/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/061117.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, November 17, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 229
Headlines
AMERICAN HONDA: Tex. Court Okays Settlement in Odometer Suits
BEST BUY: Customers Mull Suit Over Cancelled PS3 Pre-Orders
BOSTON MARKET: Settles Calif. Wage, Hour Lawsuits for $3.75M
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces 842 Lawsuits Over Heart-Rhythm Devices
CITGO PETROLEUM: Named in Suit Over Energy Price-Fixing in U.S.
COPART INC: Plaintiff's Summary Motion in Mass. Lawsuit Denied
COPART INC: Faces Suit Alleging Calif. Consumer Law Violation
COPART INC: Faces Suit Over Alleged Antitrust Violation in La.
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Calif. Court Junks Consolidated Stock Suit
ELLER & SONS: Ga. Court Certifies Class in Labor Violations Suit
GEMSTAR-TV: Distribution of Securities Suit Settlement Approved
HALLIBURTON CO: Motion to Junk Remaining Tex. Stock Claims Filed
HALLIBURTON CO: Plaintiffs Appeal Iraq Overtime Claims Dismissal
HIGHMARK BLUE: Settles Penn. Suit Over Claims Rejection Notice
IMMUNE RESPONSE: Agrees to Settle Calif. Stock Suit for $9.6M
INPHONIC INC: Tex. Resident Files Suit Over "Wireless Spam" Ads
INTERVEST BANCSHARES: Settles Del. Suit Over Chairman's Warrants
INTRALASE CORP: Still Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Unsolicited Faxes
KEYSPAN CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Merger Suit Settlement Approval
KEYSPAN CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Bay Shore Gas Plant Lawsuit
KOHLBERG KRAVIS: Private-Equity Firms Face N.Y. Investors Suit
MASSACHUSETTS: Firefighter Hiring Plan Proposed Under Bias Suit
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: N.Y. Natural Gas Commodity Suit Dismissed
MURPHY OIL: Liaison Committee Named in $330M Oil Spill Suit Deal
NEW JERSEY: Borough Reaches $278T Deal in Day Laborers' Suit
NORTHERN MARIANA: Settlement Report in CNMI Suit Due Feb. 2007
OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Mulls Dismissal of N.Y. Stock Suit
PIER FISH: Settles Immigrant Workers Overtime Suit for $108T
SANTEE COOPER: S.C. Court Denies Class Status to Pipe Leak Suit
SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: N.J. Court Rejects Amended Stock Claims
SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Settles Calif. Overtime Wage Lawsuit for $27.5M
SOUTH DAKOTA: Sioux Falls Local Sues City Over Red Light Cameras
ST PAUL: Minn. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
ST PAUL: Antitrust Suit Plaintiffs Allowed to Replead Claims
ST PAUL: Plaintiffs in "Bensley" Dismiss Antitrust Complaints
UNION PACIFIC: Circuit Court Hears Appeal in Birth Control Case
Asbestos Alert
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Contend With ASARCO Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GlobalSantaFe, Subsidiaries Deal With Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GSF Unit Has Insurance Suit in Calif. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PepsiAmericas Dismissed in Cooper Ind. Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Has Liability of $65.5M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Uses $23.3M for Claims in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. Mine Safety Decrease to 250 in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden CDT Inc. Cleared in About 179 Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Faces Suit in Miss. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Harsco Corp. Drop to 26,465 in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Ind., Unit Face 6,911 Suits in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Energy's W.Va. Suits Drop to 815
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Prudential Takes Appeal to Bar Grace Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Has 115 Pending Lawsuits in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. CBS Corp. Drop to 81,300 in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NRG Energy Claims Decrease to 3,386 in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Pepco Holdings Steady at 220 in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. MeadWestvaco Remain at 350 in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Has 500 Cases With 10.7T Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint, Units Still Face Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Skanska to Pay $750T for Disposal Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Payout Deadline Extended to Nov. 22
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. 11 Defendants Filed in W.Va. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEQ Imposes $5T Penalty for Faulty Handling
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Georgia-Pacific Workers to Take Case to WCC
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock's Gaskets Not Linked to Illness
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Asbestos Provision Rises to AUD55.9M
New Securities Fraud Cases
BODISEN BIOTECH: The Rosen Law Firm Files N.Y. Securities Suit
IKANOS COMMS: Wechsler Harwood Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
WARNER CHILCOTT: Brower Piven Announces N.Y. Stock Suit Filing
*********
AMERICAN HONDA: Tex. Court Okays Settlement in Odometer Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas gave
preliminary approval to the settlement of two consolidated class
actions against American Honda Motor Co. Inc., Honda Motor Co.,
the Nippon Seiki Co. and New Sabina Industries Inc. over faulty
odometers, according to Mary Alice Robbins of The Texas Lawyer.
The suits, which allege that odometers on Honda vehicles
inflated the number of miles actually driven, are:
-- "Karen Vaughn, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc.,
et al.," and
-- "Sharon McQuiston, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co.
Inc., et al."
"Vaughn" was filed on April 13, 2004. Odometer designers Nippon
Seiki and New Sabina were added as defendants in the case in
October 2005. As alleged in the first amended complaint in
"Vaughn," odometer defects in Honda Odysseys results to
overstatement of mileage.
"McQuiston" was filed on June 23, 2006. It alleges odometer
defects in all other Honda and Acura vehicles purchased or
leased between April 13, 2002, and Nov. 7.
Plaintiffs alleged in their complaints that the odometers on
approximately 6 million Honda and Acura vehicles misstated the
actual miles driven by between 2 percent and 4 percent.
They alleged that the odometer defects deprived car owners of
the full benefit of the warranties on their vehicles and caused
consumers who leased Honda vehicles to pay for excessive
mileage.
In general, the complaints in both class actions alleged that
the defendants violated the federal prohibition against odometer
tampering, as set forth in Rule 42 of the U.S. Civil Code
Sections 32703(1)-(2) and 32710.
District Judge John Ward granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on Nov. 7, 2006. The agreement is expected to
benefit up to 6 million consumers. Lawyers for the class could
receive up to $9.5 million in fees.
The settlement covers persons who bought or leased Honda or
Acura vehicles in the U.S., Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin
Islands between April 13, 2002, and Nov. 7.
Under the agreement, consumers who incurred out-of-pocket
expenses as a result of the odometer defects -- either because
they had to pay for repairs that should have been covered by
warranties or were charged for excessive mileage on leased
vehicles -- can apply for reimbursement.
While acknowledging no wrongdoing in the settlement agreement,
company said in a press statement that in the interest of
customer satisfaction, it has voluntarily agreed to expand by 5
percent its mileage-based agreements.
The expanded agreements will now include warranties, lease
mileage-based limitations and extended vehicle service contracts
for certain 2002 through 2006 Honda and Acura vehicles and some
of the 2007 Honda Fit models, according to the statement.
For more details, contact:
(1) [Vaughn] Jay Kutchka of Jones Jackson & Moll, PLC, P.O.
Box 2023, Fort Smith, AR 72902, Phone: 479/782-7203,
Fax: 479/782-9460, E-mail: jkutchka@jjmlaw.com;
(2) [McQuiston] James Andrew Holmes of Wellborn Houston
Adkison Mann Sadler & Hill, P.O. Box 1109, Henderson,
TX 75653-1109, Phone: 903/657-8544, Fax: 903/657-7227,
E-mail: jh@wellbornhouston.com; and
(3) [American Honda] Sidney Calvin Capshaw, III of Brown
McCarroll, Longview, 1127 Judson Rd., Ste. 220, P.O.
Box 3999, Longview, TX 75606-3999, Phone: 903/236-9800,
Fax: 19032368787, E-mail: ccapshaw@mailbmc.com.
BEST BUY: Customers Mull Suit Over Cancelled PS3 Pre-Orders
-----------------------------------------------------------
Some customers of Best Buy Co., Inc. are considering filing a
class action against the specialty retailer over cancelled pre-
orders of Sony Corp.'s PlayStation 3 (PS3), according to 5
Eyewitness News.
To avoid waiting in long lines when it came out, some people
paid for a PlayStation 3 on Best Buy's Web site in advance. It
all started Nov. 4, when a pre-order sale for Playstation 3 hit
the Best Buy Web site.
Within two hours, thousands of people bought into it. However,
days later, customers got an e-mail message from Best Buy saying
their pre-order will be cancelled.
The Better Business Bureau received 108 complaints in one day.
Best Buy admits it made a mistake, an errant posting on its Web
site for about two hours, which resulted in allowing pre-orders.
The company is giving customers who signed up for the preorder a
$10 dollar coupon. Anyone with continuing troubles with their
credit card because of the preorder cancellation can call 888-
Best-Buy for help.
BOSTON MARKET: Settles Calif. Wage, Hour Lawsuits for $3.75M
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Barry T. Moskowitz in San Diego has
approved a $3.75 million settlement of labor class actions filed
against the Boston Market restaurant chain, the Union-Tribune
reports.
The settlement covers more than 6,400 current and former
employees in two lawsuits filed in 2005. The suits are filed
by:
-- Jackly Rippee, who worked in Boston Market restaurants
in El Cajon, Vista and Camarillo, who sought to
represent the company's hourly employees in California;
and
-- Geraldine Barile, a former general manager of
restaurants in El Cajon and Vista, who sought to
represent the company's restaurant managers in
California.
The first suit alleges that 6,315 cooks, food prep workers,
cleaning staff and counter workers at Boston Market restaurants
often worked through meal and rest periods, did off-the-clock
work, but were not paid overtime.
The second suit claims that 122 general managers were
incorrectly classified as exempt from overtime pay.
Hourly workers could receive up to $2,800 under the settlement.
Individual general managers could receive up to $6,680 in back
pay. As part of the agreement, their jobs will be reclassified
to nonexempt status on Dec. 31, making them eligible for
overtime.
The company continues to deny wrongdoing, but it agreed to
change its time-keeping and payrolls systems so that when hourly
employees do not get meal breaks, employees will automatically
be paid for an hour of pay on their next paycheck.
Plaintiffs' attorney Raul Cadena said the restaurant chain will
conduct training sessions in English and Spanish to inform
employees of their rights to breaks.
Boston Market, based in Golden, Colorado, operates 116 of its
640 restaurants in California.
The suit is "Barile, et al. v. Boston Market Corp., et al., Case
No. 3:05-cv-01360-BTM-JMA" filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California under Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz
with referral to Judge Jan M. Adler.
Representing the plaintiffs is Raul Cadena, Cadena Churchill
1202 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 4100, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
(619)234-3776, Fax: (619)234-3641, E-mail:
rcadena@ccattorneys.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(1) Michael J. Gray Jones Day, 77 West Wacker Drive, 35
Floor, Chicago, IL 60601-1676, Phone: (312)269-4096;
and
(2) Mark D. Kemple, Jones Day, 3 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
Irvine, CA 92614-6232, Phone: (949)851-3939, Fax:
(949)553-7539.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces 842 Lawsuits Over Heart-Rhythm Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corp. is a defendant in about 842 lawsuits as
of the third quarter, in relation to defects in heart-rhythm
devices manufactured by Guidant Corp., a company it acquired
this year, The Boston.com Business reports.
The company disclosed in documents filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that it is facing a total of
74 class actions and 768 individual actions.
Most cases were filed in federal court, and federal cases have
been consolidated under "multi-district litigation" rules and
moved to a U.S. District Court in Minnesota. The first federal
trial is scheduled to begin on March 15, 2007 (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 22, 2006).
Since 2005, Guidant Corp. was already facing hundreds of
lawsuits related to recalled implantable defibrillator devices
that have been linked to multiple deaths. Boston Scientific
acquired Guidant for about $27 billion in April 2006.
Boston Scientific reiterated in the filing that most claimants
are suing for medical monitoring and anxiety, not physical
injury.
The company has not publicly confirmed settling any cases, but
it did note the change of course for two cases in Texas that
were reportedly settled recently, and had been the first
product-liability cases scheduled for trial.
According to the SEC filing, pursuant to an agreement between
the parties, the cases to be tried in Texas state court in
September 2006 are no longer set for trial.
Boston Scientific on the Net: http://www.bostonscientific.com/.
CITGO PETROLEUM: Named in Suit Over Energy Price-Fixing in U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Venezuela's Citgo Petroleum is named defendant in a lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas over allegations that it helped the Organization of the
Petroleum Exporting Countries fix energy prices in the U.S.,
CNNMoney.com reports.
Named plaintiffs in the suit are:
-- Abston Petroleum, Inc.;
-- Major Oil Co, Inc.;
-- Spectrum Stores, Inc.; and
-- WC Rice Oil Co, Inc.
According to plaintiffs' lawyers, the suit claims Citgo
"provided unlawful assistance to OPEC, and has implemented
Venezuela's and OPEC's price-fixing scheme in the U.S."
"The complaint alleges that Citgo has agreed with OPEC to
provide the cartel, directly and through member nation
Venezuela, with technical services and with information that
greatly assist OPEC in its effort to fix the price of oil at
anti-competitive levels," the lawyers added.
The lawsuit argues a current Citgo director, Bernard Mommer, and
former director Luis Vierma helped develop strategies for OPEC
while sitting on the company's board.
Plaintiffs seek to vindicate the interests of a class of persons
and business entities in the U.S. who have directly purchased
oil-based products, including gasoline, lubricants, motor oil,
and asphalt from CITGO within the last four years.
The purpose of the suit is to recover damages for the plaintiffs
and the class in the amount, trebled, of the overcharge
collected by defendant and its co-conspirators as a result of
OPEC's artificial price restraints, and to enjoin defendant from
facilitation, assisting, pr implementing such anticompetitive
conduct in the future.
Plaintiffs demand:
-- that this case be certified as a nationwide class action
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure;
-- that CITGO's unlawful combination and conspiracy alleged
herein be adjudged and decreed to be an unreasonable
restraint of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1
of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1) and Section 4
of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Section 15);
-- that plaintiffs and class members recover actual damages
incurred as a result of the illegal OPEC price-fixing
cartel, as provided by law, in an amount to be
determined at trial;
-- that plaintiffs and class members recover ascertainable
future damages that will be incurred as a result of the
illegal OPEC price-fixing cartel, as provided by law, in
an amount to be determined at trial;
-- that plaintiffs and class members recover punitive
damages, as provided by law, in an amount to be
determined at trial;
-- that CITGO be required to disgorge all unlawful profits
earned by the OPEC price-fixing cartel;
-- that the court, pursuant to SEction 4 of the Clayton
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 15(a), award plaintiffs and the
class members threefold the damages sustained by
plaintiffs and the class members;
-- that, pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 26, the court grant plaintiffs injunctive
relief against threatened continued violations of the
antitrust laws, as described herein, by CITGO;
-- that the plaintiffs recover their costs of this suit,
including reasonable attorney's fees as provided by law;
and
-- that plaintiffs be granted such other, further, and
different legal and equitable relief as the nature of
the case may require or as may be deemed just and
appropriate by the court.
A copy of the suit is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1532
The suit is "Spectrum Stores, Inc. et al. v. CITGO Petroleum
Corp., Case No. 4:06-cv-03569," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas under Judge Sim Lake.
Representing plaintiffs is Geoffrey L. Harrison of Susman
Godfrey LLP, 1000 Louisiana, Ste 5100, Houston, TX 77002-5096,
Phone: 713-653-7807, Fax: 713-654-3367, E-mail:
gharrison@susmangodfrey.com.
COPART INC: Plaintiff's Summary Motion in Mass. Lawsuit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Superior Court Department
denied a motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff in a
suit against Copart Inc. claming the company violated state laws
in the way it disposes vehicles.
Ciano Dessources filed a lawsuit on May 21, 2003, in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Superior Court Department against
Copart of Connecticut, Inc. and Copart Inc. Ciano filed the
suit as a purported class action on behalf of persons whose
vehicles were disposed of by the company as abandoned vehicles.
The named plaintiff contends the vehicles were disposed of
without complying with state laws. Relief sought includes class
certification, declaratory, remedial and/or injunctive relief,
including the ordering of a compliance program that will
essentially protect consumers, as well as damages, fees, and
costs.
Copart's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted on Dec. 8,
2004, dismissing the class claim element of the lawsuit. On
Aug. 9, 2006, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was
denied. A trial date has not been set, according to the
company's form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
COPART INC: Faces Suit Alleging Calif. Consumer Law Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly and Jason Green filed a suit against Copart Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento
on Aug. 7, 2006.
The suit makes allegations pursuant to a California consumer
protection statute similar to a class action for unreasonable
amounts claimed for storage liens by Copart, and related claims.
The suit seeks class certification, and payment for damages,
fees, costs and expenses. Copart filed an answer on Sept. 1,
2006 denying the claim.
COPART INC: Faces Suit Over Alleged Antitrust Violation in La.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Car Sales and Service LLC filed suit against Copart Inc.
on July 28, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana alleging antitrust violations and unfair
trade practices.
The suit is seeking class certification, damages, fees, costs
and expenses. Plaintiff is in pro per and is demanding a total
award of the now current value of 51% of Copart issued stock.
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Calif. Court Junks Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed with prejudice the consolidated class action against
DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc.
Between June 1 and Aug. 1, 2005, eight purported shareholder
class actions alleging violations of federal securities laws
were filed against the company and several of its officers and
directors.
Seven of those lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California. The eighth lawsuit,
which was originally filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, has been removed to U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California for consolidated proceedings.
After one of the actions was voluntarily dismissed, a lead
plaintiff was appointed and a consolidated class action
complaint was filed in the remaining actions.
The consolidated class action complaint asserted that the
company and certain of its officers and directors made alleged
material misstatements and omissions in certain press releases,
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings and other public
statements, including in connection with the company's initial
public offering in October 2004.
It sought to recover damages on behalf of purchasers of the
company's securities during the purported class period (Oct. 28,
2004 to July 11, 2005).
The company, along with certain of its officers and directors,
moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint, and in
April 2006, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss on
all claims.
The court dismissed the claims relating to alleged material
misstatements and omissions in connection with the company's
initial public offering with prejudice, and dismissed the
remaining claims without prejudice.
On June 12, 2006, plaintiffs voluntarily served notice
indicating that they intended to forego filing an amended
complaint on the claims that the court had dismissed without
prejudice.
On June 27, 2006, the court entered a stipulated order
dismissing the consolidated actions with prejudice, according to
the company's Oct. 31, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.
The suit is "Beverly Pfeffer v. Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03966-MRP-VBK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Mariana R. Pfaelzer with referral to Judge Victor B. Kenton.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Peter A. Binkow of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, 1801
Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com; and
(2) Nadeem Faruqi of Faruqi and Faruqi, 320 East 39th
Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-983-9330.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Francis P. Barron of Cravath Swaine and Moore, 825
Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10019, US, Phone: 212-474-
1506; and
(ii) Matthew N. Falley of Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman
Machtinger & Kinsella, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 21st
Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90067-4590, Phone: 310-553-3610.
ELLER & SONS: Ga. Court Certifies Class in Labor Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
granted class-action status to a suit filed against Eller & Sons
Trees, Inc. that accuses it of allegedly taking unlawful
advantage of migrant workers who do seasonal jobs.
The lawsuit, filed by Southern Poverty Law Center, claims that
the workers, who are in the U.S. on temporary work visas, often
make less than minimum wage, do not receive overtime pay and
work upward of 70 hours a week planting trees (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 20, 2005).
According to the suit, Eller & Sons has recruited thousands of
workers from Latin America to work in the pine forests of the
South under the government's guest worker program.
Specifically, the suit alleges violations of minimum wage and
overtime protections, and that of the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act.
It seeks to collect unpaid wages on behalf of tree planters who
earned substantially less than minimum wage, were denied
overtime pay and had to pay for their own tools, visas and
travel expenses, in violation of federal law.
Filed on June 6, 2005, the suit named as plaintiffs Escolastico
De Leon-Granados, Margarito Recinos-Villatoro, Isaias Profeta De
Leon-Granados, and Armenio Pablo-Calmo.
In September 2006, class-action status was granted to the case,
which is one of several that the SPLC has filed in its campaign
to reform the nation's flawed guest worker program, which could
be greatly expanded under various proposals in Congress.
The suit, which now involves about 6,000 workers, draws national
attention as one of several legal challenges to the H2-B visa
program, which admits 66,000 foreigners into the country each
year to do temporary manual labor.
The suit is "De Leon-Granados et al v. Eller and Sons Trees,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01473-CC," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge
Clarence Cooper.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Mary C. Bauer of Southern Poverty Law Center, P.O. Box
2087, Montgomery, AL 36102-2087, Phone: 334-956-8200,
E-mail: mbauer@splcenter.org;
(2) Tim A. Freilich of Virginia Justice Center for Farm and
Immigrant Workers, Suite 520, 6066 Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, VA 22041, Phone: 703-778-3450, E-mail:
tim@justice4all.org;
(3) Alex R. Gulotta of Legal Aid Justice Center, Suite A,
1000 Preston Avenue, Charlottesville, VA 22903, Phone:
434-977-0553, E-mail: alex@justice4all.org; and
(4) George Brian Spears of Law Office of Brian Spears, 1126
Ponce de Leon Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30306, Phone: 404-
872-7086, Fax: 404-892-1128, E-mail:
Bspears@mindspring.com.
Representing the defendant is James Larry Stine of Wimberly
Lawson Steckel Nelson & Schneider, 3400 Peachtree Road, N.E.
Suite 400, Lenox Towers, Atlanta, GA 30326-1107,Phone: 404-365-
0900, E-mail: jls@wimlaw.com.
GEMSTAR-TV: Distribution of Securities Suit Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
allowed a motion asking approval to distribute the remaining
settlement in the suit, "In re Gemstar-TV Guide International,
Inc. Securities Litigation."
In September of 2004, the court approved the company's
settlement of the consolidated actions for $67.5 million payable
in cash and stock:
* $47.5 million in cash, and
* 4,105,090 shares of common stock,
which was valued at $6.09 per share on the date the agreement
was reached, or $25 million in the aggregate.
During the third quarter of 2004, the company exercised its
option to substitute $12.8 million in cash for 2,052,545 of the
shares of common stock that were to be issued to the members of
the class and also issued 328,407 shares of the common stock.
On Sept. 29, 2006 the court granted a motion seeking court
approval for the distribution of the remaining settlement
proceeds to the class members/shareholders.
As part of the distribution, the company will issue 1,724,138
shares of common stock, and pay approximately $5.3 million to
meet a "stock trading price guarantee" which is intended to make
up the difference between the stock's average round lot trading
price over a specified period of time and the $6.09 that the
stock was trading at when the settlement agreement was entered
into.
In addition, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement,
the company is entitled to a credit of approximately $0.8
million for its settlement payment with the State of New Jersey
in the matter, "State of New Jersey v. Gemstar-TV Guide
International, Inc. et al., Case No. GC030987," filed in the
California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles.
The company expects that the distribution process will be
completed in the fourth quarter of 2006.
The suit is "In Re: Gemstar-TV Guide, Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:02-cv-02775-MRP-PLA," before Judge
Mariana R. Pfaelzer.
Lawyer for the defendant is Stanley S. Arkin of Arkin & Kaplan,
590 Madison Ave, 35th Fl, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-333-
0200, fax: 212-333-2350. Lawyer for the plaintiffs is Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego, CA), 12544 High
Bluff Drive, Suite 150, San Diego, CA, 92130, Phone:
858.793.0070, Fax: 858.793.0323, E-mail: blbg@blbglaw.com.
HALLIBURTON CO: Motion to Junk Remaining Tex. Stock Claims Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Northern District of Texas has yet to rule on a motion by
Halliburton Co. to dismiss portions of the securities suit
against the company that have been repled.
Plaintiffs may submit written discovery requests to Halliburton.
However, no party is allowed to conduct a deposition in this
case until the court rules on the Motions to Dismiss filed by
individual defendants on May 9, 2006.
Defendants in the suit are Halliburton Co., David J. Lesar,
Douglas L. Foshee, Gary V. Morris, and Robert Charles Muchmore,
Jr.
In June 2002, a class action was filed against the company in
federal court on behalf of purchasers of its common stock during
approximately May 1998 until approximately May 2002. The suit
alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection
with the accounting change and disclosures involved in the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.
In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the company overstated
its revenue from unapproved claims by recognizing amounts not
reasonably estimable or probable of collection. In the weeks
that followed, approximately 20 similar class actions were filed
against the company.
Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants Arthur
Andersen LLP, the company's independent accountants for the
period covered by the lawsuits, and several of the company's
present or former officers and directors. The class actions
were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class
action complaint was named, "Richard Moore, et al. v.
Halliburton Co., et al.," was filed and served upon the company
in April 2003.
In early May 2003, the company announced that it entered into a
written memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms upon
which the Moore class action would be settled.
In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs in the Moore class action
filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated
complaint, which was granted by the court.
In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure
claims, the second amended consolidated complaint includes
claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc. by Halliburton, including that the company
failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability
exposure (the Dresser claims).
The Dresser claims were included in the settlement discussions
leading up to the signing of the memorandum of understanding and
were among the claims the parties intended to have resolved by
the terms of the proposed settlement of the consolidated Moore
class action and the derivative action. The memorandum of
understanding called for Halliburton to pay $6 million, which
would be funded by insurance proceeds.
In June 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily approving
the settlement. Following the transfer of the case to another
district judge and a final hearing on the fairness of the
settlement, the court entered an order in September 2004 holding
that evidence of the settlement's fairness was inadequate,
denying the motion for final approval of the settlement in the
Moore class action, and ordering the parties, among others, to
mediate.
After the court's denial of the motion to approve the
settlement, the company withdrew from the settlement, as it
believes that it is entitled to do by its terms. The mediation
was held in January 2005, but was declared by the mediator to be
at an impasse with no settlement having been reached.
In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and a new
lead plaintiff, directed that they file a third consolidated
amended complaint, and that the company file motion to dismiss.
The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005, at
which time the court took the motion under advisement.
On Mar. 14, 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted
the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to
June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other
claims while permitting the plaintiffs to re-plead those claims
to correct deficiencies in their earlier complaint.
With respect to those issues regarding which the court denied
the motion, the company requested that the court certify its
order for interlocutory appeal.
On Apr. 4, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their fourth amended
consolidated complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss
those portions of the complaint that have been repled. A
hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and the company
awaits the court's ruling, according to the company's form Oct.
31 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for quarter ended Sept. 30.
In May, The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc., one
of the plaintiffs, requested that Neil Rothstein, on leave of
absence from Scott + Scott, LLC, the law firm, serving as lead
counsel in the securities suit, be named Special Counsel to the
lead plaintiff. Neil Rothstein objected to the settlement and
has since defeated defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
The suit is "The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc.,
et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01152,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas under Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn. Representing the
plaintiffs are:
(1) Richard S. Schiffrin of Schiffrin & Barroway - Radnor,
280 King of Prussia Rd, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-
667-7706, Fax: 610/667-7056;
(2) Marc R. Stanley, Stanley Mandel & Iola, 3100 Monticello
Ave, Suite 750, Dallas, TX 75205, Phone: 214/443-4301,
Fax: 214/443-0358, E-mail: mstanley@smi-law.com; and
(3) Thomas Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, 270
Madison Ave, Ninth Floor, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
212/545-4600.
Representing the company is Thomas E Bilek of Hoeffner & Bilek,
1000 Louisiana St, Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone:
713/227-7720, Fax: 713/227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com.
For more details, contact Neil Rothstein of Worldwide Tree Group
-- http://www.halliburtonsecuritieslitigation.com,
http://www.worldwidetree.org-- Phone: +1-619-251-0887, E-mail:
nrothstein@worldwidetree.org.
HALLIBURTON CO: Plaintiffs Appeal Iraq Overtime Claims Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the Iraqi overtime litigation filed against
Halliburton Co. filed a notice of appeal against the dismissal
of the suit relating to the company's worldwide U.S. Army
logistics contracts, LogCAP.
During the fourth quarter of 2005, a group of present and former
employees working on the company's LogCAP contract in Iraq and
elsewhere filed a class action alleging that KBR, Inc., part of
Halliburton, wrongfully failed to pay time and a half for hours
worked in excess of 40 per work week and that "uplift" pay,
consisting of a foreign service bonus, an area differential, and
danger pay, was only applied to the first 40 hours worked in any
work week.
The class alleged by plaintiffs consists of all current and
former employees on the LogCAP contract from December 2001 to
present. The basis of plaintiffs' claims is their assertion
that they are intended third-party beneficiaries of the LogCAP
contract, and that the LogCAP contract obligated KBR to pay time
and a half for all overtime hours.
The company moved to dismiss the case on a number of bases. On
Sept. 26, 2006, the court granted the motion to dismiss insofar
as claims for overtime pay and "uplift" pay are concerned,
leaving only a contractual claim for miscalculation of
employees' pay.
On Oct. 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal.
HIGHMARK BLUE: Settles Penn. Suit Over Claims Rejection Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Highmark Blue Shield settled a purported class action filed on
behalf of all beneficiaries of Highmark private-employer
sponsored plans whose claims were rejected and were informed of
it only through a computer-generated form, Science Daily
reports.
The suit was filed by Flora Turpin of Morgantown West Virginia.
Her suit claims the company failed to provide beneficiaries with
written information on why their claim was rejected and how they
can appeal, in violation of federal ERISA laws pertaining to
employee benefits. The insurer has denied any wrongdoing.
Beneficiaries complained that when their claims were rejected,
they only received a computerized explanation of benefits with a
numeric rejection code.
Under the settlement, the company will provide beneficiaries
with written information on why their claim was rejected and how
they can appeal. Also, former participants in the company's
plans will have the opportunity to re-open previously denied
claims.
U.S. District Court Judge David Cercone of the Western District
of Pennsylvania has preliminarily approved the agreement.
The suit is "Turpin, et al. v. Consolidated Coal Co., et al.
David S. Cercone."
Representing the plaintiff are:
(1) Claudia Davidson, Office of Claudia Davidson, 500 Law
and Fiance Building, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: (412)
391-7709, E-mail: cdavidson@choiceonemail.com; and
(20 Todd F. Jackson at Lewis, Feinberg, Renaker & Jackson
1330 Broadway, Suite 1800, Oakland, CA 94612, Phone:
(510) 839-6824, E-mail: tjackson@lewisfeinberg.com.
Representing the defendants are Donna M. Doblick and W. Thomas
McGough, Jr. at Reed Smith, 435 Sixth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA
15219-1886, Phone: (412) 288-7274, Fax: (412) 288-3063, E-mail:
ddoblick@reedsmith.com, tmcgough@reedsmith.com.
IMMUNE RESPONSE: Agrees to Settle Calif. Stock Suit for $9.6M
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Immune Response Corp. reached an agreement with the class
counsel in a consolidated federal securities case to settle the
suit, as well as the related California state-court derivative
lawsuit filed against it, without admitting to any wrongdoing,
fault or liability.
The settlements also include company directors and officers who
were named in the lawsuits.
The class action settlement, for approximately $9.6 million,
will have no effect on the company's operations, cash flow or
financial position, as it is within insurance limits. The
settlement is conditioned on notice to the class members and
court approval.
The preliminary settlement approval hearing is scheduled Dec. 4,
2006.
The shareholder derivative complaint was filed on July 5, 2005
against certain of the company's current and former officers and
directors. The company was also named as a nominal defendant in
the complaint.
The $0.25 million settlement for the California state-court
derivative lawsuit would also be funded entirely by the
company's insurers.
As anticipated by an agreement in principle for the settlement,
the company will also agree to adopt certain corporate
governance requirements.
The definitive state-court settlement agreement is conditioned
on court approval and must be filed with the court by Nov. 20,
2006.
The settlement hearing is scheduled to occur on Nov. 27, 2006.
For more information, contact:
(1) Gene Marbach of Makovsky & Co., Phone: +1-212-508-
9645, E-mail: gmarbach@makovsky.com;
(2) Robert Giordano of ROI Associates, Phone: +1-212-495-
0201, E-mail: rgiordano@roiny.com; and
(3) Michael K. Green, COO and CFO of The Immune Response
Corporation, Phone: +1-760-431-7080, E-mail:
info@imnr.com, Website: http://www.imnr.com/
INPHONIC INC: Tex. Resident Files Suit Over "Wireless Spam" Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
InPhonic Inc. faces a purported class action that was filed by a
Texas resident over "wireless spam" ads he received from the
company, The Washington Post reports.
Joe Shields of Galveston, Texas, who is a cellphone user, said
that the wireless communications company sent him thousands of
"wireless spam" ads in text messages that he had to pay for.
Mr. Shields is seeking for more than $5 million in damages and
class-action status for his case.
Washington, D.C.-based InPhonic, Inc. (NASDAQ: INPC) --
http://www.inphonic.com-- is an online seller of wireless
services in the U.S. The company operates its business through
three business segments: wireless activation and services,
mobile virtual network enabler services, and data services.
INTERVEST BANCSHARES: Settles Del. Suit Over Chairman's Warrants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intervest Bancshares Corp. agreed to a Stipulation of Settlement
and dismissal of a class action filed in conjunction with the
company's 2006 proxy statement issued in advance of the
company's 2006 annual meeting of shareholders.
The lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, individually and as a class action on behalf of Class
A stockholders. The action challenged the proposed amendment
and extension of warrants held by the company's former chairman,
Jerome Dansker, which was one of the items on the agenda for the
annual meeting.
Although the company denied any wrongdoing or liability, it
agreed on May 15, to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding
with the plaintiff in the matter. The Memorandum provided,
among other things, that:
(i) if the amendments were approved by the stockholders,
the authority conferred on the directors by the
amendments would not provide for an extension of the
terms of the warrants for more than two years;
(ii) in determining incentive compensation of the chairman,
the company's Compensation Committee would take into
consideration any extension of the term of the
warrants, the value of such extension and any related
expense to the company; and
(iii) the company agreed to and did send to its stockholders
a supplement to its proxy statement. The proposed
amendments were approved by the company's stockholders
at the annual meeting of the company held on May 25,
2006.
The parties have agreed to a Stipulation of Settlement and
dismissal of the action consistent with the Memorandum. Such
settlement remains subject to the approval by the Court of
Chancery before which a motion for approval is currently
pending.
By the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, the company is
required to pay the fees and out of pocket expenses of
plaintiffs counsel in the class action, not to exceed $150,000
in the aggregate.
INTRALASE CORP: Still Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Unsolicited Faxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intralase Corp. continues to face a class action filed in the
U.S District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
alleging that the company violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by sending unsolicited fax advertisements,
according to the company's Oct. 31, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.
Ari Weitzner M.D., P.C., a Brooklyn ophthalmologist, filed the
suit on May 24,2005, seeking statutory damages, costs and
attorneys fees. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500
per violation, $1,500 if knowing and willful.
The suit is "Weitzner v. Intralase Corp., Case no. 1:05-cv-
02529-NGG-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York under Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis.
Representing the plaintiff is Todd C. Bank, Law Office of Todd
C. Bank, 119-40 Union Pike, Fourth Floor, Kew Gardens, NY 11415,
Phone: 718-520-7125, E-mail: TBLaw101@aol.com.
Representing the company is Glenn Charles Colton and Randollph
Gaw of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 12 E. 49th Street, 30th
Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-999-5800, Fax: 212-999-
5899, E-mail: gcolton@wsgr.com.
KEYSPAN CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Merger Suit Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New York State Supreme Court for the County of Kings has yet
to approve a proposed settlement in a purported class action
against KeySpan Corp. that alleges breach of fiduciary duties by
directors when they agreed to merge the company with National
Grid, plc.
The suit was filed on March 20, 2006 against the company and
certain of its directors.
The suit alleges that the merger consideration, which the
company's stockholders will receive in connection with the
proposed merger transaction, is inadequate and unfair, since the
transaction value of $42.00 for each share of the company's
common stock does not provide its stockholders with a meaningful
premium over the market price of the common stock.
On April 19, 2006, the company moved to dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be
granted.
On May 26, 2006, the plaintiff served an amended complaint
adding National Grid as a defendant. The amended complaint
alleged that National Grid aided and abetted the alleged breach
of fiduciary duties and added claims of inadequate disclosure
with respect to KeySpan's preliminary proxy materials.
In June 2006, the parties agreed in principle to settle the
case, the terms of which provide for, among other things, the
inclusion of additional disclosures in the company's 2006 Annual
Meeting Proxy Statement concerning the background and principle
events leading to execution of the merger agreement, as well as
the payment of plaintiff's counsel fees of up to $350,000
following closing of the transaction.
In October 2006, definitive settlement documents were executed
by the parties and submitted to the court. The settlement
remains subject to a number of conditions, including court
approval following notice to shareholders, according to the
company's Nov. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.
KeySpan Corp. on the Net: http://www.keyspanenergy.com.
KEYSPAN CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Bay Shore Gas Plant Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
KeySpan Corp. seeks the dismissal of a purported class action
alleging damages resulting from contamination associated with
the company's operations of the former manufactured gas plant in
Bay Shore, New York.
The suit was filed on July 12, 2006. On Sept. 6, 2006, the
company filed a motion to dismiss the matter, which is pending,
according to the company's Nov. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006.
KeySpan Corp. on the Net: http://www.keyspanenergy.com.
KOHLBERG KRAVIS: Private-Equity Firms Face N.Y. Investors Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several private-equity firms and other entities were named as
defendants in a purported antitrust class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Shareholders, who filed the suit, are alleging that their
investments were hurt when the buyout firms violated antitrust
laws by conspiring to fix deal prices.
The suit charges that investment firms formed "clubs" among
themselves to bid collectively in buyout actions and that they
exchanged information and submitted bids at agreed-upon prices.
Plaintiffs generally claim they were paid less for their equity
shares that they sold to the private equity defendants and their
co-conspirators than they would have been paid under conditions
of free and open competition.
Most of the plaintiffs are individuals who own shares of
Univision Communications Inc., HCA Inc., and Harrah's
Entertainment Inc. They are seeking unspecified damages.
Named as defendants in the suit are:
-- Carlyle Group,
-- Texas Pacific Group Ventures, Inc.,
-- The Blackstone Group,
-- Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
-- Clayton, Dubilier & Rice,
-- Silver Lake Partners,
-- Thomas H. Lee Partners,
-- Warburg Pincus, LLC,
-- Providence Equity Partners,
-- Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC.
-- Bain Capital, LLC,
-- Apollo Management, LP, and
-- Merrill Lynch & Co.
According to the lawsuit, among companies that "have done, or
are doing, transactions for prices that are below market rates
due to the alleged conspiracy are:
-- Linens 'n Things, Inc.,
-- Michaels Stores, Inc.,
-- OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc.,
-- Warner Chilcott, PLC,
-- Serena Software Inc., and
-- Freescale Semiconductor Inc.
The suit is "Murphy, et al. v. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. et
al, Case No. 1:06-cv-13210-LLS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Louis L.
Stanton.
Representing the plaintiffs are Gustavo Fabian Bruckner, Gregory
M. Nespole and Fred Taylor Isquith of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016,
Phone: 212-545-4600, Fax: 212-545-4653, E-mail:
Bruckner@whafh.com.
MASSACHUSETTS: Firefighter Hiring Plan Proposed Under Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers in a racial discrimination suit filed on behalf of
firefighter applicants presented a proposal to Judge Patti B.
Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts regarding their clients' future hiring.
Under the proposal, minority firefighter applicants who scored
high and would have been hired if the state's 2002 and 2004
exams were not discriminatory, will be given top priority in a
new civil service list to be issued Dec. 1, according to the
Boston Globe. All other candidates on the new list would be
ranked according to their scores on an exam given last June, the
report said.
As the plan is not yet final, Judge Saris asked lawyers to
submit additional briefs before she accepts it.
A point that remains unresolved between plaintiff and defendant
lawyers is the number of minority candidates to be included to
the top of the list. The state contends there are only 22
eligible applicants, while plaintiff lawyers say there are close
to 50.
In August, Judge Saris ruled that the 2002 and 2004 firefighter
exams was discriminatory because they continued to rank
applicants solely based on how they scored on written exams that
test cognitive ability.
The suit was filed by Jacob Bradley against the City of Lynn.
The suit is "Bradley et al. v. City of Lynn et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-10213-PBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Patti B. Saris.
Representing the plaintiff are:
(1) Alfred Gordon at Pyle, Rome, Lichten & Ehrenberg, P.C.,
Suite 500, 18 Tremont Street Boston, MA 02108, Phone:
617-367-7200, Fax: 617-367-4820, E-mail:
agordon@prle.com; and
(2) Harold L. Lichten at Pyle, Rome Lichten, Ehrenberg &
Liss-Riordan, P.C., 18 Tremont Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-367-7200, Fax: 617-367-
4820, E-mail: harold@prle.com.
Representing the defendant are:
(1) Ronald F. Kehoe, Attorney General's Office, Room 1813
One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02114, Phone: 617-727-
2200 ext. 2619, Fax: 617-727-3076, E-mail:
ronald.kehoe@ago.state.ma.us; and
(2) James Lamanna, City Solicitor's Office, Room 406
Lynn City Hall, Lynn, MA 01901, Phone: 781-598-4000.
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: N.Y. Natural Gas Commodity Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed the settled suit against MidAmerican Energy Holdings
Co. over alleged manipulation of the prices of natural gas
futures and options contracts traded on the New York Mercantile
Exchange.
MidAmerican Energy is one of dozens of companies named as
defendants in a Jan. 20, 2004 consolidated class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The suit alleges that the defendants have engaged in unlawful
manipulation of the prices of natural gas futures and options
contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange during the
period Jan. 1, 2000 to Dec. 31, 2002. The company is mentioned
as a company that has engaged in wash trades on Enron Online (an
electronic trading platform) that had the effect of distorting
prices for gas trades on the NYMEX. The plaintiffs to the class
action do not specify the amount of alleged damages.
On Sept. 9, 2005, the company and counsel for the plaintiffs
executed a stipulation and agreement of settlement, which, upon
final approval by the court following notice to all class
members, the company will be dismissed from the lawsuit. The
settlement was filed with the court on Feb. 2, 2006.
The court approved the settlement on a preliminary basis on Feb.
8, 2006, and signed its final judgment and order of dismissal on
May 24, 2006. No appeal of the order was filed within the
applicable appeal period and, accordingly, the matter is
concluded. MidAmerican Energy's obligation to the plaintiffs
was an immaterial amount.
The suit is "In re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation, Case No.
1:03-cv-06186-VM-AJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Victor Marrero and
Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck. Representing the plaintiffs
are:
(1) Ali Oromchian, Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran, 601
Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, by Phone:
(415)-398-8700;
(2) Christopher J. Gray, Law Office of Christopher J. Gray,
P.C, 460 Park Avenue 21st Floor, New York, NY 10022,
Phone: (212) 838-3221, Fax: (212) 508-3695, E-mail:
gray@cjgraylaw.com;
(3) Christopher Lovell, Gary S. Jacobson, Lovell, Stewart,
Halebian, L.L.P., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110,
Phone: (212) 608-1900; and
(4) Louis F. Burke, Louis F. Burke, P.C., 460 Park Avenue,
21st Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 682-1700,
Fax: (212) 808-4280.
Representing the defendant are, Robert A. Jaffe of Kutak, Rock,
L.L.P., 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 922-
9155; and Gregory Copeland, Holly Roberts, J. Michael Baldwin,
Baker Botts, L.L.P., One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana, Houston, TX
07002, Phone: (713) 229-1234.
MURPHY OIL: Liaison Committee Named in $330M Oil Spill Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sidney Torres is the court-appointed liaison for the committee
that would help disburse the $330 million settlement in a class
action against Murphy Oil Corp. There are five lawyers named to
the liaison, including reserve lawyer Daniel Becnel Jr.,
according to the L'Observateur.
Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana gave preliminary approval in recent months
to the proposed $330 million settlement in a class action
against Murphy Oil for an oil spill that flooded hundreds of
homes near its suburban New Orleans refinery during Hurricane
Katrina in 2005 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 12, 2006).
Under the terms of the Memorandum, all residential and
commercial properties in the Class Area will receive a cash
payment pursuant to a fair and equitable allocation subject to
court approval following recommendations by a court-appointed
Special Master.
The entire Class Area will have the benefit of a comprehensive
remediation program as approved by the court and regulatory
bodies and to be overseen by regulatory authorities.
About $80 million would go to settle roughly 2,700 household and
business claims, said Mr. Torres. Another $160 million would go
toward property buyouts and paying property owners in the area,
while the remaining $90 million would be for cleanup, he said.
The class consists of a total of about 6,200 claims, according
to him.
Additionally, the company has agreed to make bona fide offers to
purchase, at fair market value, all residential and business
properties located on the first four streets west of the
refinery and north of St. Bernard Highway up to the Twenty
Arpent Canal.
The class action was filed on Sept. 9, 2005 on behalf of
residents of St. Bernard Parish who were claiming compensation
for damages caused by a release of crude oil at the company's
wholly-owned subsidiary, a refinery of Murphy Oil USA in Meraux,
Louisiana. Crude oil leaked from the plant's storage tank that
was damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
The suit was filed by property owner Patrick Joseph Turner on
behalf of at least 500 property owners in St. Bernard Parish.
Additional class actions have been consolidated with the first
suit into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana. The court certified the class on
Jan. 30, 2006.
The judge set a hearing on Jan. 4, 2007 to hear any objections
to the proposal reached by Murphy Oil Corp. and plaintiffs
attorneys.
The judge says notices will be given, advising property owners
of, among other things, terms of the agreement and an
opportunity either to opt into or out of the settlement
The suit is "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-
04206-EEF-JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana under Judge Eldon E. Fallon with referral
to Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Mickey P. Landry of Landry & Swarr, LLC, 1010 Common
St., Suite 2050, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-299-
1214, E-mail: mlandry@landryswarr.com;
(2) N. Madro Bandaries of Amato & Creely, 901 Derbigny St.,
P.O. Box 441, Gretna, LA 70054, Phone: (504) 367-8181,
E-mail: madro@att.net; and
(3) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of Law Offices of Daniel E.
Becnel, Jr., 106 W. Seventh St., P.O. Drawer H.
Reserve, LA 70084, Phone: 985-536-1186, E-mail:
dbecnel@becnellaw.com.
Representing the defendants are, George A. Frilot, III and
Patrick J. McShane of Frilot Partridge Kohnke & Clements, Phone:
337-988-5422 and (504) 599-8000, E-mail: gfrilot@fpkc.com and
pmcshane@fpkc.com.
NEW JERSEY: Borough Reaches $278T Deal in Day Laborers' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Borough of Freehold settled for $278,000 a class action
filed by day laborers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey that accuses the borough of preventing
the laborers from seeking employment, The Cherry Hill Courier
Post reports.
The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the American Civil
Liberties Union filed the suit in December 2003 against the
borough on behalf of three advocacy groups, namely:
-- the Monmouth County Residents For Immigrants Rights,
-- the Committee for Workers Progress and Social Welfare,
and
-- the National Day Laborers Organizing Network.
On Dec. 31, 2003, a muster zone, where day laborers, primarily
Hispanic immigrants, many of them illegal, bid for work on a
daily basis as employers stop for help, was closed after several
years in operation.
The borough's decision to shut down the zone was the primary
cause for the filing of the suit. Freehold officials cited that
the growing antagonism between longtime residents, who blame
illegal immigrants for overcrowded housing and schools and for
putting a strain on municipal services, led to the shutdown.
The suit charged the borough with embarking on "a deliberate and
coordinated campaign to harass Latino day laborers and deprive
them of their constitutional and civic rights as provided under
U.S. and New Jersey law" (Class Action Reporter, April 5, 2006).
The borough allegedly "intends to prohibit these laborers from
expressing their availability for employment at a location
(where) these laborers gather to find work," according to the
suit.
In addition, the suit also alleges the closure as a free speech
violation. Thus, it asked the federal court to order the
reopening of a hiring area for day laborers.
Freehold's day laborers primarily come from Mexico, Guatemala,
Ecuador and Peru, finding work for painting or landscaping
contractors who generally pay $8 to $10 per hour. They claimed
they were being harassed and threatened with police action for
assembling at the muster zone to scout work.
Under the settlement, the borough will not interfere with the
lawful use of public property, including the pickup and
discharge of day laborers.
It also agreed to pay $245,000 in legal fees to the groups that
brought the lawsuit and to establish a $33,000 fund to reimburse
fines that were assessed against workers for loitering or
similar offenses.
The suit is "Comite De Trabaja, et al. v. Freehold Borough, et
al., Case No 3:03-cv-06180-AET-JJH EL," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Anne
E. Thompson with referral Judge John J. Hughes.
Representing the plaintiffs is Renee Steinhagen of New Jersey
Appleseed Public Interest Law Center, 744 Broad Street, Newark,
NJ 07102, Phone: (973) 735-0523, E-mail:
rsteinhagen@lawsuites.net.
Representing the defendants is Robert L. Podvey of Podvey Meanor
Catenacci Hildner Cocoziello & Chattman, P.C., The Legal Center,
One Riverfront Plaza, Newark, NJ 07102-5497, Phone: (973) 623-
1000, Fax: 973-623-9131, E-mail: rpodvey@podveysachs.com.
NORTHERN MARIANA: Settlement Report in CNMI Suit Due Feb. 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Alex R. Munson of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern Mariana Island has given attorneys for plaintiffs in
the class action against the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI) garment factories to submit a written
report on the distribution of the settlement fund by Feb. 2,
2007, the Saipan Tribune reports.
The report as to how much of the more than $5 million in checks
being sent to 29,700 workers are returned or uncollected is to
be submitted to the Garment Oversight Board.
Judge Munson said the report should specify how much funds
remain in the net settlement fund after the expiration of the
120-day period. The checks will expire on Jan. 26, 2007.
Judge Munson had ordered the garment manufacturers to send back
to claims administrator Gilardi and Co. the undistributable
checks (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2006). Earlier, former
Superior Judge Timothy H. Bellas, chairman of the Garment
Oversight Board, said the U.S. Postal Service returned about 337
checks (Class Action Reporter, Oct 19, 2006).
This prompted the federal court to conduct a hearing to guide
the garment manufacturers on how they should handle settlement
letters/checks delivered to them and addressed to former workers
who have already left the Commonwealth.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bellas previously underscored the need for the
board to be notified about the checks when the 120 days expire
so that they could monitor the money. He said under the
settlement agreement, any money that can't be given out to the
workers will go to the Garment Oversight. The board has the
option to either send another payment out to the same people who
responded or use it for additional monitoring purposes.
Under the $20 million settlement, some $4 million would go to
the GOB's monitoring program. Out of $4 million, GOB was
initially supposed to get $400,000 or 10 percent for the
repatriation fund.
Instead, the Garment Oversight got over $350,000 because they
did not get the full money that they were supposed to get in the
beginning since two garment factories did not contribute into
the settlement funds.
The board was created pursuant to the settlement to oversee the
monitoring program of the garment industry.
In 1999, New York law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
filed the suit in the U.S. District Court of the Northern
Mariana Islands, on behalf of some garment workers who were
allegedly made to work in sweatshop conditions.
A settlement reached five years after, provides an award close
to $20 million. The money is to be distributed as:
Payment to workers $5.8 million
Claims administrator of the distribution fund $500,000
Repatriation fund for garment workers $400,000
Monitoring fund $4 million
Milberg Trust fund $565,254.80
Plaintiffs lawyer $8.75 million
For more details, contact:
(1) Pamela M. Parker of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
& Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway Suite 1900, San Diego,
CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, Fax: (619) 231-7423;
and
(2) Steven P. Pixley, 2nd Floor, CIC Centre, Beach Rd.,
Garapan, P.O. Box 7757 SVRB, Saipan, MP 96950, Phone:
(670) 233-2898/5175, Fax: (670) 233-4716, E-mail:
sppixley@aol.com.
OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Mulls Dismissal of N.Y. Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
yet to rule on OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, certain
of its current and former executive officers, and the members of
its board of directors.
According to a regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the company has requested an oral argument
on this motion and are awaiting a decision from the court.
Briefing on this motion was completed on June 21, 2006.
On or about Dec. 16, 2004, several purported shareholder class
actions were filed against the defendants. These suits were
brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired
the company's common stock during certain periods in 2004, which
periods differed in the various complaints.
On Feb. 17, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint seeking to represent a class of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
common stock during the period from April 26, 2004 through Nov.
22, 2004.
The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants made material
misstatements and omissions concerning the survival benefit
associated with the company's product, Tarceva, and the size of
the potential market of Tarceva upon approval of the drug by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
It alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated there under.
The suit seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.
On April 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.
The first identified suit in this litigation is "Kassover, et
al. v. OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., case no. 04-CV-05505,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York under Judge Joanna Seybert.
Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
mail: info@dyershuman.com; and
(2) Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., 233 Broadway 39Th Floor, New
York, NY, 10279, Phone: 212.964.0046.
PIER FISH: Settles Immigrant Workers Overtime Suit for $108T
------------------------------------------------------------
Pier Fish Co. settled for $108,000 a purported class action
filed by eight immigrant workers who accuses the New Bedford,
Massachusetts seafood processor of failing to pay them overtime
for several years, The SouthCoastToday.com reports.
The immigrant workers were from El Salvador. According to
plaintiffs attorney Warren H. Pyle of Pyle, Rome, Lichten,
Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, PC, sometimes his clients worked 50 to
55 hours per week at the fish-processing plant on Conway Street
and were not paid time and a half for the hours they worked over
40 as required by state law.
The suit was filed in October 2005 and was originally brought by
two workers on behalf of themselves and the other six. The two
workers no longer worked for the company by the time the suit
was filed.
Mr. Pyle explains that the settlement, which includes a penalty
of triple damages and interest, will be split among the eight
workers depending on their work history. Statutes dictate that
the workers can receive compensation for only two years of
unpaid wages, he adds.
Pier Fish and EDA Select Temporaries -- a temp agency that hires
immigrants to work at the plant -- faces yet another class
action for similar charges, according to Mr. Pyle, who is
representing the workers in both cases.
For more details, contact Warren H. Pyle of Pyle, Rome, Lichten,
Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C., 18 Tremont Street, Suite 500,
Boston, MA 02108, Phone: (617) 367-7200, Fax: (617) 367-4820, E-
mail: SLiss@prle.com, Web site: http://www.prle.com/.
SANTEE COOPER: S.C. Court Denies Class Status to Pipe Leak Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A South Carolina circuit judge denied a request to make 400
Santee Cooper water customers part of a lawsuit over pinhole
leaks that developed in copper pipes in their homes, The
Associated Press reports.
In 2003, four people sued Santee Cooper, which provides water
for 41,000 customers in the Summerville area, over the leaks.
They had sought to have all 400 people whose pipes developed
leaks made part of the suit.
However, in a ruling filed last month, circuit Judge John L.
Breeden, Jr., said there was no basis for a class action. The
Judge pointed out that copper pipes, such as those in the
alleged class, could develop leaks for a variety of reasons.
Santee Cooper gets water from Lake Marion, treats it and sells
it though the Lake Moultrie Water Agency to local utilities.
Besides Santee Cooper, other defendants named in the suit are:
-- The Summerville Commissioners of Public Works,
-- Berkeley County Water & Sanitation Authority,
-- Goose Creek Public Works,
-- Moncks Corner Public Works Commission,
-- Summerville County, and
-- Berkeley County
Plaintiffs originally charged that the leaks were because of a
chemical Santee Cooper added to the water to prevent the pipes
from corroding. However, the plaintiffs later alleged that the
leaks were because of the water's pH level, according to the
ruling.
SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: N.J. Court Rejects Amended Stock Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed
with prejudice the second amended complaint in the suit, "In re
Bio-Technology General Corp. Securities Litigation."
The original class action complaints were filed in December
2002, and January 2003, against Bio-Technology General Corp.,
now known as Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc., on behalf of
investors who had purchased shares of BTG during an alleged
Class Period of April 19, 1999 through Aug. 2, 2002.
The complaints alleged that these investors had been defrauded
because, on Sept. 25, 2002, the company filed restated year-end
and quarterly reports of its earnings and related financial
statements for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001, which the company
had previously announced would be forthcoming in its Form 8-K
and accompanying press release issued Aug. 2, 2002.
The plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated class action
complaint on Sept. 25, 2003.
On Aug. 10, 2005, the court granted, without prejudice, Savient
Pharmaceuticals' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint,
and allowed the plaintiffs to re-plead their complaint.
In October 2005, the plaintiffs filed the second amended
complaint, which Savient Pharmaceuticals again moved the court
to dismiss, in January, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 26,
2006).
On Oct. 26, 2006, the district court dismissed, with prejudice,
the second amended complaint, a Nov. 9 regulatory filing to the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission stated.
The district court declined to allow plaintiffs to file another
amended complaint, however, plaintiffs have 30 days from the
date of the dismissal to appeal the district court's decision.
The court's decision dismissing the second amended complaint is
based on the plaintiff's continued failure to set forth
particularized facts, through direct or circumstantial evidence,
which give rise to a strong inference that the defendants acted
with intent to defraud, recklessness or a conscious disregard of
the truth (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 1, 2006).
The court also concluded that plaintiffs had not demonstrated
that there was any evidence that, if given yet another
opportunity, the plaintiffs would be able to cure these defects.
The suit is "In re Bio-Technology General Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-6048," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Harold A.
Ackerman.
Plaintiff firms in this case are:
(1) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (FL), 515
North Flagler Drive - Suite 1701, West Palm Beach, FL,
33401, Phone: 561.835.9400;
(2) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock,
AR), P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR, 72221-5438,
Phone: 501.312.8500, Fax: 501.312.8505;
(3) Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree St., N.E., 2900,
Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone: 888.873.3999;
(4) Dekel-Sabo Law Office, Twin Towers 1, 33 Jabotinsky
St., Ramat Gan, Phone: 972.3.6133310, Fax:
972.3.6133321, E-mail: dekel-sabo@isdn.net.il;
(5) Glancy and Binkow of 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite
311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, E-
mail: info@glancylaw.com;
(6) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
pivenlaw@erols.com;
(7) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., 34th
Flr., New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com;
(8) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main St., Hartford, CT,
06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com; and
(9) Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego), 1818 Market
St., Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone:
215.496.0300, Fax: 215.496.6611.
SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Settles Calif. Overtime Wage Lawsuit for $27.5M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Siebel Systems Inc. will pay up to $27.5 million to settle an
overtime class action filed in San Mateo Superior Court in
California on behalf of its software engineers, according to
Marie-Anne Hogarth of The East Bay Business Times.
The suit, "Zhiyu Zheng v. Siebel Systems Inc., Case No. 43560,"
sought to recover overtime wages which the company was required
to pay under California law. It was granted class-action status
on Oct. 12, 2005.
Judge Marie Weiner recently gave preliminary approval to the
proposed settlement, which covers workers at the company's
offices in Emeryville, San Mateo and elsewhere in California.
Specifically, the agreement with Siebel Systems, which was
acquired by Oracle Corp. on Jan. 31, covers approximately 800
California employees with the job title "software engineer" or
"senior software engineer" who worked for the company between
Jan. 16, 2000, and Oct. 7, 2005.
According to the settlement terms, class members, on average,
worked 139 weeks during the abovementioned time period and are
expected to recover, on average, approximately $27,000.
The plaintiff firms, Dickson-Ross, LLP, and Goldstein, Demchak,
Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, who the designated class counsel for
the case stand to make an estimated $5.5 million in attorneys'
fees from the case.
The court at a final fairness hearing scheduled for April 27,
2007 must formally approve the Nov. 6, 2006 settlement
agreement.
For more details, contact:
(1) Dickson-Ross, LLP, 1970 Broadway, Suite 1045, Oakland,
CA 94612, USA, Phone: 510/268-1999, Fax: 510/268-3627
and 510/268-0534, E-mail: information@dicksonross.com,
Web site: http://www.dicksonross.com;and
(2) Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, 300
Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, California 94612,
Phone: (510) 763-9800, E-mail: info@gdblegal.com. Web
site: http://www.gdblegal.com/.
SOUTH DAKOTA: Sioux Falls Local Sues City Over Red Light Cameras
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sioux Falls, South Dakota faces a purported class action
alleging that the city's use of the red-light cameras is
illegal, according to Angela Kennecke of Keloland TV.
The suit was filed by Sioux Falls resident, I.L. Wiedermann, who
alleges that the city conspired with the camera company to alter
the traffic signals so more people get caught. It also
questions whether Sioux Falls even has the authority to even
impose the tickets on drivers.
Mr. Wiedermann and attorney Aaron Eiesland are filing the
lawsuit on behalf of the 17,000 people who got tickets at the
intersection.
The city has collected $1.2 million dollars in fines in the past
two years by way of the red-light cameras. More than half of
that money goes to the camera company.
Additionally, the suit contends that the system in place for
contesting the tickets isn't fair. In fact, it alleges that
independent hearing examiners hired to review any disputes with
the red light cameras, either got a cut in work or their jobs
eliminated altogether if they ruled against the city.
The lawsuit asks that the fines be returned to the drivers who
got them.
For more details, contact Aaron Eiesland of Johnson Eiesland Law
Offices, P.C., 4020 Jackson Boulevard, P.O. Box 6900, Rapid
City, SD 57702-6900, Phone: (605) 348-7300 or (800) 998-3998,
Fax: (605) 348-4757, E-mail: johnsoneiesland@rushmore.com, Web
site: http://www.johnsoneiesland.com.
ST PAUL: Minn. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota refused to
dismiss a consolidated securities class action filed against St.
Paul Travelers Cos., Inc.
Initially, three actions were filed against the company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Two of these
actions were:
-- "Kahn v. The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., et al.
(Nov. 2, 2004);" and
-- "Michael A. Bernstein Profit Sharing Plan v. The St.
Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., et al. (Nov. 10,
2004)."
Certain shareholders of the company brought the putative class
actions against the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors. These actions have been
consolidated as, "In re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation
II," and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been appointed.
On July 11, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint. The amended consolidated complaint
alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with
the company's alleged failure to make disclosure relating to the
practice of paying brokers commissions on a contingent basis,
the company's alleged involvement in a conspiracy to rig bids
and the company's allegedly improper use of finite reinsurance
products.
On Sept. 26, 2005, the company and the other defendants in "In
re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II" moved to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim.
Oral argument on the company's motion to dismiss was presented
on June 15, 2006.
By order dated Sept. 25, 2006, the court denied the company's
motion to dismiss. In the third of these actions, an alleged
beneficiary of the company's 401(k) savings plan commenced a
putative class action against the company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors captioned, "Spiziri v.
The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., et al. (Dec. 28, 2004)."
The complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act based on the theory that defendants were
allegedly aware of issues concerning the value of St. Paul's
loss reserves yet failed to protect plan participants from
continued investment in company stock.
On June 1, 2005, the company and the other defendants in Spiziri
moved to dismiss the complaint. On Jan. 4, 2006, the parties in
Spiziri entered into a stipulation of settlement. The
settlement remains subject to court approval.
On Apr. 1, 2004, Travelers Property Casualty Corp. merged with a
subsidiary of The St. Paul Companies, Inc.
The suit is "In Re: St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II,
Case No. 0:04-cv-04697-JRT-FLN," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge John R. Tunheim
with referral to Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Fred Taylor Isquith, Gustavo Bruckner and Mark C Rifkin
of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, NYC, 270
Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-545-4690,
212-545-4605 and 212-545-4762, Fax: 212-545-4653, E-
mail: isquith@whafh.com, bruckner@whafh.com and
rifkin@whafh.com; and
(2) Jack L. Chestnut and Karl L. Cambronne of Chestnut &
Cambronne, 222 S. 9th St., Ste. 3700, Mpls., MN 55402,
Phone: (612) 339-7300, Fax: 612-336-2940, E-mail:
jchestnut@chestnutcambronne.com and
kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) David H. LaRocca, Michael J. Chepiga and Michael J.
Garvey of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, 425
Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10017-3954, Phone: 212-
455-2377, 212-455-2598 and 212-455-7358, E-mail:
dlarocca@stblaw.com, mchepiga@stblaw.com and
mgarvey@stblaw.com; and
(ii) Peter W. Carter and Richard B. Solum of Dorsey &
Whitney - Mpls., 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500, Mpls., MN
55402-1498, Phone: 612-340-2600, Fax: 612-340-2868, E-
mail: carter.peter@dorsey.com and
solum.rick@dorsey.com.
ST PAUL: Antitrust Suit Plaintiffs Allowed to Replead Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled
that an amended consolidated class action complaint in the
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation against St. Paul
Travelers Companies Inc. failed to plead actionable claims under
the Sherman Act or Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.
Six putative class actions and three individual actions were
brought against a number of insurance brokers and insurers,
including the company and/or certain of its affiliates, by
plaintiffs who allegedly purchased insurance products through
one or more of the defendant brokers.
Plaintiffs allege that various insurance brokers conspired with
each other and with various insurers, including the company
and/or certain of its affiliates, to artificially inflate
premiums, allocate brokerage customers and rig bids for
insurance products offered to those customers.
Five of the class actions were filed in federal district court,
and the complaints are captioned:
-- "Shell Vacations LLC v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., et
al. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2005),"
-- "Redwood Oil Co. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., et
al. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2005),"
-- "Boros v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.
Feb. 4, 2005),"
-- "Mulcahy v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., et al. (D.N.J.
Feb. 23, 2005)," and
-- "Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation
District v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., et al. (D.N.J.
Feb. 23, 2005)."
The plaintiff in one of the five actions, Shell Vacations LLC,
later voluntarily dismissed its complaint. To the extent they
were not originally filed there, the federal class actions were
transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and have
been consolidated with other class actions under the caption,
"In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation," a
multidistrict litigation proceeding in that District.
On Aug. 1, 2005, various plaintiffs, including the four named
plaintiffs in the above-referenced class actions, filed an
amended consolidated class action complaint naming various
brokers and insurers, including the company and certain of its
affiliates, on behalf of a putative nationwide class of
policyholders.
The complaint includes causes of action under the Sherman Act,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, state
common law and the laws of the various states prohibiting
antitrust violations. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages,
including punitive damages and trebled damages, permanent
injunctive relief, restitution, including disgorgement of
profits, interest and costs, including attorneys' fees.
On Nov. 29, 2005, all defendants moved to dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim. Oral arguments on the defendants'
motion to dismiss were heard on July 26, 2006.
On Oct. 3, 2006, the court ruled that the complaint failed to
plead actionable claims under the Sherman Act or RICO, provided
plaintiffs an opportunity to replead those claims and reserved
decision with respect to remaining state law claims.
On Feb. 13, 2006, the named plaintiffs moved to certify a
nationwide class consisting of all persons who between Aug. 26,
1994 and the date of class certification engaged the services of
a broker defendant (or related entity) in connection with the
procurement or renewal of insurance and who entered into or
renewed a contract of insurance with one or more of the insurer
defendants, including the company.
The suit is "In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation,
case no. 2:05-cv-01168-FSH," filed in the United States District
Court in New Jersey, under Judge Faith S. Hochberg.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Joseph P. Guglielmo and Edith M. Kallas, Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC) One Pennsylvania Plaza,
New York NY 10119 Phone: 212-594-5300; and
(2) Mark C. Rifkin, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212
545-4600 E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com.
ST PAUL: Plaintiffs in "Bensley" Dismiss Antitrust Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit that names St. Paul Travelers Cos. Inc.
and/or certain of its affiliates as defendant, and Bensley
Construction as representative, have voluntarily dismissed their
action with prejudice.
A putative class action, "Bensley Construction, Inc. v. Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc., et al. (filed in Massachusetts
Superior Court on May 16, 2005)," and one other individual
action, "Office Depot, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.,
et al. (filed in Florida Circuit Court on June 22, 2005)," were
filed in state court and assert claims that are similar to those
asserted in "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation"
against various brokers and insurers, including the company
and/or certain of its affiliates.
On June 22, 2006, the plaintiffs in Bensley Construction
voluntarily dismissed their action with prejudice.
Office Depot was brought in Florida state court and names
several of the company's subsidiaries. On Nov. 9, 2005, the
court entered an order staying Office Depot pending resolution
of "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."
On Aug. 16, 2006, the Florida appellate court granted Office
Depot's petition for certiorari and remanded to the trial court
to reconsider the issue of whether a stay should be granted.
UNION PACIFIC: Circuit Court Hears Appeal in Birth Control Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit heard arguments on
the appeal by Union Pacific Railroad of a suit challenging its
policy of not covering contraceptives in its health care plan.
The company's appeal is with regards to a decision by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska in a class action
wherein it found the company of discriminating against women by
denying them coverage of contraceptives.
The lawsuit, backed by Planned Parenthood, alleges that Union
Pacific's decision to exclude prescription contraception
coverage in its health plans for unionized employees is sex
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Federal Civil
Rights Act of 1964. Title VII is the nation's foremost law
against race and sex discrimination in employment (Class Action
Reporter April 4, 2005).
The class is estimated to include more than 400 female employees
of childbearing age located throughout the westernmost two
thirds of the nation.
Lead plaintiffs in the class action are two Union Pacific
employees, Brandi Standridge, a 25-year-old trainman and
engineer from Pocatello, Idaho, and Kenya Phillips, a 32-year-
old engineer who lives near Kansas City, Mo.
In 2005, Judge Laurie Smith-Camp ruled that Union Pacific
discriminated against women by not covering contraceptives in
its health care plan (Class Action Reporter, July 27, 2005).
Specifically, Judge Smith-Camp wrote in her ruling, "Union
Pacific's policy of excluding prescription contraceptives and
related outpatient services from its plans" is discriminatory
"because it treats medical care women need to prevent pregnancy
less favorably than it treats medical care needed to prevent
other medical conditions that are no greater threat to
employees' health than is pregnancy."
The judge set a $5.2 million appeal bond in the class action
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2006). Judge Smith-Camp also
ordered the company to:
-- provide prescription contraceptive coverage equal to
health-plan benefits for other prescription drugs;
-- reimburse employees, who are members of the union which
negotiated the health care plans, for their
prescription contraceptive costs since Feb. 9, 2001;
and
-- pay $5,500 each to two women who represented other
employees in the class-action lawsuit, plus about
$800,000 to cover attorney's fees.
At the recent hearing before the appeals court, plaintiffs'
attorney Roberta Riley told the panel of three judges that the
women were discriminated against when denied coverage for
contraceptives.
Ms. Riley argued that all men at Union Pacific got coverage for
drugs that protected them against health risks. She pointed out
that only women were denied coverage of drugs that would help
them avoid pregnancy.
Union Pacific attorney Donald Munro countered that the policy
didn't discriminate against women at all, pointing out that all
employees, men and women alike, were denied contraception
coverage.
Mr. Munro clarified though that the health care plan did provide
contraceptive coverage for women who faced higher health risks
from pregnancy, such as those with high blood pressure or other
conditions.
The three-judge panel will consider the case before ruling on
the appeal. The appellate panel is comsposed of Judges Kermit
Bye, Raymond Gruender and Pasco Bowman.
Attorneys for the plaintiff class are:
-- Ms. Riley and Kelly Reese, staff attorneys at Planned
Parenthood of Western Washington;
-- David Copley and Claire Cordon at the Seattle-based firm
Keller Rohrback, LLP; and
-- Missouri attorneys Rex Sharp, Rick Holtsclaw and Sly
James and Michael Schleich, of the Omaha-based law firm
Fraser Stryker.
The suit is "In Re Union Pacific Railroad Employment Practices
Litigation," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska under Judge Laurie Smith Camp with referral
to Judge F. A. Gossett.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Roberta N. Riley of Planned Parenthood Of Western
Washington, 2001 East Madison, Seattle, WA 98122,
Phone: (206) 328-6805, Fax: (206) 720-4657, E-mail:
roberta.riley@ppww.org and Kelly.Reese@ppww.org; and
(2) T. David Copley and Claire Cordon of Keller Rohrback
Law Firm, 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA
98101, Phone: (206) 623-1900, Fax: (206) 623-3384, E-
mail: dcopley@kellerrohrback.com and
ccordon@kellerrohrback.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Brenda J. Council of Whitner Law Firm, 1905 Harney
Street, Suite 640, Omaha, NE 68102, Phone: (402) 344-
7797, Fax: (402) 344-7798, E-mail:
bcouncil@whitnerlawfirm.com; and
(ii) Donald J. Munro of Goodwin Procter Law Firm, 901 New
York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001, Phone: (202)
346-4137, Fax: (202) 346-4444, E-mail:
dmunro@goodwinprocter.com.
Asbestos Alert
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Contend With ASARCO Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corp. said that its direct and indirect parent
corporations, including Americas Mining Corp. and Grupo Mexico,
S.A.B. de C.V., continues to defend against asbestos-related
suits involving ASARCO LLC, according to the Company's quarterly
report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006 filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
In March 2003, AMC purchased its interest in the Company from
ASARCO.
In October 2004, AMC, Grupo Mexico, Mexicana de Cobre and other
parties, excluding the Company, were named in a lawsuit filed in
New York State court regarding alleged asbestos liabilities, in
which the suit claimed that AMC's purchase of the Company from
ASARCO should be voided as a fraudulent conveyance.
On Aug. 9, 2005, ASARCO filed a voluntary petition for relief
under Ch. 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Corpus Christi, Tex.
In 2005, certain ASARCO subsidiaries filed bankruptcy petitions
in connection with alleged asbestos liabilities.
ASARCO's bankruptcy could result in more claims being filed
against Grupo Mexico and its subsidiaries, including the
Company, Minera Mexico or its subsidiaries.
Headquartered in Lima, Peru, Southern Copper Corp. mines,
smelts, and refines copper at its Toquepala and Cuajone mines in
Peru. It produces blister copper and copper cathodes at the
smelter and refinery in Ilo, Peru. The Company also recovers
silver and molybdenum from copper ore. AMC, a Grupo Mexico
subsidiary, owns 75 percent of the Company.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GlobalSantaFe, Subsidiaries Deal With Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
GlobalSantaFe Corp. and its subsidiaries still face asbestos-
related injury claims that are pending in various jurisdictions,
according to the Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for
the period ended Sept. 30, 2006 filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
In August 2004, certain Company subsidiaries were named
defendants in six lawsuits in Mississippi: five are pending in
the Circuit Court of Jones County and one is pending in the
Circuit Court of Jasper County, Miss.
These six suits are part of a group of 23 suits filed on behalf
of about 800 plaintiffs against a large number of unaffiliated
defendants.
In general, the defendants are alleged to have manufactured,
distributed or utilized products with asbestos.
The suits alleged that certain individuals aboard the Company's
offshore drilling rigs had been exposed to asbestos. The suits
asserted claims on theories of unseaworthiness, negligence,
strict liability and the Company subsidiaries' status as Jones
Act employers. The suits seek compensatory and punitive damages.
In the case of the Company's subsidiaries and that of several
other offshore drilling companies named as defendants, the suits
alleged those defendants allowed those products to be utilized
aboard offshore drilling rigs.
Established in 2001, GlobalSantaFe Corp. operates a fleet of 60
offshore rigs (premium and heavy-duty), harsh-environment
jackups, semi submersibles, and ultra-deepwater drill ships. The
Company is headquartered in Houston, Tex.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GSF Unit Has Insurance Suit in Calif. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A GlobalSantaFe Corp. subsidiary, since February 2004, has been
involved in an asbestos-related insurance suit against its
insurance underwriters in the Superior Court of San Francisco
County, Calif.
The suit seeks a declaration as to its rights to insurance
coverage and the proper allocation among its insurers of
liability for claims payments in order to assist in the future
management and disposition of certain claims.
One of the subsidiary's three primary insurers has agreed to
make cash payment in exchange for a release of all further
liability for the subsidiary's asbestos liabilities. Another
primary insurer has entered into a settlement agreement with the
subsidiary that will provide for limited additional funding of
asbestos liabilities and attorneys' fees and associated costs.
The subsidiary is in talks with its remaining primary insurer,
which also claims exhaustion of its coverage limits, for the
purpose of either achieving a policy buyout or an arrangement
for continuing coverage, or a combination of both, and also
intends to enter into discussions with its excess insurers.
The insurance coverage in question relates to suits filed
against the subsidiary arising out of its involvement in the
design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial
complexes.
The subsidiary has been a co-defendant in suits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. As of Sept.
30, 2006, the subsidiary had been named a defendant in about
4,000 suits, the first of which was filed in 1990.
The Company said it believed that as of Sept. 30, 2006, from
US$30 million to US$40 million had been spent to resolve claims,
with the subsidiary having used US$4 million of that amount due
to insurance deductible obligations.
The same subsidiary defends in a suit filed by Union Oil Co. of
California in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., in which
the suit arose out of claims alleging personal injury caused by
asbestos exposure at a refinery owned by Union and constructed
by the Company's subsidiary.
Union has alleged that the subsidiary is required to defend and
indemnify it under the terms of contracts entered into for the
refinery's construction.
The Company has also been named a defendant in the pending suit.
Established in 2001, GlobalSantaFe Corp. operates a fleet of 60
offshore rigs (premium and heavy-duty), harsh-environment
jackups, semi submersibles, and ultra-deepwater drill ships. The
Company is headquartered in Houston, Tex.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PepsiAmericas Dismissed in Cooper Ind. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
PepsiAmericas Inc., during the 2006-3rd quarter, has been
dismissed with prejudice from all remaining counts in an
insurance-related asbestos lawsuit captioned Cooper Industries
LLC v. PepsiAmericas Inc., et al., Case No. 05 CH 9214 (Cook
Cty. Cir. Ct.).
On May 31, 2005, Cooper sued the Company, Pneumo Abex LLC, and
the Trustee of a Trust.
In the 2002-2nd quarter, the Company bought insurance coverage
related to sites owned and operated or impacted by Pneumo Abex
and its units. The trust, which was established in 2000 with the
proceeds from an insurance settlement, bought insurance coverage
and funded coverage for remedial and other costs related to the
sites owned and operated or impacted by Pneumo Abex and its
units.
Cooper asserted that it was entitled to access the US$34 million
that previously was in the Trust and used to buy the insurance
policy. Cooper claimed that Trust funds should have been
distributed for underlying Pneumo Abex asbestos claims
indemnified by Cooper. Cooper said that it was deprived of
access to money in the Trust because of the Trustee's decision
to use the Trust funds to purchase the insurance policy.
In the 2006-2nd quarter, the Trustee's motion to dismiss was
granted and three counts against the Company were dismissed with
prejudice as were all counts against the Trustee on the grounds
that Cooper lacked standing to pursue its claims because it is
not a beneficiary under the Trust.
The Company then filed a separate motion to dismiss the
remaining counts against it.
Cooper subsequently filed a notice of appeal with regard to all
rulings by the court dismissing the counts against the Company
and the Trustee. Briefing of Cooper's appeal is expected to take
place during the 2007-1st quarter or 2007-2nd quarter.
The Company also has certain indemnification obligations related
to product liability and toxic tort claims that might emanate
out of the 1988 agreement with Pneumo Abex. Other firms not
owned by or associated with the Company also are responsible to
Pneumo Abex for the financial burden of all asbestos product
liability claims filed against Pneumo Abex after a certain date
in 1998, except for certain claims indemnified by the Company.
Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minn., PepsiAmericas Inc., a Pepsi
bottler behind Pepsi Bottling Group, operates in 19 US states
and holds about 20% of the US market for Pepsi products. The
Company distributes drinks in the Bahamas, Barbados, the Czech
Republic, Hungary, Jamaica, Poland, Puerto Rico, Slovakia, and
Trinidad and Tobago. PepsiCo owns about 41 percent of
PepsiAmericas.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Has Liability of $65.5M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Generation LLC, at Sept. 30, 2006, had recorded US$65.5
million liability for asbestos-related matters, according to the
Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Midwest Generation recorded about 176 cases for which it was
potentially liable and that had not been settled and dismissed
at Sept. 30, 2006.
At June 30, 2006, Midwest Generation had recorded a US$66
million liability for asbestos matters. For the same period,
there were about 175 cases for which Midwest Generation was
potentially liable and that had not been settled and dismissed.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 25, 2006)
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 indicated in the Asset Sale Agreement.
Under this 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. Midwest Generation also 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 on the number of exposure
sites that are Commonwealth Edison locations or Midwest
Generation locations.
Headquartered in Chicago, Ill., 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: Ingersoll-Rand Uses $23.3M for Claims in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd., for the nine-month period ended Sept.
30, 2006, utilized about US$23.3 million for settlement and
defense of asbestos-related claims after insurance recoveries
and net of tax.
For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company spent about
US$16.5 million, in which the amount comprised total costs for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries and net of tax. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18,
2006)
Certain wholly owned Company subsidiaries face asbestos-related
suits in state and federal courts. In all of the suits, a large
number of other firms have also been named defendants.
Most of those claims have been filed against Ingersoll-Rand Co.
(IR-New Jersey), a wholly owned Company subsidiary. The claims
generally alleged injury caused by exposure to asbestos in
certain of IR-New Jersey's products.
Although IR-New Jersey neither produced nor made asbestos, some
of its formerly made products used asbestos-containing
components, like gaskets bought from third-party suppliers.
To date, all resolved asbestos-related claims have been
dismissed or settled.
Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd.
makes refrigeration equipment used in trucks and supermarkets,
locks and security systems, construction equipment, industrial
equipment, heavy equipment, and golf carts.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. Mine Safety Decrease to 250 in 3Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Co. said that about 10 percent of the
2,500 lawsuits filed against it are linked to asbestosis and
other combined injuries.
The rest of the suits, comprising about 90 percent, involve
plaintiffs alleging they suffer from silicosis. Collectively,
these suits represent a total of about 19,000 plaintiffs.
The Company is a defendant in suits involving respiratory
protection products allegedly made and sold by the Company.
These suits alleged that these conditions resulted in part from
respirators that were negligently designed or made by the
Company.
The Company noted that 10 percent of the 2,800 respiratory
products lawsuits filed against it are attributable to
asbestosis and other combined injuries. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 11, 2006)
Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pa., Mine Safety Appliances Co.
makes protective equipment for miners and workers in the fire
service, construction, and homeland security industries. The
Company produces air-purifying respiratory equipment, gas masks,
and head protection gear.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden CDT Inc. Cleared in About 179 Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Belden CDT Inc., through Oct. 30, 2006, has been dismissed, or
reached agreement to be dismissed, in about 179 asbestos-related
cases without any going to trial, and with 10 cases involving
payment to the claimant.
The Company has been dismissed, or reached agreement to be
dismissed, in about 168 asbestos-related cases without any going
to trial, and with seven cases involving payment to the
claimant. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18, 2006)
The Company is party to legal proceedings and administrative
actions, incidental to its operations, in which the claimant
alleged injury from exposure to asbestos fiber in products made
by Company predecessors.
These proceedings include personal injury cases in which the
Company is a co-defendant, 36 of which are scheduled for trial
for the remainder of 2006 and for 2007. The Company was aware of
about 144 cases at Oct. 30, 2006.
Electricians have filed most of these cases, primarily in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs seek compensatory,
special, and punitive damages.
The Company said it has insurance that would cover a major
portion of any defense or settlement costs borne by the Company
in these cases.
Headquartered in St. Louis, Mo., Belden CDT Inc. makes cable and
wire products for use in the broadcasting, computer,
entertainment, instrumentation, networking, and
telecommunications industries. Company products include fiber
optic, coaxial, multi-conductor cables, and heat-shrink tubing.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Faces Suit in Miss. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. continues to co-defend in an
asbestos-related lawsuit filed in the Circuit Courts of the
State of Mississippi.
The suit alleged that defendants made, distributed or utilized
drilling mud with asbestos and, in the Company's case, allowed
the mud to have been utilized aboard Company offshore rigs.
The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.
The Company expects to receive complete defense and indemnity
from Murphy Exploration & Production Co. under the terms of its
1992 asset purchase agreement with them.
At this time, the Company is unable to estimate its potential
exposure to these suits.
Headquartered in Houston, Tex., Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc.
is an offshore drilling contractor capable of descending depths
of 7,500 feet. Loews Corp. owns about 54 percent of the Company.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Harsco Corp. Drop to 26,465 in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2006, recorded 26,465 pending
asbestos-related personal injury claims filed against it,
compared with 26,712 claims as of June 30, 2006.
Of the 26,465 cases, 26,147 were pending in the New York Supreme
Court for New York County in New York State.
The other claims, totaling 318, are filed in various state
courts and in certain Federal District Courts, including New
York. Those complaints asserted lesser damage amounts, or do not
state any amount claimed, than the New York State court cases.
As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation, or summary judgment before trial, in 16,850 cases.
The Company has been named a co-defendant in legal actions
alleging personal injury from asbestos exposure over the past
several decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as
defendants manufacturers, distributors and installers of
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.
Most of the asbestos complaints against the Company have been
filed in New York. Almost all of the New York complaints have a
standard claim for damages of US$20 million or US$25 million
against about 90 defendants.
As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company has been listed as a defendant
in 153 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County.
Headquartered in Camp Hill, Pa., Harsco Corp.'s mill services
unit, MultiServ, offers metal reclamation, slag processing,
scrap management, and other services for steel and nonferrous
metals producers. The Company's access services businesses, SGB
Group and Patent Construction Systems, rent and sell concrete-
forming equipment, scaffolding, and bridge-decking products.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Ind., Unit Face 6,911 Suits in 3Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Industrial Corp. and its subsidiary Detroit Stoker Co.,
as of Sept. 30, 2006, had about 6,911 total pending asbestos-
related claims asserted in lawsuits, compared with about 11,059
claims as of Dec. 31, 2005 and about 12,897 claims as of Sept.
30, 2005.
As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company and Detroit Stoker were named
as co-defendants in asbestos litigation pending in Arkansas,
California, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New
Jersey, New York, North Dakota, and Rhode Island.
As of June 30, 2006, the Company and Detroit Stoker had about
9,496 total pending asbestos-related claims asserted in suits.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 11, 2006)
The Company and Detroit Stoker made several products, some of
the parts and components of which used asbestos-containing
material made and provided by third parties.
As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company and Detroit Stoker have not
gone to trial with respect to any asbestos-related personal
injury claims. In the same period, neither the Company nor
Detroit Stoker has been required to pay any punitive damage
awards. As of Sept. 30, 2006, some previously pending claims
have been settled or dismissed with or without prejudice.
The Company recorded an undiscounted liability for its best
estimate of asbestos-related liabilities in the amount of
US$31,450,000 as of Sept. 30, 2006, and US$31,852,000 as of
Sept. 30, 2005, including damages and defense costs.
The Company's insurance receivables for asbestos-related
liabilities were US$20,186,000 at Sept. 30, 2006, and
US$20,343,000 at Sept. 30, 2005.
Headquartered in Hunt Valley, Md., United Industrial Corp.,
through subsidiary AAI Corp., makes automatic test equipment for
avionics, electronic warfare test and training systems, training
simulators for combat systems and aircraft maintenance, and
unmanned aerial vehicle systems.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Energy's W.Va. Suits Drop to 815
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy Inc., as of Oct. 10, 2006, recorded 815 open
asbestos-related cases pending in West Virginia and six open
cases pending in Pennsylvania.
As of July 18, 2006, the Company recorded 837 open asbestos-
related cases pending in West Virginia and five open cases
pending in Pennsylvania. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 1, 2006)
The Company's utility units: Monongahela Power Co., the Potomac
Edison Co., and West Penn Power Co. co-defend in pending
asbestos cases alleging bodily injury involving multiple
plaintiffs and multiple sites.
These suits have been filed by seasonal contractors' employees
and arose out of historical operations, and are related to the
installation and removal of asbestos-containing materials at the
Company's generation facilities.
Various foreign and domestic insurers, including Lloyd's of
London, insured Allegheny's historical operations. To date,
asbestos-related litigation expenses have been reimbursed in
full by recoveries from these historical insurers.
The Company is involved in two asbestos insurance-related
actions. These suits are styled: Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd's, London et al. v. Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al., Case
No. 21-C-03-16733, which is pending in Washington County, Md.,
and Monongahela Power Company et al. v. Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd's London and London Market Companies, et al., Civil Action
No. 03-C-281, which is pending in Monongalia County, W.Va.
The parties in these actions seek an allocation of
responsibility for historic and potential future asbestos
liability.
The Company and numerous others are plaintiffs in a similar
action filed against Zurich Insurance Company in California,
Fuller-Austin Asbestos Settlement Trust, et al. v. Zurich-
American Insurance Co., et al., Case No. CGC 04 431719. The case
is pending at the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco.
Headquartered in Greensburg, Pa., Allegheny Energy Inc.'s
Allegheny Power unit distributes electricity to 1.5 million
customers in five states and natural gas to more than 200,000
customers through utilities Monongahela Power, Potomac Edison,
and West Penn Power.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Prudential Takes Appeal to Bar Grace Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Insurance Company of America takes an appeal from the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court's Oct. 24, 2006 order disallowing and
expunging, as time-barred, its asbestos property damage claim
numbers 6945 and 6948 to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware.
Pursuant to Rule 8006 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure, Prudential asks the District Court to find whether
the Bankruptcy Court erred:
(1) In disregarding a June 9, 1994 Opinion and Order entered by
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, which
required that the statute of limitations of New Jersey be
applied to Prudential's claims;
(2) By failing to apply the doctrine of issue preclusion to bar
W.R. Grace & Co. and the other Debtors from re-litigating an
issue that was extensively litigated and decided by the Opinion
and Order;
(3) By refusing to find that the Opinion and Order was a final
order;
(4) In its choice of law analysis and application, resulting in
the dismissal of Prudential's Claims on a statute of limitations
basis;
(5) By reaching a decision that replaced Prudential's pre-
bankruptcy state law rights with the less favorable state law
rights of the Debtors' bankruptcy forum;
(6) By failing to follow Delaware choice of law doctrine as
recently stated in Saudi Basic Industries Corp. v. Mobil Yanbu
Petrochemical Co., Inc., 866 A.2d 1 (Del. 2005), and by allowing
the Debtors, who chose Delaware as the litigation forum, to
misuse the forum-shopping prevention provisions of the Delaware
"Borrowing Statute," 10 Del. C. Section 8121, to bar
Prudential's Claims;
(7) In failing to consider the "resident exception" to
Delaware's "Borrowing Statute" in dismissing Prudential's
Claims; and
(8) In dismissing Prudential's Claims on a statute-of-
limitations basis without the development of a proper factual
record.
(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 119; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Has 115 Pending Lawsuits in 3Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises Inc.'s electric utility unit, Indianapolis
Power & Light Co., as of Sept. 30, 2006, recorded about 115
pending asbestos-related lawsuits, compared with 109 pending
suits as of Dec. 31, 2005.
These suits alleged personal injury or wrongful death from
exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products formerly
located in IPL power plants.
IPL has been named as a "premises defendant" in that it 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 various insurers who wrote policies
applicable to the period of time during which much of the
exposure has been alleged is currently defending these cases.
As of June 30, 2006, IPL had about 113 pending asbestos-related
suits. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 25, 2006)
Headquartered in Indianapolis, Ind., IPALCO Enterprises Inc.,
through IPL, generates, transmits, and distributes electricity
to more than 465,000 customers in central Indiana. The Company
is a subsidiary of independent power producer The AES Corp.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. CBS Corp. Drop to 81,300 in 3Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related claims against CBS Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2006,
decreased to about 81,300, compared with about 101,170 claims as
of Dec. 31, 2005 and about 104,000 as of Sept. 30, 2005.
Of the claims pending as of Sept. 30, 2006, about 57,600 were
pending in state courts, 21,040 in federal courts and, about
2,660 were third party claims pending in state courts.
In the 2006-3rd quarter, the Company received about 1,670 new
claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket about 15,100
claims.
As of June 30, 2006, the Company had about 94,730 pending
asbestos-related claims, compared with about 104,700 as of June
30, 2005. Of the claims pending as of June 30, 2006, about
58,860 were pending in state courts, 33,210 in federal courts
and about 2,660 were third party claims. (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 1, 2006)
The Company co-defends in lawsuits claiming personal injuries
related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly
occurred from exposure caused by products made by predecessor
Westinghouse, which neither produced or made asbestos, generally
before the 1970s.
In most asbestos suits, the plaintiffs have not identified which
of the Company's products is the basis of a claim.
To date, the Company has not been liable for any third party
claims. For 2005, the Company's total costs for settlement and
defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of
tax benefits were about US$37.2 million, compared with US$58.4
million in 2004.
Filings included claims for individuals with mesothelioma, lung
cancer, other cancers, and conditions that are less serious,
including claims brought on behalf of persons who are
asymptomatic as to an allegedly asbestos-related disease. Claims
identified as cancer remain a small percentage of asbestos
claims pending at Sept. 30, 2006.
Headquartered in New York City, CBS Corp. owns the CBS and UPN
broadcast networks (along with about 40 affiliated TV stations),
pay-TV's Showtime, TV production houses CBS Paramount Television
and King World, CBS Radio (180 stations), and the CBS Outdoor
advertising business.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NRG Energy Claims Decrease to 3,386 in 3Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2006, recorded 3,386 pending-
asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's quarterly
report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006 filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
As of June 30, 2006, the Company had 3,428 pending asbestos-
related claims. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18, 2006)
Several Company plants are the subjects of lawsuits, commenced
in 2001, against defendants by a large number of individuals who
claimed personal injury from alleged exposure to asbestos while
working at Texas plant sites. These are premise-based claims as
distinguished from product-based claims.
Most of these claimants are third party contractors or sub-
contractors who participated in the construction, renovation,
and repair of various industrial plants, including power plants.
For the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, two claims were
filed, three claims settled, and 33 claims were dismissed or
resolved with no payment.
For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, three claims were
filed, seven claims settled, and 222 claims dismissed or
resolved with no payment.
CenterPoint Energy Inc. has agreed to continue to indemnify
those claims, subject to reimbursement of the defense costs from
the Company.
Headquartered in Princeton, N.J., NRG Energy Inc. produces power
with a capacity of 24,580 MW. In 2006, the Company bought power
generator Texas Genco Inc., now NRG Texas, for US$5.8 billion.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Pepco Holdings Steady at 220 in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 220 asbestos-related cases, as of Sept. 30, 2006 and June
30, 2006, are still pending against Pepco Holdings Inc. in the
state courts of Maryland, according to the Company's quarterly
report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006 filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Of the 220 pending cases, about 85 cases were filed after Dec.
19, 2000, and have been tendered to Mirant Corp. for defense and
indemnification under an asset purchase and sale agreement, in
which Mirant has agreed to assume this contractual obligation.
In 1993, the Company was served with amended complaints filed in
the state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore
City and Baltimore County, Md. in separate ongoing, consolidated
proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury Asbestos Case." The
Company and other corporate entities were brought into these
cases on a theory of premises liability.
Plaintiffs argued that the Company did not provide a safe work
environment for employees or its contractors, who allegedly were
exposed to asbestos while working on the Company's property.
Initially, a total of about 448 individual plaintiffs added
Pepco to their complaints.
It appeared that each plaintiff sought US$2 million in
compensatory damages and US$4 million in punitive damages from
each defendant.
Since the initial filings in 1993, more individual suits have
been filed against the Company, and significant numbers of cases
have been dismissed. As a result of two motions to dismiss,
numerous hearings and meetings and one motion for summary
judgment, the Company has had about 400 of these cases dismissed
with prejudice, either voluntarily by the plaintiff or by the
court.
Headquartered in Washington, D.C., Pepco Holdings Inc.
distributes electricity to more than 1.8 million customers and
natural gas to nearly 120,000 customers through its utility
units. The Company also has international energy interests.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. MeadWestvaco Remain at 350 in 3Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2006 and June 30, 2006,
recorded about 350 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the
Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2006 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company has been named a co-defendant, with other
corporations, in asbestos-related personal injury litigation.
To date, all of the resolved claims against the Company have
been concluded before trial, either through dismissal or through
settlement with payments to the plaintiff. The costs resulting
from the litigation, including settlement costs, have not been
significant.
Management said that the Company has substantial indemnification
protection and insurance coverage, subject to applicable
deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos claims.
At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had recorded litigation
liabilities of about US$25 million, a significant portion of
which relates to asbestos.
Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., MeadWestvaco Corp. is the
result of a merger between Mead and Westvaco. The Company has
sold its Papers business to investment firm Cerberus Capital
Management. MeadWestvaco's two largest divisions, Packaging and
Papers had accounted for about 80 percent of sales. The Company
owns about 1.2 million acres of timber.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Has 500 Cases With 10.7T Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries Inc. has been dealt with about 500 pending
asbestos-related cases, involving a total of about 10,700
plaintiffs and their spouses.
The Company has been named a defendant in lawsuits in several
jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of
occupational exposure to products, made by former operations of
the Company, containing asbestos, silica and mixed dust.
The Company has not accrued any amounts for this litigation. To
date, the Company has not been deemed liable in any of these
matters.
Moreover, from time to time, the Company has received notices
regarding asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought
against former subsidiaries, including notices provided to
insurers with which the Company has entered into settlements
extinguishing certain insurance policies.
These insurers may seek indemnification from the Company.
Headquartered in Dallas, Tex., NL Industries Inc., operates
through its subsidiary, Kronos Worldwide. Kronos supplies
titanium dioxide (TiO2), which maximizes the whiteness, opacity,
and brightness of paints, plastics, paper, fibers, and ceramics.
Valhi Inc. owns about 83 percent of NL Industries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint, Units Still Face Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Inc., formerly Reliant Energy Inc., and its
subsidiaries co-defend in lawsuits filed by individuals who
claim injury from asbestos exposure.
Several claimants have worked at Company-owned locations, but
most existing claims relate to facilities previously owned by
the Company or its units. The Company expects that more claims
will be asserted in the future.
In 2004, the Company sold its generating business, to which most
of these claims relate, to Texas Genco LLC, now known as NRG
Texas LP.
Under the terms of the arrangements regarding separation of the
generating business from the Company and its sale to Texas Genco
LLC, ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from
claims relating to the generating business has been assumed by
Texas Genco LLC and its successor.
However, the Company has agreed to continue to defend those
claims to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by
the Company, subject to reimbursement of the costs of such
defense from the purchaser.
Headquartered in Houston, Tex., CenterPoint Energy Inc.'s
utilities distribute natural gas and electricity to about 4.8
million customers in six southern states. CenterPoint Energy
operates 8,200 miles of gas pipeline, and has gas gathering and
storage operations.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Skanska to Pay $750T for Disposal Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Contractor Skanska USA Building Inc. was ordered to pay
US$750,000 for asbestos-related violations during the renovation
of the Monterey County Courthouse in Salinas, Calif.,
montereyherald.com reports.
A Skanska USA attorney entered the pleas to four misdemeanor
charges that included knowingly or negligently disposing of
asbestos, negligent storage of asbestos, and negligent emission
of an air contaminant.
All charges against the Company's project manager, Anthony
Jones, and all other charges against the Company were dismissed.
Deputy Attorney General Brett Morris said the lawsuit's
settlement, signed by Judge Barry Hammer, called for the Company
to design and implement a training program on asbestos handling
for its employees and pay US$750,000 in fines to the state and
the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District.
Judge Hammer also issued a permanent injunction requiring the
Company to obey all laws in the future and stayed sentencing on
the criminal matter for a year.
At that time, Judge Hammer will review a status report to
determine if the Company has abided by the terms of its
agreement. If so, the Company will be allowed to withdraw its
pleas and the charges will be dismissed, said Company attorney
Elliot Peters.
Charges remain against the court's other contractor, Nova
Partners Inc., and its project manager, Seth Henderson.
Skanska USA, Nova and their managers were indicted on eight
felonies and five misdemeanor charges. The Attorney General's
Office alleged they ignored warnings and allowed other
contractors to jackhammer and saw through concrete while
renovating the courthouse's north wing, releasing asbestos into
the ventilation system.
The charges could have carried more than US$3 million in fines
and prison sentences for Mr. Henderson and Mr. Jones. In August
2006, Judge Hammer dismissed four of the felonies after a
challenge by the companies' attorneys.
Headquartered in Parsippany, N.J., Skanska USA Building Inc.
operates as a general contracting and construction management
firm. The Company, a subsidiary of Sweden-based Skanska AB,
provides services for a range of markets, including aviation,
pharmaceuticals, health care, education, high-tech, and sports
and entertainment.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Payout Deadline Extended to Nov. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries NV and the New South Wales Government
are extending, to Nov. 22, 2006, the deadline on a deal to
finalize compensation for the Company's asbestos victims, The
Australian reports.
A statement said that the Company and the NSW Govt. have
extended the deadline from Nov. 14, 2006 to allow time for them
to agree on changes to the deal stemming from November's tax
ruling, and several other conditions.
On Nov. 9, 2006, the Company reached an agreement with the
Australian Tax Office that means payments from its compensation
fund, worth up to AUD4.5 billion over 40 years, would be tax
deductible.
In June 2006, the fund had been thrown into doubt when the ATO
ruled it could not be treated as a charity for tax purposes.
The Company said the rulings would deliver an acceptable tax
outcome for the proposed fund, set up to compensate Australians
with asbestos-related personal injury claims against the
Company's former subsidiaries.
The Company must now finalize the multi-billion dollar Final
Funding Agreement with the NSW Govt., which must pass
legislation facilitating the deal. The Company must then seek
the approval of its shareholders.
Hardie spokesman Cameron Hamilton has said the Company remains
on track to convene a shareholders meeting in February 2007 to
approve the FFA.
Headquartered in Sydney, Australia, James Hardie Industries NV
uses cellulose-reinforced fiber cement to create products for
residential and commercial construction, including siding,
external cladding, walls, fencing, and roofing. The Company
makes fiber-reinforced concrete pipe through its Hardie Pipe
business and roofing through Artisan Roofing.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. 11 Defendants Filed in W.Va. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Chervenick, an attorney for Goldberg, Persky and White,
has filed, in the Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., an asbestos-
related lawsuit on behalf of four plaintiffs against 11
defendants, The West Virginia Record reports.
Frank Graich, executor of the Estate of Rudy Graich, is the
first plaintiff. The complaint said that Mr. Graich worked at
Weirton Steel Corp. from 1964-2002 and was diagnosed with
asbestosis and lung cancer. The complaint blamed the defendants
for exposing him to asbestos.
Junior and Dorothy Payne also filed suit. Mr. Payne, 85 years
old, worked as a mechanic at Dupont from 1941 to 1982.
Clarence and Joyce Strickland of Clendenin, W.Va. said Mr.
Strickland worked as a laborer at Elk Refining-Pennzoil in
Falling Rock and Union Carbide Corp. Mr. Strickland, 71 years
old, is suffering from asbestosis and mesothelioma.
Charles and Patsy Zeigler of Weirton, W.Va. are the last of the
plaintiffs. Mr. Zeigler, 72 years old, said he worked at Weirton
Steel Corp. from 1959 to 1989 and has asbestosis and lung
cancer.
The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages. The spouses
seek claims for loss of consortium.
A visiting judge will be assigned Kanawha Circuit Court Case No.
06-C-2348.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEQ Imposes $5T Penalty for Faulty Handling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has slapped Scott
A. Henselman nearly US$5,000 in penalties for improperly
handling asbestos during a renovation project at his downtown
real estate office at 107 E. Main St. in Medford, Mail Tribune
reports.
Steven Croucher, a DEQ environmental specialist, found breaches
during a January 2006 inspection when Mr. Henselman was
remodeling his office, Henselman Realty & Management.
Mr. Croucher said, while tearing out a wall and ceiling, Mr.
Henselman's work crews uncovered an abandoned heating duct made
of asbestos and apparently did not recognize the material and
its potential danger.
Mr. Croucher's report was forwarded to the DEQ's compliance and
enforcement division, which assessed a US$2,250 penalty for
allowing someone other than a licensed asbestos abatement
contractor to remove the duct and a US$2,700 penalty for openly
amassing asbestos-containing waste from the renovation.
The penalties were handed down Oct. 16, 2006 and Mr. Henselman
appealed them Oct. 27, 2006. The case is set for an informal
hearing on Nov. 28, 2006 during which Mr. Henselman can present
his side of the case.
Mr. Croucher said initial testing had not shown the small amount
of asbestos that the inspection discovered after demolition had
begun.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Georgia-Pacific Workers to Take Case to WCC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Current and former employees of a Georgia-Pacific Corp. resin
plant in Crossett, Ark. will be taking their asbestos exposure
concerns to the Workers' Compensation Commission, The Associated
Press reports.
An Ashley County Circuit Court earlier ruled it had jurisdiction
over the case and determining whether the employees could make a
claim under the Workers' Compensation Act.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, saying the
state Workers' Compensation Commission had "exclusive, original
jurisdiction" over the matter.
The Supreme Court's decision did not address other issues in the
case, which still has active portions in the Circuit Court.
The workers also had sued an unnamed gasket manufacturer for
including asbestos in its products.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock's Gaskets Not Linked to Illness
------------------------------------------------------------
A jury from Northampton County in Easton, Pa. ruled that gaskets
made by Garlock Sealing Technologies were not responsible for
the asbestos-related disease of Joseph H. Smith, of Palmer
Township, The Express-Times reports.
Mr. Smith and his wife, Debra, sued Garlock in 2005.
An attorney for Mr. Smith's family argued that Mr. Smith
contracted mesothelioma from asbestos in the gaskets.
However, lawyers for the Company argued that Mr. Smith never
used Garlock-made gaskets with asbestos while he worked at F.L.
Smith in the 1970s and the 1980s.
Garlock attorney Robert Connor said that the bearing houses
operated by Mr. Smith at F.L. Smith were not an appropriate use
for Garlock's asbestos-containing gaskets.
Mr. Connor said that Mr. Smith likely used a different type of
gasket on those bearing houses.
Dozens of defendants were named in the suit at various times,
but Garlock and Westinghouse Electric Corp. went to trial.
Plaintiffs' attorney David L. Palmer said that Westinghouse
joined the list of other defendants and settled the day after
the Oct. 26, 2006 opening arguments.
The suit claimed asbestos exposure caused Mr. Smith to develop
mesothelioma. The disease also killed his mother, raising the
probability that the disease was a result of inhaling fibers
from his father's work clothes, Mr. Connor said.
Mr. Connor said Mr. Smith was exposed to asbestos fibers at his
home between 1953 and 1970, when his father worked for Johns-
Manville. Mr. Smith grew up in Bloomsbury, N.J.
Mr. Smith, 53 years old, died of mesothelioma on Sept. 28, 2006.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Asbestos Provision Rises to AUD55.9M
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries NV said that its asbestos-related
provision had been increased by AUD55.9 million, Shaw
Stockbroking reports.
The increase reflected the most recent actuarial estimates and
payments made to applicants by the current fund, the Medical
Research and Compensation Fund.
The Company said that its net operating profit rose 43 percent
to US$68.3 million, excluding adjustments to the asbestos
provision for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.
The Company said that it expected full year 2006 net profit to
remain in line with guidance of US$206 million to US$237 million
from continuing operations, excluding all asbestos-related
expenses.
Excluding adjustments for its asbestos compensation provision,
the Company's net operating profit rose 27 percent to US$131
million in the six months to Sept. 30, 2006.
Headquartered in Sydney, Australia, James Hardie Industries NV
uses cellulose-reinforced fiber cement to create products for
residential and commercial construction, including siding,
external cladding, walls, fencing, and roofing. The Company
makes fiber-reinforced concrete pipe through its Hardie Pipe
business and roofing through Artisan Roofing.
New Securities Fraud Cases
BODISEN BIOTECH: The Rosen Law Firm Files N.Y. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action on behalf of purchasers
of Bodisen Biotech, Inc. common stock during the period from
Aug. 26, 2005 through and including Nov. 14, 2006. The case is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York as case no. 06-13220.
The complaint charges that Bodisen and certain of its officers,
along with Benjamin Wey a/k/a Benjamin Wei and his company New
York Global Group, Inc., violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by causing the issuance
of materially false and misleading information about the
company's performance, business prospects, and failing to
disclose material relationships the company had with Benjamin
Wey and his related companies.
The complaint alleges that on Nov. 12, 2006 the company issued a
press release that it received a letter from the AMEX "warning
that it is out of compliance with certain listing standards."
A later press release issued by the AP states that AMEX
"believes Bodisen made insufficient or inaccurate disclosure in
public filings on its relationship with, and payments to, New
York Global and its affiliates both prior to and subsequent to
its listing on the exchange."
The later press release also states that the AMEX "expressed
concern that Bodisen has internal control issues related to its
accounting and financial reporting obligations in the context of
this relationship with the company."
The complaint also asserts that the Nov. 12, 2006 announcement
followed numerous reports by nationally prominent journalists
that revealed the company had hired stock promoter Benjamin Wey,
an individual with prior securities violations that ultimately
led to fines and suspension of Mr. Wey's securities license.
These news reports revealed that Mr. Wey, through his company
New York Global, issued analyst reports and other statements to
the investing public touting the company's stock without
disclosing that they were being paid by the company.
News reports also indicate that during this time, millions of
shares of the company stock were sold by or through persons who
were affiliated with NYGG and its related entities.
The complaint asserts that these adverse disclosures have caused
the company's stock price to decline.
For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim,
Esq., The Rosen Law Firm, PA, Phone: 1-866-767-3653, (212) 686-
1060 and (917) 797-4425, Fax: (212) 202-3827, E-mail:
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com, Web site:
http://www.rosenlegal.com.
IKANOS COMMS: Wechsler Harwood Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood, LLP, filed a class action on behalf of
investors of Ikanos Communications, Inc. who purchased the
common stock of Ikanos pursuant or traceable to the company's
initial public offering on Sept. 22, 2005 or its secondary
offering on March 8, 2006 seeking remedies under the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933.
The action, entitled, "Sherukuri v. Ikanos Communications, Inc.,
C.A. No. 06-cv-13174 (PAC)," is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, and names as
defendants the company as well as certain senior officers and
directors.
The complaint alleges that Ikanos and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by making false
and misleading statements and omissions concerning Ikanos'
financial health and business prospects in the company's
Registration Statements and Prospectuses for the initial and
secondary offerings, respectively.
Specifically, Ikanos failed to disclose that its financial
results would be adversely affected by shipment of chipset
products to its customers in Japan in excess of demand.
On Oct. 4, 2006, the company issued a press release announcing,
among other things, that its revenues results for the third
quarter would be lower than expected, leading to fall in the
value of the stock.
Interested parties have until Jan. 5, 2007 to move for lead
plaintiff status in the case.
For more details, contact Craig Lowther of Wechsler Harwood,
LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022,
Phone: (877) 935-7400 (ext. 257), E-mail: clowther@whesq.com,
Web site: http://www.whesq.com.
WARNER CHILCOTT: Brower Piven Announces N.Y. Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven announces that a class action was commenced in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the publicly-traded common stock of
Warner Chilcott, Ltd. pursuant to the company's Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued with respect to the initial
public offering of the company's shares between Sept. 20, 2006
and Sept. 26, 2006.
The action is pending against defendants Warner Chilcott, Ltd.,
Roger Boissonneault, president and chief executive officer, and
Paul Herendeen, executive vice president and chief financial
officer.
The complaint alleges violations of Section 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that
the company's Registration Statement and Prospectus with respect
to the IPO contained untrue statements of material facts,
omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements
made not misleading and was not prepared in accordance with the
rules and regulations governing its preparation.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed to
disclose that:
-- prior to the IPO, the company had stopped shipping
Ovcon 35, the company's most important product, as it
was transitioning to Ovcon 35 Fe (Ovcon Chewable);
-- As a result, following the IPO, the company stopped
selling Ovcon 35 in meaningful quantities and revenues
from sales of Ovcon 35 declined dramatically and
shortly thereafter, stopped; and
-- On Sept. 26, 2006, Warner Chilcott announced
developments in a lawsuit brought against it by the
Federal Trade Commission and filed a supplement to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus. In this
supplement (released six days after the company's
IPO) the company disclosed that it had ceased
shipments of Ovcon 35 in September 2006 when it
launched Ovcon Chewable.
In response to these disclosures the price of Warner Chilcott
common stock dropped $2.40 per share from the $15.00 offering
price to $12.60 per share on heavy trading volume.
Interested parties have until Jan. 2, 2007 to move for lead
plaintiff status in the case.
For more details, contact Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-
Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, Phone: 410-332-0030, E-mail:
hoffman@browerpiven.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 * * *