
AK STEEL: Allows Retirees Lawsuit to Go Ahead in Cincinnati
BOEING CO: Sued Over Increases in Retiree Healthcare Benefits
BOYKIN LODGING: Faces Multiple Shareholder Lawsuits in Ohio
BROADWING INC: Sept. Hearing Set for N.Y. Stock Suit Settlement
DIGIMARC CORP: Ore. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ERIE LIFE: Plaintiff Asks Pa. Court to Name Johnson Lead Counsel
FIRST UNION: Nov. 6 Hearing Set for Ask Jeeves Suit Settlement
GOLDEN WEST: Settles Shareholder Lawsuits Over Wachovia Merger
GUAM: Attorneys to Argue Against COLA Suit in Court this Month
HOUSTON EXPLORATION: Faces Tex. Shareholder Suit Over JANA Offer
ICG COMMUNICATIONS: Jan. Hearing Set for Stock Suit Settlement
INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: N.C. Court Mulls Stock Suit Dismissal
KNOLLS ATOMIC: Appeals Court Dismisses Discrimination Lawsuit
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Over Alcatel Merger Continues in N.Y.
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Dismissal of Workers' Benefits Suits
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Gender Bias Lawsuit in Calif.
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces N.J. Suit Over Alcatel Merger
MACATAWA BANK: Class Status Hearing in "Jenkins" Set Next Month
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Court Yet to Rule on "Siracusano" Dismissal
METROMEDIA FIBER: N.Y. Court Certifies "Salomon Analyst" Lawsuit
MISSION PLACE: Sued for Alleged Breach of Condominium Contract
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Ga. Court Certifies Breach of Contract Suit
PETRON CORP: Owner of Sunken Oil Tanker in Phil. to Face Suit
PIONEER NATURAL: Continues to Face Kans. Royalty Owners' Lawsuit
PMA CAPITAL: Continues to Face Certain Claims in Pa. Stock Suit
RADIO ONE: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Obtain Court Approval
SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Levie" Lawsuit
TOPLOFIKACIA SOFIA: Bulgarian Utility Faces Overcharging Suit
UNITED RENTALS: Amended Securities Complaint Filed in Conn.
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Settles Siliconix Tender Offer Lawsuits
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Still Facing Consumer Fraud Suits in Mo., Ill.
ZEON BIOMUNE: Louisville, Ken. Residents Sue Over Pollution
Asbestos Alert
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Industries Inc. Spends $20.7M in 2Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Has $505M Claims Insurance in 2Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Doe Run Faces Suits from St. Joe Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: El Paso Settles Ariz. Breaches for $225T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OneBeacon Records $1.277B Reserves in 2Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning's Reserves Stay at $7B in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quaker Unit Reaches $15M Deal With Carrier
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Worldwide Incurs $1M Unindemnified Cost
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Remands Suit v. Union Pacific
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fresenius Asks Sealed Air to Cover Expenses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT Faces Coverage Suits in N.Y. and Calif.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Faces 113 Pending Suits in 2Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Washington Group Faces Third-Party Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Takes on Multi-Party Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Standard Motor Drop to 3,200 in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Westinghouse Air Brake Tech. Rise
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Harsco Corp. Drop to 26,712 in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Ltd. Reserves $3.526B for Claims in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Constellation Energy Posts 517 Suits v. BGE
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Inc. Continues to Deal With Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Named in 65,656 Suits as of Filing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Deals With 850 Property Damage Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Continues to Face Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Provides $959M Excess Coverage in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Assesses $255.4M for Cleanup in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zapata's Predecessor Units Face 14 Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Has $66M Liability in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Inc. Receives 3,886 Claims in 2Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Faces Personal Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leap Encounters No Renewed Cases Since 1996
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Century Indemnity to Pay $17M to CGM Trust
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan College to Create Center for Diseases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong Holdings to Consider Dissolution
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Corp. Insurers File Ch. 11 Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Couple Accuses 8 Defendants in W.Va. Court
New Securities Fraud Cases
IMAX CORP: Schatz & Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
ZORAN CORP: Stull, Stull Announces Calif. Securities Suit Filing
*********
3M COMPANY: Penn. Court Approves $28.8M Settlement in "Meijer"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted final approval to a $28.8 million settlement in the
class action, "Meijer, Inc., Meijer Distribution, Inc. v. 3M
Co.," after an Aug. 8 hearing.
The Meijer plaintiffs brought the suit to recover damages
arising out of 3M's alleged anticompetitive conduct. They claim
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and Section 2 of the
U.S. Commerce and Trade Code against 3M for unlawful monopoly of
the transparent tape market through the company's bundled rebate
program and exclusive dealing arrangements with various
retailers.
Meijer claims that "3M has used its unlawful monopoly power...to
harm plaintiffs and the other class members in their business or
property by increasing, maintaining, or stabilizing the prices
they paid for invisible and transparent tape above competitive
levels."
Plaintiffs and 3M have agreed to settle the Meijer lawsuit on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased invisible or
transparent tape directly from 3M, or any subsidiary or
affiliate thereof, in the U.S. at any time during the period
from Oct. 2, 1998 to Feb. 10, 2006 and also purchased for resale
under the class member's own label, any "private label"
invisible or transparent tape from 3M or any of 3M's competitors
at any time from Oct. 2, 1988 to Feb. 10, 2006; but excluding 3M
company, its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, and
employees and excluding those persons or entities that timely
and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class.
In the proposed settlement, 3M will pay $28,889,128 in complete
and final settlement of the claims asserted. 3M has deposited
that amount in an escrow account.
The court approved the award of $7.5 million plus interest that
may have accrued on that sum deposited in escrow to pay
plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys fees plus $390,452.46 to
reimburse plaintiffs' counsel for payment of costs and expenses
reasonably incurred in prosecuting and settling the action.
The award shall be apportioned among plaintiffs' counsel by
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., subject to review by
this court upon request of any plaintiffs' counsel.
The court approves the award of $25,000.00 as an incentive award
for plaintiffs Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc.
A copy of the final approval order is available at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?105d
The suit is "Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc. v. 3M
Co., f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., Civil Action
No. 04-5871" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge John R. Padova.
The lead counsel for the class are Daniel A. Small and Brent W.
Landau at Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New
York Avenue, N.W., West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005-
3934.
AK STEEL: Allows Retirees Lawsuit to Go Ahead in Cincinnati
-----------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Corp. dropped its lawsuit seeking judgment on the
legality of its planned changes to retirees' health benefits to
allow a class action by retirees to move forward, the Dayton
Business Journal reports.
AK Steel retirees co-pay office visits and prescription drugs
only. In June, the company informed retirees that they have to
pay premiums for their health benefits. The change is to take
effect Oct. 1 and Jan. 1.
The company then filed a suit against a local union, its
officers, and nine retirees in federal court asking for a
declaration that it has the right to make the changes.
In July, nine retirees filed a suit in Cincinnati alleging
breach of labor contracts and of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act welfare plans. The union and retirees had moved to
dismiss the company's complaint and retirees moved to transfer
the company's lawsuit to Cincinnati.
Alan McCoy, AK Steel's vice president of government and public
relations, said the company withdrew the lawsuit to facilitate a
"rapid resolution" to the case.
"[The] case is on track for a quick decision on the plaintiff's
motion and it made sense to proceed with it in Cincinnati," Mr.
McCoy said.
A preliminary hearing has been set for Sept. 13 in U.S. District
Court in Cincinnati on the motion to obtain a preliminary
injunction against the planned changes.
The retirees' complaint seek to represent two classes consisting
of:
-- hourly production, maintenance and service employees;
and
-- salaried non-exempt employees.
Included are spouses, surviving spouses and or dependents of
individuals, who worked under collective bargaining agreements
negotiated between the company and the Armco Employees
Independent Federation or a predecessor, who retired from such
employment between 1950 and the present, and whose retiree
benefits the company proposes to unilaterally change or
eliminate or seeks a declaration of its rights to do so.
The suit alleges violations of both the Labor Management
Relations Act of 1947 and Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.
The complaint is available free of charge at:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?dfa
The suit is "Bailey et al. v. AK Steel Corp., Case No.
1:06-cv-00468-MRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Michael R. Barrett.
Representing the plaintiffs are David Marvin Cook and Stephen A.
Simon, 22 West Ninth Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-
721-6500 and 513-721-7500, E-mail: dcook@dmcllc.com and
ssimon@dmcllc.com.
BOEING CO: Sued Over Increases in Retiree Healthcare Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two unions have filed a class action against changes announced
by The Boeing Co. regarding retiree healthcare benefits, Of the
Times reports.
The International United Aerospace Workers Union and Local 1069
filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Detroit, said Doug
Williamson, recording secretary of UAW Local 1069. The union
represents about 2,200 retired workers.
The report cited a letter from Local 1069's bargaining committee
relating allegations of breach of contractual obligation to
provide vested lifetime retiree health-care benefits to the
Local 1069 retirees and violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act against the company.
The suit asks a court order to compel Boeing to provide retiree
health-care benefits to Local 1069 retirees for the lives of the
retirees and their surviving spouses.
In July, Boeing informed retirees of Local 1069 that their
health-care costs would increase beginning Sept. 1, 2006 because
of, among others, increase in the Traditional Plan fee from $125
to $300 and increase in co-payments on prescriptions drugs.
The company has not been served with the suit, according to the
report.
BOYKIN LODGING: Faces Multiple Shareholder Lawsuits in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
Boykin Lodging Co. is a defendant in purported shareholder class
actions pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County,
Ohio in relation to certain company transactions.
Three shareholder complaints have been filed against the company
and each of its directors, individually and as class actions on
behalf of all shareholders of the company.
The complaints are:
-- "Delduco v. Adams, et al., Case No. CV 06 593403,"
(filed June 6, 2006);
-- "Armstrong v. Boykin, et al., Case No. CV 06 593497,"
(filed June 7, 2006), and
-- "Fink v. Boykin Lodging Co., et al., Case No. CV 06
593603," (filed June 9, 2006).
The Delduco complaint, in its derivative aspect, also purports
to be brought on behalf of the company. Plaintiffs in each
complaint allege that they are owners of the company's common
shares.
The complaints allege that the directors of the company breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
transaction by failing to maximize shareholder value and engaged
in self-dealing by approving transactions that purportedly
benefit Chairman and CEO Robert W. Boykin, including the sales
of the company's interests in the Pink Shell Beach Resort and
Spa and the Banana Bay Resort & Marina - Marathon, at the
expense of the company's public shareholders.
Among other things, the complaints seek to enjoin the company
and its directors from proceeding with or consummating the
mergers and to rescind, to the extent already implemented, the
merger agreement and related transactions.
The current understanding is that the earliest-filed action,
Delduco, will be the basis for all further proceedings.
Defendants have answered the Delduco complaint, as amended,
denying the material allegations and raising affirmative
defenses. Discovery has commenced.
Cleveland, Ohio-based Boykin Lodging Co. (NYSE: BOY) --
http://www.boykinlodging.com/-- is a real estate investment
trust that owns interests in 21 hotels located throughout the
U.S. Its hotel portfolio contains a total of 5,820 guestrooms
located in 13 states.
BROADWING INC: Sept. Hearing Set for N.Y. Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio will
hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 6, 2006 at 3:00 p.m. for the
proposed $36,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re Broadwing
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-1-02-795."
The court will hold the hearing at the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Federal
Building, Room 909, 200 West Second Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402.
Deadline for submission of claims is Nov. 30, 2006. Objections
and exclusions to and from the settlement must be made by Aug.
25, 2006.
The settlement covers all persons that purchased or otherwise
acquired for consideration publicly traded securities of
Broadwing Inc. between Jan. 17, 2001 and May 21, 2002.
Founded in 1873, Cincinnati Bell Inc. has been a provider of
regional and local telephone services in Ohio, Kentucky and
Indiana for over a century.
In November 1999, Cincinnati Bell acquired IXC Communications,
Inc., an Austin, Texas-based provider of broadband services, in
a transaction valued at $3.2 billion.
The new company was named Broadwing Inc. Broadwing returned to
its original corporate name, Cincinnati Bell, in May 2003.
A consolidated amended class action complaint dated Dec. 1, 2003
filed in the action generally alleges, among other things, that
during the class period from Jan. 17, 2001 to May 21, 2002,
defendants issued press releases, filed quarterly, annual and
other reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
and made other public statements regarding Broadwing's financial
condition that were materially false and misleading.
The complaint further alleges that lead plaintiffs and other
class members purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of Broadwing during the class period at prices
artificially inflated as a result of the defendants'
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated.
For more details, contact:
(1) Broadwing Inc. Securities Litigation c/o The Garden
City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box #9084,
Dublin, OH 43017-0984, Phone: 1(866) 881-7506, Web
site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com/cases/index.html;
(2) Richard Stuart Wayne of Strauss & Troy - 1, The Federal
Reserve Building, 150 E. Fourth Street, 4th Floor,
Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018, Phone: 513-621-2120, E-mail:
rswayne@strausstroy.com; and
(3) Brad N. Friedman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY
10119, Phone: 212-594-5300 or 800-320-5081, Fax: 212-
273-4376, E-mail: bfriedman@milbergweiss.com.
DIGIMARC CORP: Ore. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of Oregon dismissed the third and final
consolidated securities class action filed against Digimarc
Corp. and certain of its current and former executive officers.
Beginning in September 2004, three purported class actions were
commenced against the company and certain of its current and
former directors and officers by or on behalf of persons
claiming to have purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities during the period from April 17, 2002 to July 28,
2004.
These lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon and were consolidated into one action for all
purposes on Dec. 16, 2004. On May 16, 2005, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.
The complaint asserted claims under the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, relating to the company's announcement
that it had discovered errors in its accounting for software
development costs and project capitalization and other project
cost capitalization accounting practices, and that the company
likely would be required to restate its previously reported
financial statements for full fiscal year 2003 and the first two
quarters of 2004.
Specifically, the complaint alleged that the company issued
false and misleading financial statements and created a
misperception regarding the profitability of the company in
order to inflate the value of Digimarc stock, which permitted
insider sales of personal holdings at inflated values, and that
the company maintained insufficient accounting controls, which
created an environment where improper accounting could be used
to manipulate financial results. The complaint sought
unspecified damages.
On Nov. 30, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that plaintiffs
failed to allege facts sufficient to support their allegation
that the defendants knowingly or recklessly acted in violation
of the securities laws.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on Jan. 17, 2006.
On Feb. 14, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint on the grounds that plaintiffs still
fail to allege facts sufficient to support their allegation that
the defendants knowingly or recklessly acted in violation of the
securities laws.
The initial securities litigation was dismissed on Aug. 4, 2006,
and the two derivative lawsuits were dismissed on May 5 and Aug.
11, 2006.
"We are pleased that the court has dismissed the claims advanced
by law firms seeking to profit from these baseless lawsuits,"
said Bruce Davis, chairman and chief executive of Digimarc Corp.
He noted that "these decisions fit nicely into trends of
improving operating and financial performance, helping to re-
energize the company as we put this chapter behind us and focus
on customer satisfaction, market leadership, and the exciting
business opportunities ahead."
According to Lois Rosenbaum, a partner in Stoel Rives, LLP, the
law firm that handled the securities class actions on behalf of
the company and its officers, "The litigation filed against
Digimarc was similar to many of the class actions filed by the
plaintiffs' bar, attempting to equate the discovery and
correction by a company of an error in financial reporting with
intentional wrongdoing. The courts are increasingly finding
these cases to be without merit."
Rich Baum of Perkins Coie, LLP, who defended the derivative
lawsuits, added, "A number of these actions are filed as fishing
expeditions, where plaintiffs simply hope they can find
something that was wrongful. In the case of Digimarc, both
inside and outside investigations determined that the accounting
restatement resulted from errors rather than because of wrongful
behavior. In such instances, dismissal is warranted."
The suit is "Garcia et al. v. Digimarc Corp. et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-01455-BR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon under Judge Anna J. Brown.
Representing the plaintiffs are Gary M. Berne at Stoll Stoll
Berne Lokting & Shlachter, PC, 209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor,
Portland, OR 97204, Phone: (503) 227-1600, Fax: (503) 227-6840,
E-mail: gberne@ssbls.com; and Gary I. Grenley, Paul H.
Trinchero, Grenley Rotenberg Evans Bragg & Bodie PC, 1211 SW
Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97204, Phone: (503) 241-
0570, Fax: (503) 241-0914, E-mail: ggrenley@grebb.com and
ptrinchero@grebb.com.
ERIE LIFE: Plaintiff Asks Pa. Court to Name Johnson Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Purchase filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 21 for an order to
appoint her as lead plaintiff, and the Johnson Law Firm APC as
lead counsel in the class action, "Purchase v. Ludrof et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00130-SJM."
Judge Sean J. McLaughlin set a Sept. 21, 2006 deadline to file
responses to Motion to Appoint Counsel, and Brief in Opposition.
The Johnson Law Firm commenced in June a securities fraud class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of those persons and entities who owned
the securities of Erie Family Life Insurance Co. (EFL) between
March 21, 2004 and March 24, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, June
23, 2006).
The lawsuit claims Erie Indemnity Co., Erie Insurance Exchange
and EFL's board of directors "freeze[d] out" EFL's minority
shareholders at an unreasonably low price. Defendants allegedly
artificially depressed the price of EFL shares to as low as
$26.50 per share even though they had traded at above $32 per
share for nearly two years.
Defendants then announced that a "third-party" purchaser would
pay the minority shareholders $32 for their shares. The
purchaser was allegedly not a "third party" at all, but rather a
shell entity owned and controlled by Erie Indemnity and Erie
Exchange.
The complaint alleges that EFL and its directors, along with
Erie Indemnity and Erie Exchange, violated Section 14(e) of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and
misleading tender offer documents in which they misrepresented
or failed to disclose the true facts regarding the proposed
tender offer.
The class consists of all persons who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Erie Family
Life Insurance Co. between March 21, 2004 and March 24, 2006,
inclusive.
A copy of the Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and
Approval of Selection of Counsel is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?101c
The suit is "Purchase v. Ludrof et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00130-
SJM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania under Judge Sean J. McLaughlin.
Representing the defendants are:
(1) Thomas L. Allen of Reed Smith, 435 Sixth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1886, Phone: (412) 288-3131, Fax:
(412) 288-3063, E-mail: tallen@reedsmith.com;
(2) Robert L. Byer of Duane Morris LLP, 600 Grant Street,
Suite 5010, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: (412) 497-
1083, E-mail: rlbyer@duanemorris.com; and Seth A.
Goldberg, Matthew M. Ryan and John J. Soroko all of
Duane Morris, 30 South 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone: (215) 979-1175 or (215) 979-1110 or
(215) 979-1124, E-mail: sagoldberg@duanemorris.com or
mmryan@duanemorris.com or soroko@duanemorris.com;
(3) Lawrence G. McMichael of Dilworth Paxson, 1735 Market
Street, 3200 The Mellon Bank Center, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone: (215) 575-7083, E-mail:
mobod@dilworthlaw.com;
(4) Roger W. Richards of Richards & Associates, 100 State
Street, Suite 440, Erie, PA 16507-1456, Phone: (814)
455-0370 x218, E-mail: roger@richardspc.com; and
(5) John L. Warden of Sullivan & Cromwell, 125 Broad
Street, New York, NY 10004, Phone: (212) 558-3610, E-
mail: wardenj@sullcrom.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are Arthur D. Martinucci of Quinn,
Buseck, Leemhuis, Toohey & Kroto, Inc., 2222 West Grandview
Boulevard, Erie, PA 16506-4508, Phone: (814) 833-2222, E-mail:
amartinucci@quinnfirm.com.
FIRST UNION: Nov. 6 Hearing Set for Ask Jeeves Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida will
hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 6, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. for the
proposed settlement in the matter: "Nicholas LaGrasta and
Demenico LaGrasta, et al. v. Wachovia Capital Markets, as
successor to First Union Securities, Inc., Case No. 2:01-cv-
00251-JES-DNF."
The hearing will be held before Judge John E. Steele in
Courtroom A of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Fort Myers Division, U.S. Courthouse and Federal
Bldg., 2110 First Street, Ft. Myers, Florida 33901.
Deadline for submission of claims is Feb. 7, 2007. The
settlement provides for a payment of between $0.05 and $2.00 per
share for purchases of Ask Jeeves stock between Nov. 18, 1999
and May 16, 2000.
The case covers all purchasers of the common stock of Ask
Jeeves, Inc. between Nov. 18, 1999 and May 16, 2000. According
to a Press Release dated June 14, 2002, the second amended
complaint asserts a cause of action for violations of Sections
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder.
The second amended complaint alleges that defendant First Union
Securities, Inc. omitted from the reports and recommendations
issued by its analysts on Ask Jeeves information regarding
conflicts of interest caused by First Union Securities'
inconsistent roles as an investment banker competing for Ask
Jeeves' business and as a investment advisor and retail
securities broker rendering allegedly unbiased advice and
opinions on Ask Jeeves for the use and benefit of investors.
As alleged in the second amended complaint, this conflict
resulted in the issuance of false and misleading analyst
reports, which resulted in a fraud on the market and on Class
members.
For more details, contact Dana Elizabeth Foster and Thomas R.
Grady of Ackerman, Link & Sartory, P.A., 222 Lakeview Ave.,
Suite 1250, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Phone: 561/838-4100, Fax:
561-838-5305, E-mail: dfoster@alslaw.com and trgrady@alslaw.com.
GOLDEN WEST: Settles Shareholder Lawsuits Over Wachovia Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Golden West Financial Corp. entered into a memorandum of
settlement with plaintiffs to settle two shareholder lawsuits
over its planned takeover by Wachovia Corp.
As part of the settlement, the company denied all claims in both
the "David Burnett v. Golden West Financial Corp." and "Morton
Smith Trust v. Golden West Financial Corp." lawsuits.
The lawsuits were filed in May in Alameda County Superior Court,
and later consolidated into a single case.
The settlement will be subject to customary conditions including
court approval following notice to members of the proposed
settlement class and consummation of the merger.
If finally approved by the court, the settlement will resolve
all claims that were or could have been brought on behalf of the
proposed settlement class in the actions being settled,
including all claims relating to the merger, the merger
agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith. The
settlement will not affect the amount of merger consideration to
be paid in the merger or change any other terms of the merger,
the company said.
The plaintiffs, who sought class-action status for the case, had
accused Golden West directors of breaching their fiduciary
duties, and said the merger should be voided, a previous
regulatory filing shows.
The Burnett action also included a claim of unjust enrichment
against Golden West Financial's directors.
In May, Wachovia announced it would buy Golden West for more
than $25.5 billion.
The suit is "Burnett v. Golden West Financial Corp. et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-03492-MJJ," filed in the Northern District of
California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.
Representing the defendants are:
(1) Guri Ademi and Shpetim Ademi both of Ademi & O'Reilly
LLP, 3620 East Layton Avenue, Cudahy, Wi 53110, Phone:
414-482-8000, Fax: 414-482-8001; and
(2) Randall J. Baron of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
& Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San
Diego, CA 92101-3356, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-
231-7423, E-mail: randyb@lerachlaw.com.
Representing the defendants is Robert L. Dell Angelo of Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor, Los
Angeles, CA 90071-1560, Phone: 213/683-9100, Fax: 213/687-3702.
GUAM: Attorneys to Argue Against COLA Suit in Court this Month
--------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Judge Arthur Barcinas agreed to hear on Aug. 30,
2006 arguments by the governor's attorney challenging a class
action over cost-of-living-allowance increases filed against the
government, Mark-Alexander Pieper of the Pacific Daily News
reports.
The governor is facing a suit for failing to pay more than 4,000
retirees COLA based on inflation, as required by a law that was
in effect between 1988 and 1995.
The report said the attorneys are insisting the Government
Claims Act requires COLA lawsuits to be filed individually and
not as a class action. They are also protesting against the way
the court ordered the payment of COLA increases, and questioning
its authority to force the government to immediately pay COLA,
saying it infringes on the governor's ability to determine when
various debts need to be paid.
Further, they want to justify the application of other
adjustments it has provided to retirees since 1990 to offset the
total amount of COLA that must be paid.
In March, Judge Barcinas ordered the governor to calculate the
amount of COLA owed to retirees, and provide that information by
May 31. But instead of complying with the order, Guam filed a
challenge.
Judge Barcinas held a hearing on the suit on Aug. 9, wherein he
instructed attorneys in the case to submit calculations for the
expected cost to the court by Aug. 23. He now plans to issue a
ruling on the amount cost-of-living allowances owed to retirees
by a self-imposed Sept. 6, 2006 deadline (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 22, 2006).
Lawyers of both parties in the class action filed by Candelaria
Rios, were in disagreement over the base year for the
computation of payments.
The government's legal adviser, which drafted a proposed order
for the award, said it is 1990. On the other hand, the
retirees' attorney said it should be 1988 as ordered by the
court.
Judge Barcinas, in an oral ruling, determined that the formula
for most of the payout will be based on the consumer price index
of 1988. The lawsuit was filed in 1993 and based on a law that
was implemented in 1988 but repealed in 1995.
In the Aug. 9 hearing, the governor's attorney Daniel Benjamin
raised concerns that the consumer price index was "very
inflated" during the years in question because of a flawed
process at the Department of Commerce.
Judge Barcinas told him to include the concern when the
government submits its calculations to the court. The commerce
department after 1995 started using a different formula to
calculate the price index, according to him.
Meanwhile, Mr. Phillips argued against allowing anyone outside
the commerce department, including the court or the governor, to
change the consumer price index because the law states the cost-
of-living allowance shall be based on the commerce department's
figures.
Payments to retirees are estimated at between $30 million and
$100 million, a previous report says.
Representing the government is Dooley Roberts & Fowler LLP,
Suite 201, Orlean Pacific Plaza, 865 South Marine Drive,
Tamuning 96913, Guam, Phone: 617-646-1222, Fax: 671-646-1223,
Web site: http://www.guamlawoffice.com. Representing the
retirees is Mike Philips.
HOUSTON EXPLORATION: Faces Tex. Shareholder Suit Over JANA Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Houston Exploration Co. and its directors are defendants in
a purported class action filed in the District Court of Harris
County, Texas, over an unsolicited proposal by JANA Partners,
LLC, to purchase the company.
On June 22, 2006, the city of Monroe Employees' Retirement
System filed the suit on behalf of itself and all of the
company's other public shareholders.
Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties of loyalty and due care to the class because the
plaintiff alleges that the company failed to negotiate in good
faith in response to an unsolicited proposal by JANA Partners
LLC to purchase the company, and that such failure inhibits the
maximization of shareholder value.
In its complaint, plaintiff requested that the court certify the
plaintiff and the other public shareholders of the company as a
class.
In addition, plaintiff asked the court:
-- to declare that the defendants' alleged failure to
negotiate in good faith was a breach of fiduciary duty;
-- to enjoin the defendants from not negotiating in good
faith with JANA Partners;
-- to direct the individual defendants to obtain a
transaction which is in the best interests of
shareholders until the process for the sale or auction
of the company is complete; and
-- to award the plaintiff costs and disbursements of the
action including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees.
On July 17, 2006, the defendants filed an Original Answer and a
Motion to Abate or Special Exceptions.
Houston, Texas-based The Houston Exploration Co. (NYSE: THX) --
http://www.houstonexploration.com/-- is a natural gas and oil
producer engaged in the exploration, development, exploitation
and acquisition of natural gas and oil reserves in North
America.
ICG COMMUNICATIONS: Jan. Hearing Set for Stock Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado will hold a
fairness hearing on Jan. 12, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed
$18 million settlement in the matter, "In re ICG Communications,
Inc. Securities Litigation."
The hearing will be held before the Judge Robert E. Blackburn,
United Street, Denver, Colorado 80294-3589 in States District
Judge, at the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, 901 19th
Courtroom A-701.
Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by Dec. 28, 2006. Deadline for submission of proof of
claim is Dec. 12, 2006.
The case covers all persons or entities that purchased shares of
ICG common stock on the open market between Dec. 9, 1999, and
Sept. 18, 2000.
On Sept. 22, 2000, 14 federal securities class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on
behalf of purchasers of ICG stock against ICG and certain of
ICG's officers (ICG ceased to be a party in this Action by
virtue of its filing of a bankruptcy petition on Nov. 14, 2000).
On Oct. 25, 2001, the court appointed Strategic Market Analysis
Fund, Retirement Systems of Alabama, and the Policemen's Annuity
and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago as lead plaintiffs, and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Berman DeValerio
Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo as co-lead counsel, and Dyer &
Shuman, LLP as liaison counsel.
By Order filed Feb. 11, 2002, the court consolidated the pending
cases under the caption, "In re ICG Communications, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 00-cv-1864-REB-BNB."
In the action, lead plaintiffs have asserted claims on behalf of
a class against certain of ICG's officers for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17
C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.
In the action, lead plaintiffs generally allege, among other
things, that during the class period, the defendants issued
materially false and misleading press releases and filings with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regarding ICG's
financial condition and the strength of its business. Lead
plaintiffs' claims are set forth in a Second Consolidated and
Amended Complaint filed on July 18, 2005.
On Feb. 15, 2002, following their appointment by the court, lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint against
defendants for violations of the federal securities laws, which
defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted and failure to comply with the
pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995.
Pursuant to certain provisions of the PSLRA, all "discovery" in
this action was stayed pending the court's decision regarding
defendants' motion to dismiss.
In August 2004, the court granted defendants' motion in part,
and denied it in part, which substantially limited the scope of
lead plaintiffs' claims.
Following the court's decision, lead counsel continued their
investigation of the claims against defendants. Based on this
investigation, lead plaintiffs filed a motion before the Court
in March 2005 for leave to file the second amended complaint, to
cure the deficiencies the court found in lead plaintiffs' prior
complaint.
By order dated July 18, 2005, the court granted lead plaintiffs'
motion to file the second amended complaint, which defendants
then moved to dismiss for failing to state claims and to satisfy
the PSLRA's pleading requirements. Discovery in this action was
stayed in part during the pendency of defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint.
By order dated Feb. 7, 2006, the court granted in part and
denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss, which had the
effect of reviving certain claims that the court had earlier
dismissed and allowing additional discovery to proceed.
Thereafter, on March 3, 2006, the court directed that the trial
of this action would commence on Sept. 11, 2006. Expedited
discovery (including depositions) was underway at the time the
settlement was reached.
Lead counsel states that, before agreeing to the settlement,
they conducted extensive research, discovery and investigation
relating to the claims and the underlying events and
transactions alleged in the complaint, including:
-- interviews and depositions of former ICG employees and
other witnesses;
-- review and analysis of over 120,000 pages of documents
and thousands of electronic files produced by ICG and
others in this litigation;
-- review and analysis of various public statements and
filings made by ICG and its senior officers with the
SEC, securities analysts' reports, press releases, news
articles, and other media reports regarding ICG; and
-- retention of and consultation with highly qualified
experts.
Lead plaintiffs, by their counsel, have conducted extensive
settlement discussions to achieve the best relief possible
consistent with the interests of the class, including a two-day
arm's-length mediation with defendants' counsel and counsel for
certain of ICG's directors' and officers' liability insurers,
Lloyd's, Zurich American Insurance Co., Executive Risk Specialty
Insurance Co., General Star Indemnity Co., and Old Republic
Insurance Co.
The mediation was conducted by Jonathan Marks of Marks ADR, LLC,
a mediator with substantial experience in complex securities
class action litigation.
As a result of hard-fought settlement negotiations at the
direction of the mediator, lead plaintiffs and defendants
reached agreement on the terms of the Settlement.
The suit is "In re ICG Communications, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 00-cv-1864-REB-BNB (Consolidated
with 00-cv-1908-REB-BNB, 00-cv-1910-REB-BNB, 00-cv-1919-REB-BNB,
00-cv-1945-REB-BNB, 00-cv-1954-REB-BNB, 00-cv-1957-REB-BNB, 00-
cv-1963-REB-BNB, 00-cv-1996-REB-BNB, 00-cv-2040-REB-BNB, 00-cv-
2074-REB-BNB, 00-cv-2149-REB-BNB, 00-cv-2243-REB-BNB, and 00-cv-
2316-REB-BNB)."
For more details, contact:
(1) In re ICG Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation,
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI
53217, Phone: 1 (866) 302-7323;
(2) Robert S. Gans, Esq. of Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann, LLP, 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300, San
Diego, CA 92130, Phone: 1 (800) 380-8496, Web site:
http://www.blbglaw.com/cases/icg_securities.html.
(3) Norman Berman, Esq. and Bryan A. Wood, Esq. of Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, One Liberty
Square, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 1 (617) 542-8300, Web
site: http://www.bermanesq.com/.
INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: N.C. Court Mulls Stock Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina has yet to rule on the motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against Inspire
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain other defendants.
On Feb. 15, 2005, the first of five identical purported
shareholder class action complaints was filed against the
company and certain of its senior officers.
Each complaint alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, and focused on statements that
are claimed to be false and misleading regarding a Phase 3
clinical trial of the company's dry eye product candidate,
ProlacriaTM (diquafosol tetrasodium).
Each complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's securities
between June 2, 2004 and Feb. 8, 2005.
On March 27, 2006, following consolidation of the lawsuits into
a single civil action and appointment of lead plaintiffs, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint.
The complaint asserts claims against the company and certain of
its present or former senior officers or directors. It also
asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act
and Rule 10b-5 based on statements alleged to be false and
misleading regarding a Phase 3 clinical trial of Prolacria, and
also adds claims under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.
The complaint also asserts claims against certain parties that
served as underwriters in the company's securities offerings
during the period relevant to the complaint.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's securities from May 10,
2004 to Feb. 8, 2005.
In May 2006, the plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss their
claims against the underwriters on the basis that they were
time-barred.
On June 30, 2006, the company and other defendants moved that
the court dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted and does not
satisfy the pleading requirements under applicable law. The
motion is currently pending.
The suit is "Mirco Investors, LLC v. Inspire Pharma, et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00118-WLO," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina under Judge William L.
Osteen.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Leslie Bruce Mcdaniel Of Mcdaniel & Anderson, L.L.P.,
P.O. Box 58186, RALEIGH, NC 27658-8186, Phone: 919-872-
3000, Fax: 919-790-9273, E-mail: mcdas@mcdas.com; and
(2) Kristi Stahnke Mcgregor of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, 5200 Town Ctr. Cir., Ste. 600, Boca
Raton, FL 33486, Phone: 561-361-5022, Fax: 561-367-
8400, E-mail: kmcgregor@milbergweiss.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) William Mark Conger of Kilpatrick Stockton, L.L.P.,
1001 W. Fourth St., Winston-Salem, NC 27101, Phone:
336-607-7309, Fax: 336-734-2633, E-mail:
mconger@kilpatrickstockton.com; and
(ii) Barry m. Kaplan of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 5100, Seattle, WA 98104, US,
Phone: 206-883-2500, Fax: 206-883-2699.
KNOLLS ATOMIC: Appeals Court Dismisses Discrimination Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the
suit, "Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory," according to
The Business Review.
The suit was also filed against Lockheed Martin Corp. and John
Freeh. It alleges that the companies discriminated against
employees laid off in 1995.
In 2000, a jury verdict awarded 17 former employees of the
company nearly $6 million in a case spurred by a December 1995
layoff that terminated 31 professionals, 30 of whom were over
the age of 40.
Northern District Judge David Homer ruled then that the layoff
had a discriminatory impact on older workers, and that officials
at the nuclear facility willfully refused to rectify the
situation.
The laboratory appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which
remanded the case back to the second circuit, and issued a stay
of its $6 million award for the plaintiffs.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not agree with the
2000 verdict. An opinion written by Judge Dennis Jacobs and
joined by Judge Joseph M. McLaughlin, states that "plaintiffs
have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating that the
challenged employment practice was unreasonable."
The court therefore vacated the judgment of Judge Homer and
remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of
defendants and to dismiss the case.
The plaintiffs' lawyer is John B. DuCharme of Berger & DuCharme,
10 Maxwell Drive, Suite 205, Clifton Park, NY 12065, Phone:
(518) 373-1482.
Knolls Atomic is represented by John Higgins at Nixon Peabody
LLP, Omni Plaza, 30 South Pearl Street, Albany, New York 12207
(Albany Co.) Phone: 518-427-2650, Fax: 518-427-2666.
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Over Alcatel Merger Continues in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucent Technologies Inc. remains a defendant in a purported
class action, "AR Maley Trust v. Lucent Technologies Inc., et
al.," pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
On May 12, 2006, a putative class action was filed against the
company and the current members of its board of directors over
an agreement to merge with Alcatel. The first amended complaint
was filed on June 23, 2006.
The named plaintiff proposes to represent a class of the
company's public shareholders and claims that, among other
things, the proposed merger with Alcatel constitutes a breach of
duty in that defendants allegedly failed to maximize shareholder
value with the transaction.
Along with other relief, the complaint seeks an injunction
against the closing of the proposed merger.
On April 2, 2006, the company and Alcatel entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which Lucent and
Alcatel will combine their businesses through a merger. Under
the terms of agreement, each company share will be converted
into a right to receive 0.1952 of an American Depository Share
of Alcatel, with each Alcatel ADS representing one ordinary
share of Alcatel (Class Action Reporter, May 15, 2006).
The suit is "AR Maley Trust v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-03647-RCC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard C.
Casey.
Representing the plaintiffs is William Bernard Federman of
Federman & Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City,
OK 73102, Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com.
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Dismissal of Workers' Benefits Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucent Technologies Inc. filed motions to dismiss certain class
actions filed against the company over its retiree health care
benefits and the funding of its pension plans.
Purported class actions have been filed against the company in
connection with the elimination of the death benefit from the
firm's U.S. management pension plan in early 2003.
Three such cases have been consolidated into a single action
pending in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey, captioned, "In
Re Lucent Death Benefits ERISA Litigation, Master File No. 2:03-
cv-5017 (WGB)."
The elimination of this benefit reduced the company's future
pension obligations by approximately $400 million. The benefit
was paid out of the pension plan assets to certain qualified
surviving dependents, such as spouses or dependent children of
management retirees.
The case alleges that the company wrongfully terminated this
death benefit and requests that it be reinstated, along with
other remedies. The company filed a motion to dismiss, which is
pending.
Another such case, "Chastain, et al. v. AT&T, Case No. 5:04-cv-
00281-F," was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Western
District of Oklahoma. The Chastain case also involves claims
related to changes to retiree health care benefits.
In October 2005, Peter A. Raetsch, Geraldine Raetsch and Curtis
Shiflett filed a purported class action, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.
The suit, "Raetsch et al. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:05-cv-05134-WGB-PS," alleges that the company failed
to maintain health care benefits for retired management
employees as required by the Internal Revenue Code, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, and the Lucent pension and
medical plans. The company has filed a motion to dismiss, which
is pending.
Murray Hill, New Jersey-based Lucent Technologies Inc. (NYSE:
LU) -- http://www.lucent.com/-- engages in the design and
delivery of systems, services, and software that enable
converged communications for service providers, enterprises,
governments, and cable operators.
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Gender Bias Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lucent Technologies, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported
class action, "EEOC v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.," which was
filed in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of
California.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the suit,
alleging gender discrimination in connection with the provision
of service credit to a class of present and former company
employees who were out of work because of maternity prior to
1980. The suit seeks the restoration of lost service credit
prior to April 29, 1979, together with retroactive pension
payment adjustments, corrections of service records, back pay
and recovery of other damages and attorneys fees and costs.
The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lucent
Technologies, Case No. 2:04-cv-08168-RSWL-CT," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, under
Judge Ronald S.W. Lew with referral to Judge Carolyn Turchin.
Representing the EEOC are Elizabeth Esparza-Cervantes, Marcia L.
Mitchell, Jonathan T. Peck and William R. Tamayo at Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, San Francisco District
Office, 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94105,
Phone: 415-625-5658.
Representing the company are Sarah N. Chomiak, William J.
Dritsas and Allegra R. Rich of Seyfarth Shaw, 55 East Monroe
St., Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-269-8259, 415-
397-2823 and 312-269-8924.
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces N.J. Suit Over Alcatel Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lucent Technologies Inc. remains a defendant in a purported
class action, "Resnick v. Lucent Technologies Inc.," which is
pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union
County.
Filed on April 3, 2006, the suit proposes to represent a class
of the company's public shareholders and claim that, among other
things, a proposed merger with Alcatel is the product of
breaches of duty by the company's board of directors in that
they allegedly failed to maximize shareholder value in the
transaction.
Along with other relief, the complaint seeks an injunction
against the closing of the proposed merger.
On April 2, 2006, the company and Alcatel entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which Lucent and
Alcatel will combine their businesses through a merger. Under
the terms of the agreement, each company share will be converted
into a right to receive 0.1952 of an American Depository Share
of Alcatel, with each Alcatel ADS representing one ordinary
share of Alcatel (Class Action Reporter, May 15, 2006).
Murray Hill, New Jersey-based Lucent Technologies Inc. (NYSE:
LU) -- http://www.lucent.com/-- engages in the design and
delivery of systems, services, and software that enable
converged communications for service providers, enterprises,
governments, and cable operators.
MACATAWA BANK: Class Status Hearing in "Jenkins" Set Next Month
---------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative September 2006 hearing was set on the motion for
class certification in the lawsuit, "Jenkins, et al. v. Macatawa
Bank Corp., et al.," which is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Michigan.
Forrest W. Jenkins and Russell S. Vail filed the suit on May
2003, against the company. The purported class included
investors who invested in limited liability companies formed by
Trade Partners, Inc. of the former Grand Bank.
On Nov. 6, 2003, the court permitted the plaintiffs to amend
their complaint to expand the purported class to include all
individuals who invested in Trade Partners viatical investments.
The class has not been certified. The court had stayed this
action to avoid interference with the process of the
receivership proceedings, but the stay was lifted in July 2005.
The plaintiffs allege that Grand Bank breached certain escrow
agreements, breached its fiduciary duties, acted negligently or
grossly negligently with respect to the plaintiff's investments
and violated the Michigan Uniform Securities Act.
The amended complaint seeks certification of the action as a
class action, unspecified damages and other relief.
The class has not been certified. A hearing on plaintiffs'
motion for certification is to be held in September 2006.
The company has answered this complaint denying the material
allegations and raising certain affirmative defenses.
The suit is "Jenkins, et al. v. Macatawa Bank Corp., et al.,
Case No. 1:03-cv-00321-RHB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Michigan under Judge Robert Holmes
Bell.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Henry L. Guikema of Henry L. Guikema, P.C., 125 Ottawa
NW, Ste. 333, Grand Rapids, MI 49503, Phone: (616) 235-
2601, E-mail: h.guik@worldnet.att.net; and
(2) Jeffrey Donald Meyer and Cynthia Reba Levin Moulton of
Moulton & Meyer, L.L.P., 600 Travis, Ste. 6700,
Houston, TX 77002, Phone: (713) 353-6699, E-mail:
jmeyer@moultonmeyer.com and cmoulton@moultonmeyer.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Harold M. Hermanson of Harold M. Hermanson, PC, 201
AmeriBank Bldg., 896 Jefferson St., Muskegon, MI 49440,
Phone: (231) 727-8058;
(ii) Thomas F. Koernke of Koernke & Crampton, P.C., 940
Monroe Ave., NW, Ste. 250, Grand Rapids, MI 49503,
Phone: (616) 458-7900, Fax: (616) 458-7997, E-mail:
tkoernke@grandlaw.com;
(iii) John A. Smietanka, O-155 44th St., SW, Ste. 1,
Grandville, MI 49418, Phone: (616) 667-2217, E-mail:
jas@smietankalaw.com; and
(iv) Larry C. Willey of Willey Chamberlain & Yates, LLP, 940
Trust Bldg., 40 Pearl St., NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503,
Phone: (616) 458-2212, Fax: (616) 458-1158, E-mail:
tracy@wcylaw.com.
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Court Yet to Rule on "Siracusano" Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet
to rule on an appeal of the dismissal by the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona of the consolidated securities fraud
class action, "Siracusano, et al. v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.
et al."
In April and May 2004, two class actions were filed against the
company, its president and chief executive officer, Carl J.
Johnson, and its executive vice president and chief financial
officer, William J. Hemelt, alleging violations of federal
securities laws.
On Jan. 18, 2005, the cases were consolidated and the court
appointed James V. Sircusano as lead plaintiff. The amended
complaint also includes the company's vice president of research
and development, Timothy L. Clarot, as a defendant and was filed
March 4, 2005.
The consolidated case is "Sircusano, et al. vs. Matrixx
Initiatives, Inc., et al., Case No. CV04-0886 PHX DKD," and was
filed in the U.S. District Court for District of Arizona.
The lawsuit alleges that between October 2003 and February 2004,
the company made materially false and misleading statements
regarding its Zicam Cold Remedy product, including failing to
adequately disclose to the public the details of allegations
that the company's products caused damage to the sense of smell
and of certain of the product liability lawsuits in faces.
The company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit and, on March
8, 2006, the company received an order dated Dec. 15, 2005
granting the motion to dismiss the case without prejudice.
On April 3, 2006, the plaintiff appealed the Order to the U.S.
District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The suit is before Judge Mary H. Murguia.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Ramzi Abadou, Lukas F. Ohltz and Scott M. Saham of
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401
B St., Ste 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-
1058, E-mail: LukeO@Lerachlaw.com and
ScottS@Lerachlaw.com; and
(2) Francis Joseph Balint, Jr. and Andrew S. Friedman of
Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, 2901 N Central
Ave, Ste. 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311, Phone: 602-274-
1100, Fax: 602-274-1199, E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com and
afriedman@bffb.com.
Representing the company are:
(i) Maureen Beyers and David Rosenbaum of Osborn Maledon,
P.A., 2929 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85012-
2794, Phone: 602-640-9305, Fax: 602-664-2053, E-mail:
mbeyers@omlaw.com and drosenbaum@omlaw.com; and
(ii) Amy J. Longo, Molly J. Magnuson, David B. Rosenbaum and
Michael Yoder of O'Melveny & Myers, 610 Newport Center
Dr., 17th Floor, Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949-
823-7175, Fax: 949-823-6994, E-mail: alongo@omm.com,
mmagnuson@omm.com and myoder@omm.com.
METROMEDIA FIBER: N.Y. Court Certifies "Salomon Analyst" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
certified a class of Metromedia Fiber Network Inc. shareholders
in a securities fraud class action against the company.
Shareholders sued Citicorp Inc., Citicorp USA, Salomon Smith
Barney and analyst Jack Grubman for violations of Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5,
alleging that the defendants issued false and misleading analyst
reports as to Metromedia Fiber Network Inc. stocks.
The district court dismissed several claims, but allegations
that analyst reports containing false buy recommendations issued
between March 8 and July 25, 2001, survived. The shareholders
moved for certification of a class as to these claims.
In order to allege a violation of Section 10(b), a complaint
must allege with particularity that the defendant made
fraudulent misstatements or omissions in connection with the
sale or purchase of securities with scienter, upon which the
plaintiffs relied, that caused plaintiffs' economic loss.
Certification requires numerous class members to share common
claims. The district court granted class certification, ruling
that all elements of Rule 23 were satisfied. The district court
appointed three law firms as class counsel, finding that the
firms were qualified to adequately represent the interests of
the class.
A copy of the judge's order and opinion is available at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1032
The suit is "In Re: Salomon Metromedia, et al. v. Salomon Smith
Barney, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-07966-GEL," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Gerard E. Lynch.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Robert Alan Abrams of Katsky Korins, LLP, 605 Third
Avenue, New York, NY 10158, Phone: (212) 716-3237, Fax:
(212) 716-3337, E-mail: rabrams@katskykorins.com;
(2) Richard A. Adams of Patton, Haltom, Roberts, McWilliams
& Greer, LLP, Century Bank Plaza, 2900 St. Michael
Drive, Suite 400, Texarkana, TX 75505-6128, Phone:
(903) 334-7000;
(3) Jeffrey J. Angelovich of Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP,
205 Linda Drive, Daingerfield, TX 75638, Phone: (903)
645-7333;
(4) Michael Stephen Bigin of Bernstein, Liebhard &
Lifshitz, L.L.P., 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY
10016, Phone: (212) 779-1414, E-mail:
bigin@bernlieb.com;
(5) Aaron Lee Brody of Stull Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th
Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-
7230, Fax: 212-4902022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com;
(6) Jacqueline E. Bryks of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
Toll, P.L.L.C., 825 Third Avenue, 30th Floor, New York,
NY 10022, Phone: (212) 838-7797;
(7) Paul T. Curley of Pomerantz, Haudek, Block, Grossman &
Gross, L.L.P., 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York,
NY 10017, Phone: (212) 661-1100;
(8) Frederic Scott Fox, Sr. of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP,
805 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 687-
1980, Fax: (212) 687-7714, E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com;
and
(9) Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr. of Wolf, Haldenstein,
Adler, Freeman & Herz, L.L.P., 270 Madison Avenue, New
York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 545-4600, E-mail:
isquith@whafh.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(1) Eric S. Goldstein of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison, 1285 Avenue of Americas, New York, NY 10019-
6064, Phone: (212) 373-3000;
(2) Martin London, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York,
NY 10019, Phone: (212) 315-3082; and
(3) Robert Bruce McCaw of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (NYC),
399 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-
8810, Fax: 212-230-8888, E-mail:
robert.mccaw@wilmer.com.
MISSION PLACE: Sued for Alleged Breach of Condominium Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
The builders, owners, operators and homeowners association of
luxury condominium complex Beacon in San Francisco's Mission Bay
are facing a class action alleging that the size of some of the
units it offers for sale is smaller than what is being
advertised, the Chronicle reports. The Beacon is owned by
Mission Place.
The suit is filed in San Francisco Superior Court against
Catellus Commercial Development, Centurion Real Estate Partners,
Mission Place, the Beacon Homeowners Association and a number of
investors.
It is filed on behalf of 450 residents. It alleges fraud,
negligent representation, breach of contract and breach of
warranty. It also includes allegations of unrepaired defects,
and numerous code violations.
Representing the plaintiffs is attorney Patrick Catalano.
Representing Mission Place is Chuck Hansen, partner at Wendel,
Rosen, Black & Dean LLP, 1111 Broadway, 24th Floor, Oakland,
California 94607 (Alameda Co.), Phone: 510-834-6600, Fax: 510-
834-1928.
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Ga. Court Certifies Breach of Contract Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cobb County Superior Court Judge J. Stephen Schuster granted
class-action certification to a lawsuit filed against Orkin
Exterminating and its parent, Atlanta-based Rollins Inc., the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.
The ruling expands the class of plaintiffs to include all
Georgians with standard Orkin termite contracts dated since mid-
October 1995 who paid for services they did not receive.
In 2001, "Ernest W. Warren and Dolores G. Warren, et al. v.
Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., et al." was filed by John Salter
of the Barnes Law Group in Marietta, alleging that Orkin forged
and falsified reinspection tickets, and improperly advertised
that it could guarantee termite protection.
The Warrens maintain that termites have severely damaged their
residence since they signed a contract with Orkin in 1985 and
that Orkin failed to properly reinspect and treat their house.
They contend that Orkin's incentive-based compensation model
encourages inspectors to sell contracts but not to re-treat
homes.
In a statement, Rollins hinted at appealing the ruling on the
belief that the court erred in allowing the plaintiffs' claims
to be tried as a class action as it was not found that they
violated the law or did anything wrong.
Representing the plaintiffs is John F. Salter of The Barnes Law
Group LLC, 31 Atlanta Street, P.O. Box 489, Marietta, Georgia
30061, Phone: 770-419-8505, Fax: 770-590-8958, Website:
http://www.barneslawgroup.com.
PETRON CORP: Owner of Sunken Oil Tanker in Phil. to Face Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Guimaras residents are planning to file a class action against
Petron Corp. and Sunshine Maritime, over an oil spill in the
waters of the island, playfuls.com reports.
The coast guard and government officials estimated that about
40,000 residents are now without livelihood and are doomed to
live with the stench of the sludge as a result of the spill.
Residents plan to demand that Petron and Sunshine Maritime, the
owner of the sunken tanker ferrying the spilled fuel, MT Solar
1, place a bond to ensure the unhampered cleanup of the bunker
fuel.
Environmental lawyer Howard Calleja, said the residents are also
studying the culpability of the coast guard and the ship's
captain.
Aside from Guimaras, several towns in the nearby provinces of
Negros Occidental and Iloilo have also been affected by the
spill.
Earlier, the Pambansang Lakas ng Kilusang Mamamalakaya ng
Pilipinas (Pamalakaya), an organization of fishermen in the
Philippines, also hinted at filing a class action against Petron
Corp. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 23, 2006).
According to Fernando Hicap, national chairman of Pamalakaya,
453 hectares of mangrove and 58 hectares of seaweed plantation
have been destroyed and some 20 barangays, 6 wharves, 13
resorts, 9 fishing grounds, 4 diversities, 7 scenic views and a
cave were affected by the oil spill.
Petron's 998-ton MT Solar 1 tanker was carrying about two
million liters of bunker fuel when it sank on Aug. 11 off
Guimaras Island. It has since polluted coastal areas in a
region known for beach resorts and marine reserves.
A statement from Petron said it has employed deep-sea underwater
inspection and salvage operations to determine whether and how
the fuel cargo can be safely retrieved from under 640 meters of
water. It has also started a cleanup that is expected to be
completed in 30 to 45 days.
PIONEER NATURAL: Continues to Face Kans. Royalty Owners' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 26th Judicial District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has
yet to enter a judgment in the class action filed against
Pioneer Natural Resources Co. by two classes of royalty owners -
- one for each of the gathering system connected to its Satanta
gas plant.
The case was relatively inactive for several years. In early
2000, the plaintiffs amended their pleadings and it now contains
two material claims.
First, the plaintiffs assert that they were improperly charged
expenses, primarily field compression, which are a "cost of
production," and for which the plaintiffs, as royalty owners,
are not responsible.
Second, the plaintiffs claim they are entitled to 100 percent of
the value of the helium extracted at the company's Satanta gas
plant.
If the plaintiffs were to prevail on the above two claims in
their entirety, it is possible that the company's liability --
both for periods covered by the lawsuit and from the last date
covered by the lawsuit to the present because the deductions
continue to be taken and the plaintiffs continue to be paid for
a royalty share of the helium -- could reach $67.0 million, plus
prejudgment interest, the company stated in a regulatory filing.
However, the company believes it has valid defenses to the
plaintiffs' claims, has paid the plaintiffs properly under their
respective oil and gas leases and other agreements.
The factual evidence in the case was presented to the 26th
Judicial District Court without a jury in December 2001. The
court heard oral arguments in April 2002, and although it has
not yet entered a judgment or findings, it could do so at any
time, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended June 30, 2006.
Irving, Texas-based Pioneer Natural Resources Co. (NYSE: PXD) --
http://www.pxd.com/-- is an independent oil and gas exploration
and production company with operations in the U.S., Argentina,
Canada, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, South Africa and Tunisia.
It explores for, develops and produces oil, natural gas liquid
(NGL) and gas reserves.
PMA CAPITAL: Continues to Face Certain Claims in Pa. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
PMA Capital Corp. continues to face a consolidated securities
class action filed against it in 2003 by holders of certain of
its common stock and senior notes.
Several suits were initially filed on behalf of purported
purchasers of the company's Class A Common Stock, 4.25% Senior
Convertible Debt due 2022 (4.25% Convertible Debt) and 8.50%
Monthly Income Senior Notes.
On June 28, 2004, the court issued an order consolidating the
cases under "In Re PMA Capital Corp. Securities Litigation,
Civil Action No. 03-6121," and appointing Sheet Metal Workers
Local 9 Pension Trust, Alaska Laborers Employers Retirement Fund
and Communications Workers of America for Employees' Pension and
Death Benefits as lead plaintiff.
On Sept. 20, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended and
consolidated complaint on behalf of an alleged class of
purchasers of the company's securities between May 5, 1999 and
Feb. 11, 2004.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder by making materially false and misleading public
statements and material omissions during the class period
regarding the company's underwriting performance, loss reserves
and related internal controls.
It also alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities
Act by making materially false and misleading statements in
registration statements and prospectuses about the company's
financial results, underwriting performance, loss reserves and
related internal controls.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, the right
to rescind the purchases of securities in the public offerings,
interest, and plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees.
By order dated July 27, 2005, the District Court partially
granted the company's previously filed motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, dismissing all allegations with respect to
The PMA Insurance Group, and otherwise denying the motion to
dismiss. By virtue of the order, the alleged class period was
reduced to Nov. 6, 2003.
The company reported no material development in the case at its
Aug. 7 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period June 30, 2006.
The suit is "Augenbaum v. PMA Capital Corp., et al., Case No.
2:03-cv-06121-PBT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Petrese B. Tucker.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Robert A. Kauffman, Arthur Stock and Sherri Savett of
Berger and Montague, 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia,
PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-3000, Fax: 215-875-4636, E-
mail: astock@bm.net; and
(2) Salvatore J. Graziano of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York NY
10119, Phone: 212-594-5300.
Representing the company are David M. Howard, Michael L.
Kichline and Joseph A. Tate of Dechert, LLP, 4000 Bell Atlantic
Tower, 1717 Arch Street, Philadelphia PA 19103-2973, Phone: 215-
994-2218, E-mail: michael.kichline@dechert.com,
david.howard@dechert.com and joseph.tate@dechert.com.
RADIO ONE: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Obtain Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
Radio One, Inc., the company said at its Aug. 8, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended June 30, 2006.
In November 2001, the company and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, now captioned, "In re Radio One, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-
10160."
Similar complaints were filed in the same court against hundreds
of other public companies (Issuers) that conducted initial
public offerings of their common stock in the late 1990s (IPO
Lawsuits).
In the complaint filed against the company (as amended), the
plaintiffs claim that it, certain of its officers and directors,
and the underwriters of certain of its public offerings violated
Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based
on allegations that its registration statement and prospectus
failed to disclose material facts regarding the compensation to
be received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the
underwriters.
The complaint also contains a claim for violation of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
based on allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on
investors. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.
In July 2002, the company joined in a global motion, filed by
the Issuers, to dismiss the IPO Lawsuits. In October 2002, the
court entered an order dismissing the company's named officers
and directors from the IPO Lawsuits without prejudice, pursuant
to an agreement tolling the statute of limitations with respect
to the company's officers and directors until Sept. 30, 2003.
In February 2003, the court issued a decision denying the motion
to dismiss the Section 11 and Section 10(b) claims against the
company and most of the Issuers.
In July 2003, a Special Litigation Committee of the company's
board of directors approved in principle a settlement proposal
with the plaintiffs, which is anticipated to include most of the
Issuers.
The proposed settlement would provide for the dismissal with
prejudice of all claims against the participating Issuers and
their officers and the assignment to plaintiffs of certain
potential claims that the Issuers may have against their
underwriters.
The tentative settlement also provides that, in the event that
plaintiffs ultimately recover less than a guaranteed sum from
the underwriters, plaintiffs would be entitled to payment by
each participating Issuer's insurer of a pro rata share of any
shortfall in the plaintiffs guaranteed recovery.
In September 2003, in connection with the proposed settlement,
the company's named officers and directors extended the tolling
agreement so that it would not expire prior to any settlement
being finalized.
In June 2004, the company executed a final settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs. On February 2005, the Court issued a
decision certifying a class action for settlement purposes and
granting preliminary approval of the settlement subject to
modification of certain bar orders contemplated by the
settlement.
In August 2005, the Court reaffirmed class certification and
preliminary approval of the modified settlement in a
comprehensive Order, and directed that Notice of the settlement
be published and mailed to class members beginning November
2005.
In February 2006, the court dismissed litigation filed against
certain underwriters in connection with the claims to be
assigned to the plaintiffs under the settlement.
In April 2006, the court held a settlement fairness hearing to
determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement. A
decision is expected by the end of the third quarter of 2006.
For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.
SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Levie" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
denied Sears Roebuck & Co.'s motion to reconsider the company's
request to dismiss a securities fraud class action against it.
The district court also denied a motion to certify an appeal.
Shareholders sued Sears Roebuck & Co. and ESL Partners L.P. for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
Sears and ESL moved to dismiss, and the court previously denied
the motion to dismiss.
Sears moved the court to reconsider the motion for dismissal.
ESL moved for certification of appeal of the question of
"whether Section 18(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 provides the exclusive remedy for a plaintiff alleging a
stock owner's untimely amendment of a statement filed pursuant
to Section 13(d) or Section 13(g)."
To state a claim under Section 10(b), shareholders must allege
that the defendant knowingly made a material misstatement or
omission in connection with the sale or purchase of securities
with scienter, upon which the plaintiffs relied, and caused the
plaintiffs' economic loss.
The district court affirmed its denial of Sears' motion to
dismiss and denied the motion for reconsideration. The district
court denied ESL's motion for certification of an appeal because
there was not substantial ground for difference of opinion, as
the plaintiffs' claims did not fall within the plain wording of
Section 18(a).
The suit is "Levie v. Sears Roebuck Co, et al., Case No. 1:04-
cv-07643," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Robert W. Gettleman.
Representing the defendants are:
(1) Philip F. Ackerman of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal,
LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, 8000 Sears Tower, Chicago,
IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000, E-mail:
packerman@sonnenschein.com;
(2) David B. Anders of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 51
West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 403-
1307, E-mail: DBAnders@wlrk.com;
(3) Alexander Dimitrief of Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Chicago),
200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 6100, Chicago, IL 60601,
Phone: (312) 861-2000, E-mail:
alex.dimitrief@kirkland.com;
(4) Anthony Thomas Eliseuson of Sonnenschein, Nath &
Rosenthal, LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, 8000 Sears
Tower, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312)876-8000, E-
mail: aeliseuson@sonnenschein.com; and
(5) Mala Ahuja Harker of Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman
LLP, 1633 Broadway, New York, NY 10019, Phone:
(212) 833-1192.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Ricardo Meza of the Mexican American Legal Defense &
Ed. Fund, 11 E. Adams Street, Suite 700, Chicago, IL
60603, Phone: (312) 427-0701, E-mail: rmeza@maldef.org;
(2) Mark Richard Miller of Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP, One
North LaSalle, Suite 2000, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone:
(312) 346-2222, E-mail: mrm@wtwlaw.us;
(3) Marshall N Perkins of the Law Offices of Charles J.
Piven, P.A., The World Trade Cener - Baltimore, 401
East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202,
Phone: (410) 332-0030, E-mail: perkins@pivenlaw.com;
and
(4) Andrae P Reneau of Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP, 1 North
LaSalle Street, Suite 2000, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone:
(312) 346-2222, E-mail: apr@wtwlaw.us.
TOPLOFIKACIA SOFIA: Bulgarian Utility Faces Overcharging Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Consumers Federation in Bulgaria is calling on
Toplofikacia Sofia EAD consumers to join in the $71.8 million
(BLG110 million) class action the organization is planning to
file against the utility, Dnevnik reports.
The lawsuit aims to establish the unlawfulness of consumption
overcharges, which amounted to $19.6 million (BLG30 million) as
determined by the audit of the State Financial Inspection
Agency, in the period after November 2002.
CFB is filing the lawsuit against shareholders of Bulgaria's
largest district heating company, the energy ministry and the
Sofia municipality.
The State Energy and Water Regulatory Commission will also be
named defendant in the suit over unrealistic heating energy
tariffs, according to the report.
Established in 1949 by the Municipality of Sofia, Toplofikacia
Sofia is engaged in production, transmission and distribution of
heat energy, concomitant electricity production. The district
heating system owns heat sources, district heating pipelines as
main integral part of the city infrastructure ensuring a
reliable supply of heat to over 900,000 inhabitants and steam to
industrial customers.
UNITED RENTALS: Amended Securities Complaint Filed in Conn.
-----------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the consolidated securities
fraud class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut against United Rentals, Inc.
Initially, three purported class actions were filed against the
company. Plaintiff in each of the suits sought to sue on behalf
of a purported class comprised of purchasers of the company's
securities from Oct. 23, 2003 to Aug. 30, 2004.
The lawsuits initially named as the defendants the company, its
chairman, its vice chairman and chief executive officer, its
former president and chief financial officer, and its former
corporate controller.
These initial complaints alleged, among other things, that
certain of the company's U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
filings and other public statements contained false and
misleading statements, which resulted in damages to the
plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they
purchased the company's securities.
On the basis of those allegations, plaintiffs in each action
asserted claims:
-- against all defendants under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
-- against one or more of the individual defendants under
Section 20(a) of such Act.
The complaints sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs
and expenses. On Feb. 1, 2005, the court entered an order
consolidating the three actions.
On Nov. 8, 2005, the court appointed City of Pontiac Policeman's
and Fireman's Retirement System as lead plaintiff for the
purported class.
The consolidated action is now entitled, "In re United Rentals,
Inc. Securities Litigation." The parties agreed upon, and the
court subsequently approved, a schedule for the filing of a
consolidated amended complaint in this action and the briefing
of any motions to dismiss directed to the operative complaint in
the action.
On June 5, 2006, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which adds certain allegations and another defendant.
The suit is "In re United Rentals, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case NO. 04-CV-1615," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Christopher F. Droney.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Erin Green Comite of Scott & Scott, 108 Norwich Ave.,
PO Box 192, Colchester, CT 06415, Phone: 860-537-5537,
Fax: 869-537-4432, E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com; and
(2) Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel, One Corporate
Center, 20 Church St., Suite 1700, Hartford, CT 06103,
Phone: 860-493-6292, Fax: 860-493-6290, E-mail:
nancy@snlaw.net.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) David M. Bizar of Day, Berry & Howard, Cityplace,
Hartford, CT 06103-3499, Phone: 860-275-0648, Fax: 860-
275-0343, E-mail: dmbizar@dbh.com; and
(ii) Alan R. Friedman of Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel,
1177 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone:
212-715-9100, E-mail: afriedman@kramerlevin.com.
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Settles Siliconix Tender Offer Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. has resolved all class action
litigations initiated by Siliconix, Inc. minority shareholders
in relation to the tender offer for Siliconix shares not owned
by the company.
On May 12, 2005, the company successfully completed a tender
offer for shares of Siliconix not owned by it. Following the
March 3, 2005 announcement of the transaction, several purported
class action complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against the company, Siliconix, and the Siliconix
directors. The suit alleges, among other things, that the
intended offer was unfair and a breach of fiduciary duty, and
seeking, among other things, to enjoin the transaction. The
Delaware actions were consolidated into a single class action.
The parties to the Delaware consolidated action subsequently
entered into a settlement agreement, which was approved by the
court on Oct. 25, 2005.
A single stockholder class action also was filed in California
state court challenging the tender offer. On April 26, 2005,
the California Superior Court granted the company's motion to
stay the purported class action filed in California challenging
the offer. The California action was formally dismissed in
April 2006.
Malvern, Pennsylvania-based Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. (NYSE:
VSH) -- http://www.vishay.com/-- is an international
manufacturer and supplier of semiconductors and passive
electronic components.
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Still Facing Consumer Fraud Suits in Mo., Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corp. remains a defendant in two purported national
class actions in Missouri and Illinois state courts that allege
breach of warranty, fraud, and violation of state consumer
protection acts in the way it sells its tub dishwashers.
There are no allegations of any personal injury or property
damage and the complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages.
The company believes these suits are without merit.
Benton Harbor, Michigan-based Whirlpool Corp. (NYSE: WHR) --
http://www.whirlpoolcorp.com/-- is a global manufacturer and
marketer of home appliances. Its principal products are laundry
appliances, refrigerators and freezers, cooking appliances,
dishwashers, room air-conditioning equipment, and mixers and
other small household appliances.
ZEON BIOMUNE: Louisville, Ken. Residents Sue Over Pollution
-----------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Louisville, Kentucky filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
complaining of hazardous pollutants emitted by three chemical
companies.
The suit names as defendants:
-- Zeon Biomune Inc.,
-- Zeon GP LLC, and
-- Zeon Chemicals Limited Partnership
It alleges that:
-- defendants utilize chemicals and chemical compounds to
create and manufacture goods for sale;
-- defendants discharge chemicals and chemical substances
which are odiferous, invasive and noxious and some of
which are extra hazardous;
-- defendants by and through current technological
processes and current engineering standards could and
should preclude the discharge of any noxious odors and
extra hazardous substances to plaintiffs properties;
-- defendants breached their duty to exercise ordinary care
and diligence when they improperly constructed,
maintained, operated and designed facility and knew, or
should have known, that such actions would cause
plaintiffs' person and property to be invaded by noxious
odors and air contaminants; and
-- defendants are vicariously liable for the negligence and
gross negligence of its employees, representatives and
agents, who, during the course and scope of their
employment, allowed or failed to correct the problem
which caused noxious odors and air contaminants to
physically invade plaintiffs' person and property.
The suit seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and interests.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1051
The suit is "Cochran et al. v. Zeon Biomune Inc. et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-00363-JGH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky under Judge John G. Heyburn.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Mark K. Gray and Matthew L. White both of Gray & White,
500 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 1200 PNC Plaza,
Louisville, KY 40202, Phone: 502-585-2060, Fax: 502-
581-1933, E-mail: mkgrayatty@aol.com or
mattwhiteatty@aol.com; and
(2) Peter W Macuga, II of Macuga & Liddle, PC, 975 E.
Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, MI 28307, Phone: 313-392-
0015.
Asbestos Alert
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Industries Inc. Spends $20.7M in 2Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc.'s asbestos-related expenses were US$20.7
million for the 2006 2nd-quarter, compared with US$2.6 million
for the same period in 2005.
For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company's asbestos-
related expenses were US$25.6 million, compared with US$6.8
million for the same period in 2005.
As of June 30, 2006, the Company's long-term asbestos insurance
receivable was US$399.4 million, compared with US$388.1 million
as of Dec. 31, 2005.
Of the 119,700 open cases at June 30, 2006, about 6.5 percent,
7,700 cases, involved a claimant alleging mesothelioma, lung
cancer or some other cancer.
Of those claims resolved, about three percent have been
plaintiffs' claims alleging mesothelioma, about six percent have
been plaintiffs' claims with lung or other cancers, and more
than 90 percent have been plaintiffs' claims alleging
asbestosis, pleural plaques or other non-malignant impairment of
the respiratory system.
Subsidiaries, mainly Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC and The
Anchor Packing Co., face actions filed in various states by
plaintiffs alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to
asbestos fibers.
Since the first asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against
Garlock in 1975, Garlock and Anchor have processed more than
800,000 claims to conclusion and have paid more than US$1.1
billion in settlements and judgments and over US$350 million in
fees and expenses.
In the first half of 2006, the Company recorded 4,200 new
filings, compared with 8,400 for the same period in 2005.
Garlock's product defenses have enabled it to be successful at
trial, winning defense verdicts in 12 of 24 cases tried to
verdict in 2003 through 2005.
In the first half of 2006, Garlock began six trials involving
seven plaintiffs. Three of the trials involving four plaintiffs
settled during a Philadelphia trial. A California case and
another case in Dallas also settled during trial. A retrial of a
Kentucky case resulted in an adverse verdict of US$1.6 million.
Garlock, which plans to appeal, was allocated US$900,000 of the
verdict.
Garlock is appealing significant adverse verdicts against it. In
March 2006, a three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of Appeals
overturned a US$6.4 million verdict that was entered against
Garlock in 2003, granting a new trial.
In the 2006-2nd quarter, Garlock reached agreement on a
settlement of a case on appeal from a 2004 adverse verdict in
Los Angeles. The parties agreed to settle for the amount of the
compensatory damages plus statutory post-judgment interest. The
substantial punitive damage award will not be paid.
The settlement agreement was reached at the same time as a
settlement with the same plaintiffs' law firm on that firm's
pending cases for the remainder of 2006, which settlement sets
guidelines for future settlements. The Company expects that the
Los Angeles settlement will be paid in the 2006-3rd quarter.
Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, EnPro Industries Inc. makes
engines, engineered products, and sealing systems. The Company
also makes heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, and natural gas
engines.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Has $505M Claims Insurance in 2Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc.'s subsidiary, Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC, had US$505 million as of June 30, 2006, available for
insurance and trust coverage for future asbestos claim and
expense payments.
Of the US$505 million, US$246 million was allocated to claims
that have been paid by Garlock and submitted to its insurance
firms for reimbursement and the remainder was allocated to
pending and estimated future claims.
Garlock classified US$59 million of otherwise available
insurance as insolvent. Garlock has collected about US$2.6
million from insolvent carriers in the first half of 2006,
bringing total insolvent collections from 2002 through the first
half of 2006 to US$36 million.
In the 2004-4th quarter, the Company reached agreement with
Equitas Ltd. Garlock received US$30 million in payment of
receivables in the 2004-3rd quarter, and US$88 million was
placed in an independent trust. At June 30, 2006, the market
value of the funds remaining in the trust was about US$55.9
million.
In the 2004-4th quarter, the Company reached agreement with a
group of London market carriers other than Equitas and one of
its U.S. carriers. In 2005, Garlock received US$22 million in
payment of receivables and US$55.5 million was placed in an
independent trust. At June 30, 2006, the market value of the
funds remaining in the trust was about US$34.8 million.
In the 2005-1st quarter, the Company reached agreement with two
of Garlock's U.S. insurers, which agreed to pay Garlock US$21
million in satisfaction of US$26 million of total nominal
coverage in three equal biannual payments of US$7 million.
In May 2006, the Company reached agreement with a U.S. insurer
that resolves a dispute that has been pending since 2003. Under
the settlement, the Company will receive a total of US$21
million over eight years, with the first payment of US$4 million
due in December 2006. The additional US$19 million of policy
limits from this insurer will not be received.
Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, EnPro Industries Inc. makes
engines, engineered products, and sealing systems. The Company
also makes heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, and natural gas
engines.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Doe Run Faces Suits from St. Joe Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Doe Run Resources Corporation is a defendant in three
asbestos-related injury lawsuits filed in Madison County, Ill.,
each alleging that a worker was exposed to asbestos at the St.
Joe Minerals Corp's premises.
However, the Company has not been properly served in one of
these cases and has reached a tentative settlement in another of
these cases before going to trial.
The Company also defends in an asbestos case filed in Lawrence
County, Pa.
The Company defended in four asbestos-related injury lawsuits
filed in Illinois and Pennsylvania. (Class Action Reporter,
April 7, 2006)
Based in St. Louis, Missouri, The Doe Run Resources Corp. is
involved in mining, milling, smelting, and refining lead. The
Company operates in the U.S. and South America.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: El Paso Settles Ariz. Breaches for $225T
-------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corporation entered into a US$225,000 settlement with
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality for asbestos-
handling breaches of the Company's subsidiary, El Paso Natural
Gas Co.
In September 2005, the ADEQ issued the Company a Notice of
Violation for alleged regulatory violations related to EPNG's
handling of asbestos-containing coal tar enamel coating.
The matter was referred to the Office of the Attorney General
for the State of Arizona.
The ADEQ had initially proposed less than US$1 million as
penalty for the Company's asbestos and environmental breach.
(Class Action Reporter, March 17, 2006)
Based in Houston, Texas, El Paso Corp. is engaged in gas
transportation and storage, oil and gas exploration and
production, and gas gathering and processing. The Company has
interests in 55,500 miles of interstate pipeline.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OneBeacon Records $1.277B Reserves in 2Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
OneBeacon Insurance Group Ltd. had established US$1.277 billion
in gross loss and loss adjustment expense reserves as of June
30, 2006. It had also established US$806.7 million in net loss
and LAE reserves after giving effect to third party reinsurance
other than the National Indemnity Co. Cover.
In connection with the purchase of OneBeacon by White Mountains
Insurance Group Ltd. in 2001, the Company bought a reinsurance
contract from NICO for up to US$2.5 billion of coverage. As of
June 30, 2006, the Company had ceded estimated incurred losses
of about US$2.1 billion.
At June 30, 2006, the Company's net loss and LAE reserves for
asbestos claims after giving effect to both third party
reinsurance and the NICO Cover was US$6.7 million.
Under the terms of the NICO Cover, NICO received the economic
benefit of reinsurance recoverables from certain of the
Company's third party reinsurers in existence at the time the
NICO Cover was executed. As a result, the Third Party
Recoverables served to protect the US$2.5 billion limit of NICO
coverage for the Company's benefit.
In June 2005, the Company completed an internal study of its
asbestos & environmental exposures. Based on the study, the
Company increased its best estimate of its incurred losses ceded
to NICO, net of underlying reinsurance, by US$353.0 million
(US$841.0 million gross) to US$2.1 billion, which is within the
US$2.5 billion coverage provided by the NICO Cover.
As of June 30, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, the Company estimated
that the range of reasonable outcomes around its best estimate
was US$1.7 billion to US$2.4 billion.
At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company had 592 accounts with asbestos
claims, compared with 664 accounts for the same period in 2004.
At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company had 1,087 total accounts with A&E
claims, compared with 1,308 total accounts for the same period
in 2004.
Based in Boston, Massachusetts, OneBeacon Insurance Group Ltd.
provides personal auto and homeowners, commercial, and specialty
insurance, including agricultural, marine, media liability, and
medical malpractice coverage. In 1831, the Company was founded
as Potomac Fire Insurance Co.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning's Reserves Stay at $7B in 2Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens Corning (Reorganized) Inc.'s reserves for asbestos
litigation claims remain at US$7 billion as of June 30, 2006 and
Dec. 31, 2005.
As of June 30, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded a
US$3.216 billion asbestos-related claims reserve for Fibreboard.
For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company's provision
(credit) for asbestos litigation claims was (US$3 million),
compared with US$3.435 billion for the same period in 2005.
As of June 30, 2006, the Company's asbestos and insurance
related restricted cash was US$204 million, compared with US$189
million as of Dec. 31, 2005.
For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company noted a
US$13 million increase of asbestos and insurance related
restricted cash, compared with US$14 million as of Dec. 31,
2005.
For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company noted US$17
million proceeds from insurance for asbestos litigation claims,
compared with US$1 million for the same period in 2005.
Claims have been asserted against the Company alleging personal
injuries arising from asbestos fiber inhalation. Virtually all
of these claims arise out of the Company's manufacture,
distribution, sale or installation of an asbestos-containing
calcium silicate, high temperature insulation product.
Prior to Oct. 5, 2000, when the Debtors, including Fibreboard,
filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code, most of asserted asbestos personal injury
claims were in the process of being resolved through the
National Settlement Program.
As a result of the Filing, all pre-petition asbestos claims and
pending litigation against the Debtors, including without
limitation claims arising under the NSP, were automatically
stayed.
On June 5, 2006, the Debtors, together with the Official
Committee of Asbestos Claimants and the Legal Representative for
the class of future asbestos claimants, filed a proposed sixth
amended joint plan of reorganization for the Debtors along with
a related disclosure statement.
On July 10, 2006, the parties filed a sixth amended joint plan
of reorganization and certain proposed modifications to the
disclosure statement.
Based in Toledo, Ohio, Owens Corning (Reorganized) Inc. makes
fiberglass and composite materials. Its building materials unit,
makes thermal, acoustic, and foam insulation, plus exterior
products including roofing shingles, vinyl windows and siding,
stone veneer building products, housewrap, patio doors, and rain
gutters.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quaker Unit Reaches $15M Deal With Carrier
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inactive subsidiary of the Quaker Chemical Corp. entered into
a settlement and release agreement with an insurance carrier,
over asbestos-related claims, for US$15,000,000.
The Company projects that the unnamed subsidiary's total
liability over the next 50 years for these claims is about
US$10,100,000, excluding defense costs.
Acquired in 1978, the subsidiary sold certain asbestos-
containing products and is among the defendants in numerous
lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos exposure.
In 1991, the subsidiary discontinued operations and has no
remaining assets other than its existing insurance policies and
proceeds from an insurance settlement received in late 2005.
To date, most of these claims have been disposed of without
payment and there have been no adverse judgments against the
subsidiary.
Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in
certain of these cases, no claims have been pursued against the
Company and the Company has not contributed to the defense or
settlement of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary.
To date, these cases have been handled by the subsidiary's
primary and excess insurers who agreed to pay all defense costs
and be responsible for all damages assessed against the
subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up
to the aggregate limits of the policies.
A now-insolvent insurer provided a significant portion of this
primary insurance coverage, and the other primary insurers have
asserted that the aggregate limits of their policies have been
exhausted.
Based in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, Quaker Chemical Corp.
produces rolling lubricants used in making aluminum products and
hot- and cold-rolled steel products. The Company makes corrosion
preventives, metal finishing compounds, hydraulic fluids, and
machining, grinding, and forming compounds.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Worldwide Incurs $1M Unindemnified Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------
M&F Worldwide Corporation incurred or expected to incur about
US$1 million of unindemnified asbestos-related costs, as of June
30, 2006, as to which the Company either had received or
expected to receive about US$700,000 in insurance
reimbursements.
In 1995, the Company, two of its subsidiaries, and a subsidiary
of Mafco Consolidated Group Inc. entered into a transfer
agreement.
Under the Transfer Agreement, Pneumo Abex Corp. together with
its successor in interest Pneumo Abex LLC, then a Company
subsidiary, retained the assets and liabilities relating to the
Company's former Abex NWL Aerospace Division. Pneumo Abex
transferred all of its other assets and liabilities to an MCG
subsidiary.
The Transfer Agreement required the MCG subsidiary to undertake
certain administrative and funding obligations with respect to
certain categories of asbestos-related claims and other
liabilities retained by Pneumo Abex.
The Company will be obligated to reimburse the amounts so funded
only when the Company receives these amounts under related
indemnification and insurance agreements.
In the event of certain kinds of disputes with Pneumo Abex's
indemnitors regarding their indemnities, the Transfer Agreement
permits the Company to require the subsidiary to fund 50 percent
of the costs of resolving the disputes.
Before 1988, a former Company subsidiary made certain asbestos-
containing friction products. Pneumo Abex has been named, along
with 10 to as many as 100 or more other firms, as a defendant in
personal injury lawsuits claiming damages relating to exposure
to asbestos.
Under indemnification agreements, PepsiAmericas Inc., formerly
known as Whitman Corp., had responsibility for all the remaining
asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through
August 1998 and for certain asbestos-related claims subsequently
asserted.
In connection with the sale by Abex in December 1994 of its
Friction Products Division, a subsidiary of Cooper Industries
Inc. assumed responsibility for all asbestos-related claims
asserted against Pneumo Abex after August 1998 and not
indemnified by Whitman.
In October 1998, Federal-Mogul Corp. bought Cooper's subsidiary.
In October 2001, Cooper's former unit filed a petition under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and stopped performing
its indemnity obligations to the Company. Performance of
Cooper's former subsidiary's indemnity obligation is guaranteed
by Cooper.
Following the bankruptcy filing of Cooper's former unit, the
Company confirmed that Cooper would fulfill its former unit's
indemnity obligations to the extent that the former unit is no
longer performing them.
Based in New York City, New York, M&F Worldwide Corp., operates
as a flavorings maker. It makes licorice extract used for candy
and as a tobacco additive. The Company has expanded into the
security printing business through its acquisition of Clarke
American Checks from Honeywell.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Remands Suit v. Union Pacific
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Utah reversed a trial court's decision,
which had denied Union Pacific Railroad Co.'s summary judgment
motion, and remanded the asbestos-related Federal Employer
Liability Act lawsuit filed by Carol Christiansen.
The Appeals Court ordered the remand to permit the trial court
to determine whether Mr. Christiansen's claim is barred by the
limitations period.
The Panel, comprised of Associate Presiding Judge Pamela T.
Greenwood and Judges James Z. Davis and Carolyn B. McHugh,
decided Case No. 20040991-CA on May 4, 2006.
Mr. Christiansen was exposed to asbestos while working for Union
Pacific in 1951 where he installed and removed asbestos-
containing components. He worked in other occupations involving
asbestos until 1970.
In the 1990s, Mr. Christiansen began developing breathing
problems. Around 1995, he retired and filed a Social Security
disability claim. He visited several doctors who diagnosed the
symptoms as congestion, pneumonia, and bronchitis.
In January 2002, Mr. Christiansen sued Union Pacific and later
that year, a doctor diagnosed his condition as asbestosis.
Union Pacific moved for summary judgment on grounds that the
three-year limitations period had run on the claim and that Mr.
Christiansen had not presented any evidence that Union Pacific
had been negligent.
Mr. Christiansen responded with an expert's affidavit claiming
that Union Pacific was aware of the dangers of asbestos in the
mid-1930s when the American Association of Railroads issued a
report.
The trial court granted Union Pacific's motion for summary
judgment. The trial court also denied Union Pacific's motion
with respect to the sufficiency of Mr. Christiansen's evidence,
concluding that Mr. Christiansen had "set forth sufficient facts
to create a duty and show a breach of that duty."
Mr. Christiansen filed a Motion to Enter Final Judgment as to
Union Pacific Railroad and to Certify as Ready for Appeal. The
trial court granted the motion and entered final judgment. Mr.
Christiansen appealed, and Union Pacific cross-appealed.
Accordingly, the Appeals Court concluded that a genuine issue of
material fact existed as to whether Mr. Christiansen diligently
pursued his claim after determining that his injury was likely
work-related.
C. Ryan Christensen, Robert G. Gilchrist, S. Brook Millard of
Salt Lake City, Utah, and Nance F. Becker of Novato, Calif.,
represented Carol Christiansen.
E. Scott Savage and Casey K. McGarvey of Salt Lake City, Utah
represented Union Pacific Railroad Co.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fresenius Asks Sealed Air to Cover Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KgaA continues to seek
indemnification from Sealed Air Corp. for losses and expenses
related to pre-merger tax liabilities and merger-linked claims,
including asbestos-related liabilities and claims.
Under a Settlement Agreement, upon confirmation of a plan that
satisfies the conditions of the Company's payment obligation,
this litigation will be dismissed with prejudice.
The Company was formed from transactions under an Agreement and
Plan of Reorganization dated as of Feb. 4, 1996 by and between
W.R. Grace & Co. and Fresenius AG.
Subsequent to the Merger, Grace was involved in a multi-step
transaction involving Sealed Air, formerly known as Grace
Holding Inc.
During the Merger, a Grace subsidiary known as W.R. Grace & Co.-
Conn. had, and continues to have, liabilities from product-
liability related litigation that included asbestos-related
actions, pre-Merger tax claims and other claims unrelated to
NMC, Grace's dialysis business pre-Merger.
In connection with the Merger, W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. agreed to
indemnify the Company, Fresenius Medical Care Holdings Inc., and
NMC against all Grace liabilities. On April 2, 2001, Grace and
certain of its units filed for reorganization under Chapter 11
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
Before and after the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings, class action
complaints were filed against Grace and FMCH by plaintiffs
claiming to be creditors of W.R. Grace & Co.- Conn., and by the
asbestos creditors' committees on behalf of the Grace bankruptcy
estate in the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings. The complaints
alleged that the Merger was a fraudulent conveyance, violated
the uniform fraudulent transfer act and constituted a
conspiracy.
In 2003, the Company reached agreement with the asbestos
creditors' committees on behalf of the Grace bankruptcy estate
and Grace in the matters pending in the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings for the settlement of all fraudulent conveyance and
tax claims against it and other claims related to the Company
that arise out of the bankruptcy of W.R. Grace & Co.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement as amended,
fraudulent conveyance and other claims raised on behalf of
asbestos claimants will be dismissed with prejudice and the
Company will receive protection against existing and potential
future W.R. Grace & Co. related claims, including fraudulent
conveyance and asbestos claims, and indemnification against
income tax claims related to the non-NMC members of the Grace
consolidated tax group upon confirmation of a Grace final
bankruptcy reorganization plan that has those provisions.
Under the U.S. District Court-approved Settlement Agreement, the
Company will pay a total of US$115,000,000 to the Grace
bankruptcy estate upon plan confirmation.
Based in Bad Homburg, Germany, Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co.
KGaA provides dialysis worldwide. Its staff treats over 130,000
patients a year at nearly 1,700 dialysis clinics, 1,200 of which
are based in the U.S. Fresenius also makes dialysis machines,
dialyzers, and other supplies. Fresenius AG owns about half of
Fresenius Medical Care.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT Faces Coverage Suits in N.Y. and Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation, formerly known as ITT Industries Inc., is
involved in two asbestos-related insurance actions filed in New
York and California courts.
Case No. BC 290354, styled Cannon Electric Inc. et al. v. Ace
Property & Casualty Co. et al., is pending in the Superior
Court, County of Los Angeles, Calif.
Case No. 03600463, styled Pacific Employers Insurance Co. et
al., v. ITT Industries Inc., et al., is pending in the Supreme
Court, County of New York, N.Y.
Parties in both cases are seeking an appropriate allocation of
responsibility for the Company's historic asbestos liability
exposure among its insurers. The Calif. action is filed in the
same venue where the Company's environmental insurance recovery
litigation has been pending since 1991. The N.Y. action has been
stayed in favor of the Calif. suit.
ITT, ACE and Nationwide Indemnity have resolved the matter and
the Company is working with other parties in the suit to resolve
the matter as to those insurers.
Moreover, Utica National and a Company subsidiary, Goulds Pumps
Inc., are negotiating a coverage in place agreement to allocate
the Goulds' asbestos liabilities between insurance policies
issued by Utica and those issued by others. The Company
continues to receive the benefit of insurance payments during
the pendency of these proceedings.
The Company and Goulds have been joined as defendants with
numerous other industrial firms in product liability suits
alleging injury due to asbestos. These claims stem from products
sold before 1985 that had a part made by a third party, like a
gasket, which allegedly had asbestos.
The asbestos was encapsulated in the gasket or other material
and was non-friable. In certain other cases, it is alleged that
former ITT firms were distributors for other manufacturers'
products that may have contained asbestos.
The plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate any injury or do not
identify any ITT or Goulds product as a source of asbestos
exposure. In 2005, ITT and Goulds resolved in excess of 16,000
claims through settlement or dismissal.
The average amount of settlement per plaintiff has been nominal
and substantially all defense and settlement costs have been
covered by insurance.
Based in White Plains, New York, ITT Corp. has four primary
segments: fluid technology, defense electronics, motion and flow
control, and electronic components. The Company also provides
repair and maintenance services for the products it makes.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Faces 113 Pending Suits in 2Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises Inc.'s electric utility unit, Indianapolis
Power & Light Co., had about 113 pending asbestos-related
lawsuits as of June 30, 2006, compared with 109 pending suits as
of Dec. 31, 2005.
The suits alleged personal injury or wrongful death stemming
from exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products
formerly located in IPL power plants.
As of March 31, 2006, IPL was named a defendant in about 114
asbestos-related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, June 2, 2006)
IPL has been named a "premises defendant" in that IPL did not
mine, manufacture, distribute or install asbestos or asbestos-
containing products. These suits have been brought on behalf of
persons who worked for contractors or subcontractors hired by
IPL.
IPL has insurance, which may cover some portions of these
claims. Counsel, retained by insurers who wrote policies
applicable to the time period during which the exposure has been
alleged, currently defends these cases.
Based in Indianapolis, Indiana, IPALCO Enterprises Inc., through
IPL, generates, transmits, and distributes electricity to nearly
460,000 customers in central Indiana. IPALCO is a subsidiary of
independent power producer The AES Corporation.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Washington Group Faces Third-Party Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Group International Inc. continues to face various
lawsuits resulting from allegations that third parties sustained
injuries and damage from the inhalation of asbestos fibers
contained in materials used in construction projects.
The suits alleged that the Company was negligent, the typical
negligence claim being that the Company had a duty but failed to
warn the plaintiff or claimant of, or failed to protect the
plaintiff or claimant from, the dangers of asbestos.
The Company did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos-containing
products.
Based on proofs of claims filed with the court during the
pendency of the Company's bankruptcy proceedings, the Company is
aware of other potential asbestos claims against it. In 2001,
the Company filed for bankruptcy but emerged in 2002.
The Company expects that more asbestos claims will be filed
against it in the future. The Company said that all its asbestos
claims are fully insured except for asbestos claims relating to
a subsidiary acquired in 1986.
Based on the 1986 stock purchase agreement and the insurance
policies obtained by the prior owners of the subsidiary, the
Company said it is entitled to the benefit of the insurance
coverage obtained by the prior owners.
The Company has tendered the claims related to the acquired
company to those insurance carriers. To date, one carrier has
agreed to pay at least a portion of the claims related to the
subsidiary.
Based in Boise, Idaho, Washington Group International Inc.
provides design and construction services for customers in the
defense, energy and environment, industrial-process,
infrastructure, mining, and power industries. The Company
operates mines and offers environmental management and
facilities and operations management.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Takes on Multi-Party Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Badger Meter Inc. faces multi-party asbestos-related lawsuits
pending in various states, according to the Company's quarterly
report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2006 and
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The suits asserted claims alleging that certain industrial
products were made by the defendants and were the cause of
injury and harm.
Based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Badger Meter Inc. makes meters,
valves, flow tubes, and other measurement devices for original
equipment manufacturers, water and wastewater utilities, and
pharmaceutical, chemical, concrete, and food and beverage
industries. The Company was established in 1905.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Standard Motor Drop to 3,200 in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Product Inc. had about 3,200 outstanding
asbestos-related cases at June 30, 2006, for which the Company
is responsible for liabilities, compared with about 4,500 cases
at Dec. 31, 2005.
At March 31, 2006, the Company's outstanding asbestos-related
claims, which the Company assumed when it acquired a brake
business, decreased to about 3,600 cases. (Class Action
Reporter, June 2, 2006)
In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it sold in
March 1998 and which is accounted for as a discontinued
operation. The Company assumed future liabilities relating to
any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products made by the
seller of the acquired brake business.
In accordance with the related purchase agreement, the Company
agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or
after Sept. 1, 2001. The Company's ultimate exposure will depend
upon the number of claims filed against it on or after Sept. 1,
2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and defense.
The Company paid about US$4.2 million for settled claims, since
inception in September 2001 through June 30, 2006.
Since its inception in September 2001 through March 31, 2006,
the amounts paid for settled claims were about US$3.9 million.
(Class Action Reporter, June 2, 2006)
The Company does not have insurance coverage for the defense and
indemnity costs associated with these claims.
At June 30, 2006, the Company accrued US$24,241,000 for
asbestos-related liabilities, compared with US$25,556,000 at
Dec. 31, 2005.
Based in Long Island City, New York, Standard Motor Products
Inc. makes engine management and air-conditioning replacement
parts for the automotive aftermarket. Among the Company's
customers are auto parts warehouse distributors like CARQUEST
and NAPA and major auto parts retailers like Advance Auto Parts
and AutoZone.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Westinghouse Air Brake Tech. Rise
----------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, which does
business as Wabtec Corp., noted that the number of asbestos-
related has increased since 2000, and the resolution of these
claims may take a significant period of time.
Persons alleging bodily injury from exposure to asbestos-
containing products have filed claims against the Company and
certain of its affiliates in jurisdictions across the U.S.
Most of these claims have been made against the Company's
subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corp., and are based on a
product sold by RFPC before the Company acquired any interest in
RFPC.
On April 17, 2005, a claim against the Company by a former
stockholder of RFPC contending that the Company assumed that
entity's liability for asbestos claims arising from exposure to
RFPC's product was resolved in the Company's favor.
Most of these claims, including the RFPC claims, are submitted
to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to non-
affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.
To date, RFPC's insurers have provided RFPC with defense and
indemnity in these actions.
To date, the Company has been able to successfully defend
itself, including an arbitration decision and a judicial
opinion, both of which confirmed the Company's position that it
did not assume any asbestos liabilities from a former owner of a
majority of the Company's assets.
Based in Wilmerding, Pa., Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies
Corp. makes braking equipment and other parts for locomotives,
freight cars, and passenger railcars.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Harsco Corp. Drop to 26,712 in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation recorded 26,712 pending asbestos personal
injury claims filed against it as of June 30, 2006, compared
with 27,166 as of March 31, 2006.
Of the 26,712 claims, 26,265 were pending in the N.Y. Supreme
Court for New York County in New York State and 97 of the claims
were pending in various Mississippi state courts.
The other claims, totaling about 350, are filed in various
counties in a number of state courts, and in certain Federal
District Courts, including New York, and those complaints
asserted lesser amounts of damages than the N.Y. State court
cases or do not state any amount claimed.
As of June 30, 2006, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation, or summary judgment before trial, in 16,772 cases.
The Company has been named as a co-defendant in legal actions
alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over
the past several decades. In the suits, the plaintiffs have
named as defendants manufacturers, distributors and installers
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.
The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor
of asbestos fibers.
Most of the asbestos complaints pending against the Company have
been filed in New York or Mississippi. Almost all of the New
York complaints contain a standard claim for damages of US$20
million or US$25 million against about 90 defendants. With
respect to the Mississippi complaints, most contain a standard
claim for an unstated amount of damages against the numerous
defendants, from 240 to 270, without specifically identifying
any Company product as the source of plaintiff's alleged
asbestos exposure.
As of June 30, 2006, the Company has been listed as a defendant
in 216 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County.
To date, the Company's insurance carrier has paid all legal and
settlement costs and expenses. The Company has liability
insurance coverage available under various primary and excess
policies that the Company said would be available to cover any
liability that might ultimately be incurred on these claims.
Based in Camp Hill, Pa., Harsco Corp. offers various services to
metal producers and construction firms.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Ltd. Reserves $3.526B for Claims in 2Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Ltd.'s gross consolidated loss and allocated loss expense
reserve for asbestos-related exposure, excluding the provision
for uncollectible reinsurance, was US$3.526 billion for the
period ended June 30, 2006. The Company's net reserve was
US$1.711 billion.
For the period ended June 30, 2006, the Company incurred US$4
million gross, (US$1 million) net, for losses and allocated
expenses.
For the period ended June 30, 2006, the Company paid (US$127
million) gross, (US$41 million) net, for losses and allocated
loss expenses.
For the period ended March 31, 2006, the Company's gross
consolidated loss and allocated loss expense reserves for
asbestos-related exposures stood at US$3.598 billion. The
Company's net reserves stood at US$1.732 billion for the period.
(Class Action Reporter, May 19, 2006)
For the period ended Dec. 31, 2005, the Company's gross
consolidated loss and allocated loss expense reserves for
asbestos-related exposures was a gross of US$3.641 billion, or a
net of US$1.751 billion.
The Company's asbestos and environmental liabilities relate to
claims arising from bodily-injury claims related to asbestos
products and remediation costs associated with hazardous waste
sites.
The Company's exposure to A&E claims arose out of liabilities
acquired when the Company bought Westchester Specialty in 1998
and CIGNA's P&C business in 1999.
In 1996, before the Company's acquisition of CIGNA's P&C
business, the Pa. Insurance Commissioner approved a plan to
restructure INA Financial Corp. and its subsidiaries, which
included the division of Insurance Co. of North America into two
separate corporations:
(1) An active insurance company that retained the INA name and
continued to write P&C business; and
(2) An inactive run-off company now called Century Indemnity Co.
As a result of the division, all A&E and certain other
liabilities of INA were allocated to Century and extinguished as
INAs.
As part of the Restructuring, the A&E liabilities of various
U.S. affiliates of INA were reinsured to Century, and Century
and certain other run-off companies having A&E and other
liabilities were contributed to Brandywine Holdings Corp. As
part of the 1999 acquisition of CIGNA's P&C business, the
Company acquired Brandywine Holdings and its various units.
Based in Hamilton, Bermuda, ACE Ltd., through its subsidiaries,
sells property and casualty insurance and reinsurance in the
U.S. and about 50 other countries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Constellation Energy Posts 517 Suits v. BGE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group Inc. recorded about 517 non-employee
individuals who have pending asbestos-related claims against its
subsidiary, Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., according to the
Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ending
June 30, 2006 and filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The 517 individuals each sought several million dollars in
compensatory and punitive damages.
The Company recorded about 519 non-employee claims against
Baltimore Gas. (Class Action Reporter, May 26, 2006)
Since 1993, BGE has been involved in several asbestos-related
actions, which are based upon the theory of "premises
liability." The claims alleged that BGE knew of and exposed
individuals to an asbestos hazard.
BGE and other parties defend in these cases. Cross-claims and
third-party claims brought by other defendants may also be filed
against BGE in these actions.
To date, most asbestos claims against the Company have been
dismissed or resolved without any payment and a minority has
been resolved for immaterial amounts.
The remaining claims are currently pending in state courts in
Maryland and Pennsylvania.
Based in Baltimore, Maryland, Constellation Energy Group Inc.,
through Baltimore Gas, delivers electricity and natural gas in
central Maryland.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Inc. Continues to Deal With Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc., which was known as Tenneco Automotive Inc.,
continues to deal with lawsuits brought by claimants alleging
health problems as a result of asbestos exposure.
Many of these cases involve significant numbers of individual
claimants. However, a small percentage of these claimants
alleged that they were automobile mechanics exposed to the
Company's former muffler products.
A significant number appear to involve workers in other
industries or otherwise do not include sufficient information to
determine whether there is any basis for a claim against the
Company.
The Company said that it is unlikely that mechanics were exposed
to asbestos by its former muffler products and that they would
not be at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on
their work with these products.
Further, many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with
the number of each in some cases exceeding 200 defendants from
various industries. The plaintiffs either do not specify any, or
specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for damages.
To date, the Company regularly achieved favorable resolution in
the form of a dismissal of the claim or a judgment in its favor.
Based in Lake Forest, Illinois, Tenneco Inc. makes Walker
exhaust systems and Monroe ride-control equipment for vehicle
manufacturers and the replacement market. The Company's product
line also includes vibration-control systems, catalytic
converters, and various exhaust system accessories.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Named in 65,656 Suits as of Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. has been a defendant in 65,656 asbestos-related
lawsuits, as of the Company's April 2, 2001 filing date for
Chapter 11 protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
Grace is a defendant in property damage and personal injury
lawsuits relating to previously-sold asbestos-containing
products.
Seventeen suits involved property damage claims, one of which
has been dismissed, and the rest involved 129,191 personal
injury claims.
Due to the filing, holders of asbestos-related claims are stayed
from continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from
commencing new suits against the Debtors.
Separate creditors' committees representing the interests of
property damage and personal injury claimants, and a legal
representative of future personal injury claimants, have been
appointed in the Chapter 11 Cases.
Grace's obligations with respect to present and future claims
will be determined through the Chapter 11 process.
Based in Columbia, Maryland, W.R. Grace & Co. has restructured
from six product groups into two major units. Grace's Davison
Chemicals unit makes silica-based products, chemical catalysts,
and refining catalysts that help produce refined products from
crude oil. Its Performance Chemicals unit makes concrete and
cement additives, packaging sealants, and fireproofing
chemicals.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Deals With 850 Property Damage Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. had about 850 outstanding property damage
claims as of July 31, 2006, following reclassification,
withdrawal, or expungement of claims.
As of March 31, 2006, Grace had about 890 outstanding asbestos-
related property damage claims, following reclassification,
withdrawal or expungement of claims. (Class Action Reporter,
June 9, 2006)
Plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits sought to have
the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or
repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the affected
buildings.
Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases filed before the April
2, 2001 bankruptcy filing date, 140 were dismissed without
payment of any damages or settlement amounts, judgments were
entered in favor of Grace in nine cases, excluding cases settled
following appeals of judgments in favor of Grace.
Judgments were entered in favor of the plaintiffs in eight cases
for a total of US$86.1 million, 207 property damage cases were
settled for a total of US$696.8 million, and 16 cases remain
outstanding. Of the 16 remaining cases, eight relate to ZAI and
eight relate to a number of former asbestos-containing products.
About 4,300 more property damage claims were filed before the
March 31, 2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy
Court. About 200 claims did not contain sufficient information
to permit an evaluation.
Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action
suits in 2000 and 2001. Moreover, eight suits were filed as
purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons
and homes in Canada. As a result of the filing, the eight U.S.
cases have been transferred to the Bankruptcy Court.
In July 2002, the Bankruptcy Court approved special counsel to
represent the ZAI claimants in a proceeding to determine certain
threshold scientific issues regarding ZAI.
On Oct. 18, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court heard motions filed by
the parties to address a number of important legal and factual
issues regarding the ZAI claims. No decision has been rendered.
Based in Columbia, Maryland, W.R. Grace & Co. has restructured
from six product groups into two major units. Grace's Davison
Chemicals unit makes silica-based products, chemical catalysts,
and refining catalysts that help produce refined products from
crude oil. Its Performance Chemicals unit makes concrete and
cement additives, packaging sealants, and fireproofing
chemicals.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Continues to Face Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. continues to contend with asbestos personal
injury claimants who alleged adverse health effects from
exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly made by the
Company.
As of the April 2, 2001 bankruptcy filing date, 129,191 claims
for personal injury were pending against Grace.
Cumulatively through the filing date, 16,354 asbestos personal
injury suits with about 35,720 claims were dismissed without
payment. About 55,489 suits involving about 163,698 claims were
disposed of for a total of US$645.6 million.
Based in Columbia, Maryland, W.R. Grace & Co. has restructured
from six product groups into two major units. Grace's Davison
Chemicals unit makes silica-based products, chemical catalysts,
and refining catalysts that help produce refined products from
crude oil. Its Performance Chemicals unit makes concrete and
cement additives, packaging sealants, and fireproofing
chemicals.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Provides $959M Excess Coverage in 2Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. had about US$959 million asbestos-related
excess coverage for more than 54 presently solvent insurers as
of June 30, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report,
on Form 10-Q, for the period ended June 30, 2006 and filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
In addition to the about US$959 million of excess coverage with
solvent insurers, Grace has about US$318 million of excess
coverage with insolvent or non-paying insurance carriers.
As of March 31, 2006, Grace had about US$960 million asbestos-
related excess coverage for more than 56 solvent insurers.
(Class Action Reporter, June 9, 2006)
Grace purchased insurance policies that provided coverage for
the years 1962 to 1985 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits
and claims. Since 1985, insurance coverage for asbestos-related
liabilities has not been commercially available to Grace.
Grace has entered into settlement agreements with various excess
insurance carriers. These settlements involved amounts paid and
to be paid to Grace. The unpaid maximum aggregate amount for
settled insurers available under these settlement agreements is
about US$476 million.
Grace has currently no agreements in place with insurers with
respect to about US$483 million of excess coverage but certain
layers would be triggered if Grace's Plan of Reorganization were
approved at the recorded asbestos-related liability of US$1.7
billion.
Based in Columbia, Maryland, W.R. Grace & Co. has restructured
from six product groups into two major units. Grace's Davison
Chemicals unit makes silica-based products, chemical catalysts,
and refining catalysts that help produce refined products from
crude oil. Its Performance Chemicals unit makes concrete and
cement additives, packaging sealants, and fireproofing
chemicals.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Assesses $255.4M for Cleanup in 2Q
-------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for vermiculite-
related remediation, including the cost of remediation of
vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby, Mont., was
US$255.4 million at June 30, 2006 and US$226.2 million at Dec.
31, 2005.
The June 30, 2006 estimate included US$118.0 million for
asserted reimbursable costs covering 2002 through 2005, an
increase of US$28.0 million over Grace's estimate for the same
period at Dec. 31, 2005.
In November 1999, Region 8 of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency investigated alleged excessive levels of asbestos-related
disease in the Libby population related to Grace's former mining
activities in Libby. This investigation led the U.S. EPA to
undertake more investigative activity and to carry out response
actions in and around Libby.
On March 30, 2001, the U.S. EPA sued Grace and other defendants
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Missoula
Division. The suit was filed under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act for the
recovery of costs allegedly incurred by the U.S. in response to
the release or threatened release of asbestos in the Libby area
relating to former mining activities.
These costs included cleaning and demolition of contaminated
buildings, excavation and removal of contaminated soil, health
screening of Libby residents and former mine workers, and
investigation and monitoring costs. The U.S. EPA also sought a
declaration of Grace's liability that would be binding in future
actions to recover further response costs.
In December 2002, the District Court granted the United Staets'
motion for partial summary judgment on a number of issues that
limited Grace's ability to challenge the U.S. EPA's response
actions.
In January 2003, a trial was held on the remainder of the
issues, which primarily involved the reasonableness and adequacy
of documentation of the EPA's cost recovery claims through Dec.
31, 2001.
On Aug. 28, 2003, the District Court issued a ruling in favor of
the United States that required Grace to reimburse the
Government for US$54.5 million, plus interest, in costs expended
through December 2001, and for all appropriate future costs to
complete the remediation activities.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's
rulings and Grace has appealed this case to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Based in Columbia, Maryland, W.R. Grace & Co. has restructured
from six product groups into two major units. Grace's Davison
Chemicals unit makes silica-based products, chemical catalysts,
and refining catalysts that help produce refined products from
crude oil. Its Performance Chemicals unit makes concrete and
cement additives, packaging sealants, and fireproofing
chemicals.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zapata's Predecessor Units Face 14 Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two of Zapata Corporation's predecessor subsidiaries continue to
face 14 asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of
Jones and Smith Counties in Mississippi.
Filed in 2004, these 14 suits included about 583 individual
plaintiffs, all alleging that they had suffered illnesses from
exposure to asbestos. Plaintiffs have sought damages in these
suits.
The suits asserted claims of unseaworthiness, negligence, and
strict liability, based upon the status of the Company's
predecessors as Jones Act employers. These cases include
numerous defendants that are all alleged to have been the Jones
Act employers of these plaintiffs and made, distributed or used
asbestos-containing products.
Since these suits involved multiple plaintiffs suing multiple
defendants, the plaintiffs were ordered to prepare data sheets
specifying the firms they were employed by and the asbestos-
containing products to which they were allegedly exposed.
Through this process, about 31 plaintiffs have identified the
Company and its predecessor subsidiaries as their employer.
Once the data sheet process is complete, the Company expects
that it will be dismissed from any case where it is not
identified as the employer.
Minimal medical information regarding the alleged asbestos-
related disease suffered by the plaintiffs has been provided.
The Company and predecessor subsidiaries maintained insurance
which the Company said would be available to respond to most of
these claims.
COMPANY PROFILE
Zapata Corporation
100 Meridian Centre, Ste. 350
Rochester, New York 14618
Phone: 585-242-2000
Fax: 585-242-8677
http://www.zapatacorp.com
Fiscal Year-End: December
2005 Sales (mil.): US$109.9
1-Year Sales Growth: (70.1%)
2005 Net Income (mil.): (US$9.2)
2005 Employees: 7
1-Year Employee Growth: (99.8%)
Description:
Co-founded by former U.S. President George H. W. Bush as an oil
and gas company in 1953, Zapata Corp. sold its energy businesses
in the 1990s and became a producer of marine protein through its
majority holdings in Omega Protein.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Has $66M Liability in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Generation LLC had recorded a US$66 million liability
for asbestos-related matters at June 30, 2006, according to the
Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ending
June 30, 2006 and filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
At June 30, 2006, there were about 175 cases for which Midwest
Generation was potentially liable and that had not been settled
and dismissed.
On Feb. 20, 2003, Midwest Generation, Commonwealth Edison Co.,
and Exelon Generation Co. LLC agreed to resolve a dispute
regarding Midwest Generation's interpretation of its
reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under the
environmental indemnities set forth in the Asset Sale Agreement.
Midwest Generation agreed to reimburse Commonwealth Edison and
Exelon Generation for 50 percent of specific existing asbestos
claims and expenses less recovery of insurance costs. The
parties agreed to a sharing arrangement for liabilities and
expenses associated with future asbestos-related claims as
specified in the agreement.
Commonwealth Edison and Midwest Generation divided liability for
future asbestos-related claims based upon the number of exposure
sites that are Commonwealth Edison sites or Midwest Generation
sites.
The supplemental agreement has a five-year term with an
automatic renewal provision. Payments are made under this
indemnity upon tender by Commonwealth Edison of appropriate
proof of liability for an asbestos-related settlement, judgment,
verdict, or expense.
Based in Chicago, Illinois, Midwest Generation LLC is an
independent power producer with a generating capacity of more
than 5,620 MW from its six coal-fired power plants in Illinois.
Midwest Generation is a subsidiary of Edison International's
merchant energy business, Edison Mission Energy.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Inc. Receives 3,886 Claims in 2Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,
received about 3,886 asbestos-related claims during the six
months ended June 30, 2006, compared with 9,110 claims during
the same period in 2005.
Metropolitan Life faces lawsuits seeking compensatory and
punitive damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. These
suits have been based upon allegations relating to certain
research, publication and other activities of one or more of
Metropolitan Life's employees from the 1920s through about the
1950s.
The suits have alleged that Metropolitan Life learned or should
have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and
improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.
Since 2002, trial courts in California, Utah, Georgia, New York,
Texas, and Ohio dismissed claims against Metropolitan Life.
Other courts have denied motions brought by Metropolitan Life to
dismiss cases without the necessity of trial.
In 1998, Metropolitan Life paid US$878 million in premiums for
excess insurance policies for asbestos-related claims, which
provided for recovery of losses up to US$1.5 billion, which is
in excess of a US$400 million self-insured retention.
Portions of the change in the insurance recoverable would be
recorded as a deferred gain and amortized into income over the
estimated remaining settlement period of the insurance policies.
The foregone loss reimbursements were about US$8.3 million for
2002 claims, US$15.5 million for 2003 claims, US$15.1 million
for 2004 claims, US$12.7 million for 2005 claims and estimated
as of June 30, 2006, to be about US$91.8 million in the
aggregate, including future years.
Based in New York City, MetLife Inc.'s Institutional segment
offers group benefits products like insurance, retirement
products, and prepaid legal plans. Its Individual segment offers
consumers many of the same types of products and its
International segment offers the same to groups and individuals
in the Asia-Pacific region, Europe, and Latin America.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Faces Personal Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver Inc. has been named as a defendant in an
increasing number of asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits,
in which the plaintiffs alleged exposure to multiple sources.
The Company typically is one of about 25 or more named
defendants. In the Company's experience, most of the plaintiffs
are not impaired with a disease for which it has any liability.
The Company's predecessors sometimes made, distributed and sold
products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos litigation
suits. However, neither the Company nor its predecessors ever
mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos
fiber.
Moreover, the asbestos-containing components used in the
products were enclosed within the subject products.
The Company has entered into a series of cost-sharing agreements
with insurance companies to secure coverage for asbestos suits.
The Company said that some of the potential liabilities
regarding these suits are covered by indemnity agreements with
other parties.
Based in Quincy, Illinois, Gardner Denver Inc. sells Joy-brand
compressors, as well as reciprocating, rotary screw, and sliding
vane compressors and positive displacement and centrifugal
blowers.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leap Encounters No Renewed Cases Since 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------
None of the asbestos-related cases against subsidiaries of Leap
Technology Inc. have been reinstated since May 1, 1996,
according to the Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-QSB, for
the period ended June 30, 2006 and filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Before Aug. 14, 1996, certain Company subsidiaries, which were
previously engaged in offshore supply businesses and are now
inactive, and other ship-owning firms, were sued in 1996 for
asbestos-related allegations.
The allegations were part of an industry wide series of similar
claims based on the alleged exposure of 64 former seamen to
maritime asbestos and other toxic substances while working on
vessels that the firms operated.
On May 1, 1996, the claims against the Company's units and the
other defendants were dismissed subject to reinstatement against
one or more specific defendants upon evidence that: a plaintiff
suffers from an asbestos-related disease and the plaintiff was
exposed to asbestos containing products on the vessels operated
by the defendants.
Based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Leap Technology Inc.,
formerly known as Seal Holdings Corp., is a holding company that
was formerly focused on the acquisition of, and strategic
investments in, companies providing services in health care and
life sciences.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Century Indemnity to Pay $17M to CGM Trust
---------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corporation said Century Indemnity Co. would pay
US$16.95 million to a trust established for asbestos-related
claims after the Company signed a settlement agreement, Reuters
reports.
The Company said the payment would be subject to various
requirements. A motion for bankruptcy court approval of this
settlement was pending.
The Mercerville, N.J.-based Company filed a voluntary petition
seeking relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to
resolve claims asserted against it related to the use of
asbestos in its products several years ago.
The Company has so far reached more than US$207 million in
insurance settlements, and negotiations are pending with other
exxess insurance carriers.
Based in Mercerville, N.J., Congoleum Corp.'s products include
plank flooring, resilient sheet flooring, do-it-yourself vinyl
tile, and laminate and commercial flooring. Congoleum markets
through a network of about 15 distributors in roughly 86
locations in North America. American Biltrite owns about 55
percent of Congoleum.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan College to Create Center for Diseases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Japan's Hyogo College of Medicine in Nishinomiya, Hyogo
Prefecture, will organize Japan's first medical center
specializing in asbestos-related mesothelioma, The Yomiuri
Shimbun reports.
The College has treated people who lived near the former Kubota
Corporation factory in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture. Kubota, a
machinery manufacturer, will subsidize part of the proposed
center's research expenses.
At the center, 55-year-old Prof. Koji Nakano, a specialist in
respiratory tract diseases, and four other doctors would provide
consultations and treatment. Moreover, the proposed center will
try to develop new medicines for the disease in cooperation with
pharmaceutical companies.
According to a Hyogo College of Medicine spokesman, about 1,000
deaths were linked to mesothelioma in 2004. However, the number
is expected to exceed 2,000 around 2014 and continue to increase
until around 2030.
The proposed center will study the mechanism of mesothelioma's
development and try to develop preventive measures and remedies.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong Holdings to Consider Dissolution
----------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong Holdings Inc., the corporate parent of Armstrong World
Industries Inc., said it might dissolve after Armstrong World is
expected to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the
2006-4th quarter.
Armstrong Holdings would examine a possible dissolution after it
reviews the tax implications of Armstrong World's expected
bankruptcy exit and after the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware
reviews its claims over inter-company accounts.
Armstrong Holdings said it expects to receive no more than a
"few million dollars" in cash and stock on these claims. The
Company would receive nothing for its stake in Armstrong World
under the latter's reorganization plan.
Armstrong World filed for protection from creditors in December
2000 after being crushed by claims related to floor tiles with
asbestos.
On Aug. 14, 2006, U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno cleared
the way for Armstrong World to emerge from Chapter 11.
Judge Robreno rejected complaints by unsecured creditors that
the recovery plan discriminated against them by allowing people
with asbestos injuries to recover too much.
Based in Lancaster, Pa., Armstrong Holdings Inc. is the holding
firm for Armstrong World Industries and its Armstrong Floor
Products unit. AWI makes flooring products, acoustical ceilings,
and suspended-ceiling systems for finishing and refurbishing
commercial, industrial, and residential structures.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Corp. Insurers File Ch. 11 Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Casualty Co., Continental Insurance Co. and the
official committee of bondholders in Congoleum Corporation's
bankruptcy filed a rival Ch. 11 Plan of Reorganization in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, The
Associated Press reports.
On Aug. 15, 2006, the Company filed its version of a Ch. 11
Plan, and said that the Company and its asbestos creditors were
aligned in support of the Plan.
A U.S. Bankruptcy judge would review the competing Ch. 11
proposals at a Sept. 21, 2006 hearing in the case, which began
in December 2003.
The Ch. 11 plan that Continental Casualty, Continental Insurance
and the bondholders proposed would fund an asbestos trust with
800,000 shares of new common stock in a reorganized Congoleum
and proceeds of the asbestos insurance litigation.
Congoleum has reached settlements with insurance firms over
coverage that it proposes to contribute to a trust to cover the
asbestos liabilities that threatened to swamp it. At the time of
the bankruptcy filing, Congoleum estimated that about US$900
million in insurance coverage was available to it.
Insurers claim improper dealings smear a settlement that was
supposed to clear up about US$494 million worth of asbestos
claims.
Based in Mercerville, New Jersey, Congoleum Corp.'s products
include plank flooring, resilient sheet flooring, do-it-yourself
vinyl tile, and laminate and commercial flooring. Congoleum
markets through a network of about 15 distributors in roughly 86
locations in North America. American Biltrite owns about 55
percent of Congoleum.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Couple Accuses 8 Defendants in W.Va. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edward and Darlene Thomas, a W.Va. couple, sued 8 companies in
an asbestos-related lawsuit filed on Aug. 8, 2006 in Kanawha
Circuit Court, The West Virginia Record reports.
The eight defendants are: CSX Transportation Inc., A.W.
Chesterton Co. of Mass., Garlock Inc. of New York, Industrial
Holdings LLC of New York, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. of New
York, Owens-Illinois Inc. of Ohio, Rapid American Corp. of Del.,
and Vimasco Corp. in Nitro.
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas sued companies that made asbestos products,
which Mr. Thomas was exposed to during his 40 years as a
forklift operator and storeroom clerk.
Mr. Thomas said he was exposed to asbestos from 1948-1987. Mrs.
Thomas is suing for loss of consortium.
CSX, the predecessor-in-interest to the Chesapeake and Ohio
Railway Co., which employed Mr. Thomas, uncovered fraud in an
asbestos case against it.
Case No. 06-C-1573 will be assigned to a visiting judge.
Cindy Kiblinger of James Humphreys and Associates represents Mr.
& Mrs. Thomas.
New Securities Fraud Cases
IMAX CORP: Schatz & Nobel Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. announces that a lawsuit
seeking class-action status has been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of IMAX Corp. between Feb. 17, 2006 and Aug. 9, 2006.
The Complaint alleges that IMAX and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false statements.
Specifically, in February and March 2006, IMAX issued a series
of press releases describing its financial successes as well as
its intention to explore strategic alternatives.
On Aug. 9, 2006, IMAX announced that it was being investigated
by the SEC with respect to its accounting, in particular,
revenue recognition issues. On this news, shares fell over 40%
from $9.63 per share to $5.73 per share.
Interested parties may move the court no later than Oct. 10,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.
For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel, Phone: (800) 797-5499,
E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.
PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announced that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Parlux Fragrances, Inc.
between Feb. 8, 2006 and Aug. 10, 2006.
The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against defendant Parlux, its Chief
Executive Officer Ilia Lekach and its Chief Financial Officer
Frank Buttacavoli. The action charges that defendants violated
federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class
Period, which statements had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the company's securities. No
class has yet been certified in the above action.
Interested parties may move the court no later than Oct. 16,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.
For more details, contact Brower Piven at The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@browerpiven.com.
ZORAN CORP: Stull, Stull Announces Calif. Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of shareholders who
received any or all of Zoran Corp.'s Definitive Proxy Statements
dated April 30, 1999 through May 1, 2006.
The complaint charges that Zoran and certain of its directors
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.
More specifically, the action alleges that between July 1998 and
September 2001 certain Zoran senior executives were granted
unlawfully backdated stock options at the direct expense of
Zoran shareholders and in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles and the Internal Revenue Code.
Defendants grant of those backdated stock options, and their
subsequent solicitation of proxies, consent and authorization
from Zoran shareholders, violated the Exchange Act.
For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com, Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.
*********
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.
Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *