/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/061215.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, December 15, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 249
Headlines
ACE LTD: Relevance of Insurance Law to "B Quotes" Suit Ruled Out
ALDEN NETWORK: 21 Ill. Nursing Homes Accused of Unlawful Acts
AMERIGAS INC: Still Faces Suit Over W.Va. Propane Leak, Fire
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Still Faces Stock Lawsuits in Del., N.Y.
CANADIAN PACIFIC: N.D. Derailment Lawsuit Dismissal Appealed
CLEUGH'S FROZEN: Recalls Strawberries for Listeria Contamination
COVENTRY HEALTH: Plaintiffs in Managed Care Suit Appeal Rulings
DEGUSSA CORP: March Hearing Set for $4M Antitrust Suit Deal
DENTSPLY INTL: Faces Penna. Suit Over Safeness of "Cavitron"
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Judge Allows Inmates' Suit to Go to Trial
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Named in Del. Lawsuit by TEPPCO Unitholder
EXXON MOBIL: Court Considers $4.5B Judgment in Exxon Valdez Case
FEATHERLITE MFG: Iowa Appeals Court Allows Employee's Lawsuit
FIRST HORIZON: Applicable Law Still a Question in Loan Fees Suit
GUESS? INC: Enters Mediation in Calif. Store Managers Lawsuit
ILLINOIS: City, Police Sued Over Sting Operation in Car Wash
IMAGITAS INC: To Request for MDL in DPPA Violation Lawsuit
INNOVA INC: Recalls Ultrex Pressure Cookers Posing Burn Risk
KINDER MORGAN: Ark. Court Considers Motions in "Johnson" Suit
MACATAWA BANK: Mich. Court Mulls "Jenkins" Class Certification
MASSACHUSETTS: Feoffees Sued Over Rent Increases in Little Neck
MASSACHUSETTS: Negotiations on Plan for 'Stuck Kids' at Impasse
OREGON: Counties Face Federal Lawsuits Over Strip Search Policy
PANTRY INC: N.C. Court Yet to Rule on Remaining Labor Complaints
PERRIGO CO: Recalls Acetaminophen that May Contain Metal Traces
REALLY USEFUL: Recalls Mood, Diva Necklaces on High Lead Content
SILICON STORAGE: Calif. Court Mulls Stock Suit Dismissal Motion
UNITED STATES: New Suit Filed Over Mandatory Anthrax Vaccination
VANDERVOET: Recalls HDC Cantaloupes Over Possible Contamination
WILLBROS GROUP: Feb. Hearing Set for $10M Stock Suit Settlement
WISCONSIN: Appleton Residents File Suit Over Athletic Facilities
Asbestos Alert
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Records $486.8M Liability at 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Has 89,314 Pending Claims in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Still Faces Insurance Suit in Conn.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: "Premises" Claims v. Huntsman Drop to 1,396
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norcross Safety Has 60 Exposure Suits in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbia Equity Has $156T Cleanup Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CompuDyne Still Has Product Liability Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Industries Has 10 Suits in Ala. Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liggett Group Faces 4 Third-Party Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Aluminum Corp. Has $1.115B Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. TriMas Corp. Surge to 1,704 in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Denies Motions of Two Insurers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navy Veteran's Claim Denial Upheld in Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Remands Gaines Claim to Board
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Records $46M Liability in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Maremont Drop to 51,895 1n 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Has $7M Rockwell Receivable
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crowley Faces 15,251 Suits in Ohio, Mich.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Airguide Inc. Assesses $875,000 for Removal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Liability Remains at $7.02M in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Has 157 Pending Claims in 3Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Building Materials Has 1.9T Pending Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Corp. Provides $3.056B for Claims in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Records AUD55.9M Provision Increase
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Argues Prudential Time-Barred Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Objects to Document Production
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Ltd. Stock Rises on Asbestos Optimism
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA to Conduct Libby, Mont. Cleanup Testing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker Sues Owens-Illinois, 12 Cos. in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Wins Appeal v. Fibre in Wash. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Widow Files Suit v. 109 Firms in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lung Cancer Victim's Family Awarded AUD600T
ASBESTOS ALERT: Fansteel Faces Ivan Hand Wrongful Death Suit
ASBESTOS ALERT: GS CleanTech Corp. Has $650T Contamination Suit
New Securities Fraud Cases
BODISEN BIOTECH: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
PEGASUS WIRELESS Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
TOP TANKERS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
*********
ACE LTD: Relevance of Insurance Law to "B Quotes" Suit Ruled Out
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in New Jersey ruled that the McCarran
Furguson Act did not apply to commercial insurance complaints
against ACE Ltd., but held that plaintiffs had not adequately
alleged an antitrust conspiracy or a Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act enterprise.
ACE Ltd., ACE INA Holdings, Inc. and ACE USA, Inc., along with a
number of other insurers, were named in a series of federal
putative nationwide class actions brought by insurance
policyholders. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated these cases in the District of New Jersey.
On Aug. 1, 2005, plaintiffs in the New Jersey consolidated
proceedings filed two consolidated amended complaints -- one
concerning commercial insurance and the other concerning
employee benefit plans. The employee benefit plans litigation
against ACE has been dismissed.
In the commercial insurance complaint, the plaintiffs named:
* ACE Ltd.,
* ACE INA Holdings, Inc.,
* ACE USA, Inc.,
* ACE American Insurance Co.,
* Illinois Union Insurance Co., and
* Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America
They allege that insurers, including certain ACE entities, and
brokers conspired to increase premiums and allocate customers
through the use of "B"quotes and contingent commissions. In
addition, the complaints allege that the broker defendants
received additional income by improperly placing their clients'
business with insurers through related wholesale entities that
act as intermediaries between the broker and insurer.
Plaintiffs also allege that broker defendants tied the purchase
of primary insurance with the placement of such coverage with
reinsurance carriers through the broker defendants' reinsurance
broker subsidiaries. In the commercial insurance consolidated
complaint, plaintiffs assert these causes of action against ACE:
Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act,
federal antitrust law, state antitrust law, aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.
The plaintiffs have sought unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement of expenses, including legal fees. On Nov. 29,
2005, ACE and other property and casualty insurer defendants
filed motions to dismiss the commercial insurance complaint.
On Oct. 3, 2006, the court ruled on defendants' motions and held
that the McCarran Furguson Act did not apply to the allegations,
but the Court also held that plaintiffs had not adequately
alleged an antitrust conspiracy or a RICO enterprise.
The Court ordered plaintiffs to submit supplemental pleadings on
or before Oct. 25, 2006; plaintiffs filed their supplemental
pleadings on Oct. 25, 2006.
On Feb. 13, 2006, plaintiffs filed motions to certify a class in
the Commercial and Employee Benefits MDL cases. This motion has
been fully briefed and is pending, according to the company's
Nov. 6 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30.
ALDEN NETWORK: 21 Ill. Nursing Homes Accused of Unlawful Acts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-one Illinois nursing homes are named in a class action
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, alleging unlawful
business practices, unfair and fraudulent business practices,
violations of health & safety codes, and violations of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
All 21 homes are members of The Alden Network and owned,
operated, or managed by the Alden Group, Ltd., Alden Management
Services, Inc., and Alden of Rockford Investments, L.L.C.
The suit was filed by Segal, McCambridge, Singer & Mahoney, Ltd.
of Chicago, Ill., and The Garcia Law Firm of Long Beach, Calif.,
on behalf of Elizabeth Frazier and the thousands of other
citizens of the State of Illinois who have or who do reside in
an Alden Group, Ltd. skilled and/or long-term nursing facility.
The complaint's allegations span from Oct. 13, 2003 to Oct. 13,
2006 and alleges that the Alden defendants -- including sole
stockholder and President and CEO Floyd A. Schlossberg and the
companies' other officers, as well as 21 of the skilled nursing
facilities in Illinois that it owns, operates, or manages, and
the named facilities and their administrators -- are knowingly
not providing the minimum level of direct patient care mandated
by the State of Illinois. Yet these elderly residents, their
insurance companies, and even Medicare and MediCal, were billed
as if the lawfully required care was provided, the suit stated.
Additionally, the complaint alleges that the corporation and
facilities are advertising on their web sites, in brochures, and
during site visits that they are meeting all Illinois laws and
regulations when, in fact, they are not.
Named nursing homes in the suit:
AURORA
Alden of Waterford
-- Averaged 1.37 nursing hours per patient vs. State's
mandate of 2.5 nursing hours per patient a day.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
-- From May 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006, the facility
received eight notices of deficiencies by DPH,
making the facility 110 percent over the statewide
average of seven notices per year.
-- From May 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005, the facility
received 15 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 210 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year.
BARRINGTON
Governor's Park of Barrington Rehabilitation & Health Care
Center
-- Averaged .85 nursing hours per patient vs. State's
mandate of 2.5 nursing hours per patient a day.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
-- From May 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006, the facility
received 21 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 300 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year. Deficiencies included,
but were not limited to, failing to make sure
residents were well nourished, hiring people who
have no legal history of abusing, neglecting or
mistreating residents, investigating any acts or
reports of abuse, neglect or mistreatment of
residents, giving professional services that meet a
professional standard of quality, give residents
proper treatment to prevent new bed (pressure)
sores or to heal existing bed sores.
BLOOMINGDALE
Alden - Valley Ridge Rehabilitation & Health Care Center
-- Upon information and belief, it is alleged that
this facility failed to provide the mandated 2.5
nursing hours per patient.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
-- From May 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005, the facility
received 19 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 270 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year.
-- From May 1, 2003 to April 30, 2004, the facility
received 10 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 140 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year. Deficiencies included,
but were not limited to, failing to make sure
residents were well nourished, hiring people who
have no legal history of abusing, neglecting or
mistreating residents, investigating any acts or
reports of abuse, neglect or mistreatment of
residents, giving professional services that meet a
professional standard of quality, give residents
proper treatment to prevent new bed (pressure)
sores or to heal existing bed sores.
CICERO
Alden - Town Manor Rehabilitation & Health Care Center
-- Averaged 1.33 nursing hours per patient vs. State's
mandate of 2.5 nursing hours per patient a day.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
-- From May 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006, the facility
received 18 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 250 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year.
-- From May 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005, the facility
received 16 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 225 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year. Deficiencies included,
but were not limited to, failing to hire people
with no legal history of abusing, mistreating or
neglecting residents, giving professional services
to meet a professional standard of quality,
providing needed housekeeping and maintenance, and
giving residents proper treatment to prevent new
bed (pressure) sores or to heal existing bed sores.
CHICAGO
Alden - Lakeland Rehabilitation & Health Care Center
-- Averaged 1.22 nursing hours per patient vs. State's
mandate of 2.5 nursing hours per patient a day.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
-- From June 10, 2004 to May 27, 2005, the facility
received 12 notices of deficiencies by DPH for
providing substandard care and violating residents'
rights, making the facility 170 percent over the
statewide average of seven notices per year.
-- From May 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005, the facility
received 26 notices of deficiencies by DPH for
providing substandard care and violating residents'
rights, making the facility 370 percent over the
statewide average of seven notices per year.
Alden - Lincoln Park Rehabilitation & Health Care Center
-- Averaged 1.19 nursing hours per patient vs. State's
mandate of 2.5 nursing hours per patient a day.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
-- From June 10, 2004 to May 27, 2005, DPH assigned
the facility 4 notices of deficiencies that
included, but were not limited to, failing to give
professional services that meet a professional
standard of quality and making sure that each
resident's nutritional needs were met.
Alden - Morrow Rehabilitation & Health Care Center
-- Averaged .62 nursing hours per patient vs. State's
mandate of 2.5 nursing hours per patient a day.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
-- From May 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006, the facility
received 14 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 200 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year. Deficiencies included,
but were not limited to, failing to make sure that
residents who cannot care for themselves receive
help with eating and drinking, grooming and
hygiene, and that each resident's nutritional needs
are met.
-- Received 26 notices of deficiencies (2004) by DHS,
making the facility 230 percent over the statewide
average of 11 notices per year.
Alden - Northmoor Rehabilitation & Health Center
-- Averaged 1.39 nursing hours per patient vs. State's
mandate of 2.5 nursing hours per patient a day.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
-- From May 1, 2005 to July 310, 2006, facility
received seven notices of deficiencies by DPH, for
substandard care and violating residents' rights.
-- From May 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005, facility
received nine notices of deficiencies by DPH,
making the facility 125 percent over the statewide
average of seven notices per year.
-- From May 1, 2003 to April 30, 2004, facility
received 14 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 200 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year. These included, but are
not limited to, neglecting to give professional
services that meet a professional standard of care,
providing residents who cannot care for themselves
with assistance with eating, drinking, grooming,
and hygiene, and giving residents proper treatment
to prevent bed (pressure), sores or to heal
existing bed sores.
Alden - Princeton Rehabilitation & Health Care Center
-- Averaged 1.41 nursing hours per patient vs. State's
mandate of 2.5 nursing hours per patient a day.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
-- From May 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006, the facility
received 13 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 180 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year.
-- From May 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005, facility
received 20 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 285 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year.
-- From May 1, 2003 to April 30, 2004, facility
received 26 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 370 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year. These deficiencies
included, but were not limited to, hiring people
with no legal history of abusing, mistreating, or
neglecting residents, reporting and investigating
act acts or reports of abuse, neglect, or
mistreatment, make sure residents are safe from
serious medication errors, give residents proper
treatment to prevent new bed (pressure) sores or to
heal existing bed sores. These notices of
deficiencies arose from a situation in which a
resident's wound was allowed to breed maggots, some
reported to be one centimeter in size.
Alden - Wentworth Rehabilitation & Health Care Center
-- Averaged 1.08 nursing hours per patient vs. State's
mandate of 2.5 nursing hours per patient a day.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
-- From May 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006, the facility
received 18 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 120 percent over the statewide average
of 11 notices per year.
DES PLAINES
Alden - Des Plaines Rehabilitation & Health Care Center
-- Averaged 1.39 nursing hours per patient vs. State's
mandate of 2.5 nursing hours per patient a day.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
-- Received 17 notices of deficiencies (2005) by DHS,
making the facility 150 percent over the statewide
average of 11 notices per year.
EVANSTON
Alden Estates of Evanston
-- Averaged .42 nursing hours per patient vs. State's
mandate of 2.5 nursing hours per patient a day.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
-- From May 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006, the facility
received eight notices of deficiencies by DPH,
making the facility 110 percent over the statewide
average of seven notices per year. Deficiencies
included, but were not limited to, hiring people
who have no legal history of abusing, mistreating,
or neglecting residents, giving professional
services that meet a professional standard of
quality, and providing needed housekeeping and
maintenance.
HARVEY
Alden - Heather Rehabilitation & Health Care Center
-- Averaged 1.60 nursing hours per patient vs. State's
mandate of 2.5 nursing hours per patient a day.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
-- From May 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006, the facility
received 11 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 150 percent over the statewide average
of 11 notices per year. Deficiencies included, but
were not limited to, hiring people who have no
legal history of abusing, mistreating, or
neglecting residents, giving professional services
that meet a professional standard of quality, and
providing needed housekeeping and maintenance.
HOFFMAN ESTATES
Alden - Poplar Creek Rehabilitation & Health Care Center
-- Averaged .98 nursing hours per patient vs. State's
mandate of 2.5 nursing hours per patient a day.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
-- From May 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006, the facility
received 4 notices of deficiencies by DPH,
including, but not limited to, for providing
substandard care to residents.
-- From May 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005, the facility
received seven notices of deficiencies by DPH,
including, but not limited to, for failing to give
professional services that meet a professional
standard of quality, making sure that residents who
cannot care for themselves are assisted with
eating, drinking, grooming, and hygiene, and giving
residents proper treatment to prevent new bed
(pressure) sores or to heal existing bed sores.
LONG GROVE
Alden - Long Grove Rehabilitation & Health Care Center
-- Averaged .58 nursing hours per patient vs. State's
mandate of 2.5 nursing hours per patient a day.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
-- From May 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006, the facility
received 16 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 220 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year. Deficiencies included,
but were not limited to, hiring people who have no
legal history of abusing, mistreating, or
neglecting residents, giving professional services
that meet a professional standard of quality, and
providing needed housekeeping and maintenance.
McHENRY
Alden - Terrace of McHenry Rehabilitation & Health Care
Center
-- Averaged .84 nursing hours per patient vs. State's
mandate of 2.5 nursing hours per patient a day.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
-- From May 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006, the facility
received 10 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 140 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year.
-- From May 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005, the facility
received nine notices of deficiencies by DPH,
making the facility 140 percent over the statewide
average of seven notices per year.
NAPERVILLE
Alden - Naperville Rehabilitation & Health Care Center
-- Averaged 1.13 nursing hours per patient vs. State's
mandate of 2.5 nursing hours per patient a day.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
-- From May 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006, the facility
received six notices of deficiencies by DPH, for
providing substandard care to residents and for
violating residents' rights.
-- From May 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005, the facility
received 14 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 200 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year.
-- From May 1, 2003 to April 30, 2004, the facility
received 13 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 185 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year. The incident that
resulted in many of these notices of deficiencies
was "resident wanderings" due to insufficient
nursing staff.
ORLAND PARK
Alden - Orland Park Rehabilitation & Health Care Center
-- Averaged 1.55 nursing hours per patient vs. State's
mandate of 2.5 nursing hours per patient a day.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
-- From May 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006, the facility
received 12 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 170 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year.
-- From May 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005, the facility
received six notices of deficiencies by DPH,
including, but not limited to, failing to provide
professional services that meet a professional
standard of quality, make sure residents who can't
care for themselves receive assistance with eating,
drinking, grooming, and hygiene, and giving
residents proper treatment to prevent new bed
(pressure) sores and to heal existing bed sores.
ROCKFORD
Alden - Alma Nelson Manor
-- Upon information and belief, it is alleged that
this facility failed to provide the mandated 2.5
nursing hours per patient.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
-- From May 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006, the facility
received 22 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 310 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year.
-- From May 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005, the facility
received 24 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 340 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year.
-- From May 1, 2003 to April 30, 2004, the facility
received 15 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 210 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year. Deficiencies included,
but were not limited to, hiring people with no
legal history of abusing, mistreating, or
neglecting residents, reporting or investigating
any acts or reports of abuse, neglect, or
mistreatment of residents, giving professional
services that meet a professional standard of
quality, making sure residents who can't provided
for themselves receive assistance with eating,
drinking, grooming and hygiene, and giving
residents proper treatment to prevent new bed
(pressure) sores and to heal existing bed sores.
Alden - Park Strathmoor
-- Averaged 1.14 nursing hours per patient vs. State's
mandate of 2.5 nursing hours per patient a day.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
-- From May 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006, the facility
received eight notices of deficiencies by DPH,
making the facility 110 percent over the statewide
average of seven notices per year.
-- From May 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005, the facility
received 15 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 210 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year.
-- From May 1, 2003 to April 30, 2004, the facility
received 31 notices of deficiencies by DPH, making
the facility 440 percent over the statewide average
of seven notices per year. Deficiencies included,
but were not limited to, hiring people with no
legal history of abusing, mistreating, or
neglecting residents, reporting or investigating
any acts or reports of abuse, neglect, or
mistreatment of residents, giving professional
services that meet a professional standard of
quality, making sure residents who can't provided
for themselves receive assistance with eating,
drinking, grooming and hygiene, and giving
residents proper treatment to prevent new bed
(pressure) sores and to heal existing bed sores.
SKOKIE
Alden - North Shore Rehabilitation & Health Care Center
-- Upon information and belief, it is alleged that
this facility failed to provide the mandated 2.5
nursing hours per patient.
-- Failed to provide approximately thousands of hours
of legally required nursing care to residents in a
single year.
"Inadequate staffing leads to elder abuse. It is that plain and
that simple," says Stephen Garcia of The Garcia Law Firm. "From
reviewing state records of the notices of deficiencies from the
Illinois Department of Public Health, we found that most of the
Alden Network facilities throughout Illinois are perfect
examples of this cause-and-effect. The facilities with the
minimum amount of staffing seem to have the highest rate of
citations."
Since March 24, 1989, as mandated in the Skilled Nursing and
Intermediate Care Facilities Code, skilled nursing facilities
are required to provide a minimum of 2.5 hours of personal care
each day to each resident.
"The Alden - Morrow Rehabilitation & Health Care Center in
Chicago, for instance, has reported that it provided 0.62
nursing hours per patient," Mr. Garcia said. "Does anyone
believe that the residents of that facility can be well cared
for when they're given about an hour a day of care? And to add
insult to injury, the Alden Network facilities have budgets that
have been approved by corporate and the site's directors, that
ensure minimal staffing. Nevertheless, residents and their
public and private insurance companies are being billed as if
the facilities are well-staffed. My question is, where is the
money?"
The Alden Network, headquartered in Chicago, is a for-profit
company with President & CEO Floyd A. Schlossberg being the sole
stockholder, per media reports. It operates skilled nursing
facilities and long-term care facilities in Illinois and
Wisconsin.
In 2005, NBC5's Renee Ferguson broke the story of Amy Jo Hale, a
brain-damaged woman who was sexually assaulted in the Alden
Village Health Facility for Children and Young Adults in
Bloomingdale, who gave birth to a baby girl, the product of what
the police allegedly call a rape. According to Unit 5, the baby
is being cared for by her grandmother.
"The sexual assault of a young woman who cannot talk, walk, or
even feed herself is horrible to contemplate," Mr. Garcia said.
"However, is it any worse than maggots, some reported to be one-
centimeter in size, being allowed to breed in a resident's
wound? That's reported by DPH as happening in an Alden Network
facility, too."
For additional information about the suit, contact Steve Garcia
at The Garcia Law Firm, 800-281-8515 or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.lawgarcia.com.
AMERIGAS INC: Still Faces Suit Over W.Va. Propane Leak, Fire
------------------------------------------------------------
AmeriGas, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action
pending in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West
Virginia, according to UGI Corp.'s Dec. 11, 2006 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period quarter Sept. 30, 2006.
In July 2001, the suit, "Swiger, et al. v. UGI/AmeriGas, Inc. et
al., Civil Action No. 98-C-298," was filed against the company.
Plaintiffs Samuel and Brenda Swiger and their son sustained
personal injuries and property damage as a result of a fire that
occurred when propane that leaked from an underground line
ignited.
The suit sought to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory
and punitive damages and attorney's fees, for themselves and on
behalf of persons in West Virginia for whom the defendants had
installed propane gas lines, allegedly resulting from the
defendants' failure to install underground propane lines at
depths required by applicable safety standards.
The court recently granted the plaintiffs' motion to include
customers acquired from Columbia Propane in August 2001 as
additional potential class members, and to amend their complaint
to name additional parties consistent with such ruling.
In 2003, the defendants settled the individual personal injury
and property damage claims of the Swigers. Class counsel has
indicated that the class is seeking compensatory damages in
excess of $12 million plus punitive damages, civil penalties and
attorneys' fees.
In 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to include
customers acquired from Columbia Propane in August 2001 as
additional potential class members, and the plaintiffs amended
their complaint to name additional parties pursuant to such
ruling.
Class counsel has indicated that the class is seeking
compensatory damages in excess of $12 million plus punitive
damages, civil penalties and attorneys' fees.
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Still Faces Stock Lawsuits in Del., N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems, Corp. remains a defendant in two purported
tracking stock class actions filed in the Delaware and New York
state courts.
Delaware Action
In August 2002, purported class actions naming as defendants the
company and each of its directors were filed in the Delaware
Chancery Court.
The actions, which allege breach of fiduciary duties and breach
of contract with respect to the exchange of the Rainbow Media
Group tracking stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock, were
purportedly brought on behalf of all holders of publicly traded
shares of Rainbow Media Group tracking stock. The actions
sought to:
-- enjoin the exchange of Rainbow Media Group tracking
stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock;
-- enjoin any sales of "Rainbow Media Group assets," or,
in the alternative, award rescissory damages;
-- if the exchange is completed, rescind it or award
rescissory damages;
-- award compensatory damages; and
-- award costs and disbursements.
The actions were consolidated into one action on Sept. 17, 2002,
and on Oct. 3, 2002, Cablevision filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated action.
The action was stayed by agreement of the parties pending
resolution of a related action brought by one of the plaintiffs
to compel the inspection of certain books and records of
Cablevision.
On Oct. 26, 2004, the parties entered into a stipulation
dismissing the related action, and providing for Cablevision's
production of certain documents.
On Dec. 13, 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. Cablevision filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.
On April 19, 2005, the court granted that motion in part,
dismissing the breach of contract claim but declining to dismiss
the breach of fiduciary duty claim on the pleadings.
New York Action
In August 2003, a purported class action naming as defendants
the company, directors and officers of Cablevision and certain
current and former officers and employees of the company's
Rainbow Media Holdings and American Movie Classics subsidiaries
was filed in New York Supreme Court by the Teachers Retirement
System of Louisiana (TRSL).
The actions relate to the August 2002 Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock exchange and allege, among other things, that the
exchange ratio was based upon a price of the Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock that was artificially deflated as a result of the
improper recognition of certain expenses at the national
services division of Rainbow Media Holdings.
The complaint alleges breaches by the individual defendants of
fiduciary duties. It also alleges breaches of contract and
unjust enrichment by Cablevision. Thus, the complaint seeks
monetary damages and such other relief as the court deems just
and proper.
On Oct. 31, 2003, Cablevision and other defendants moved to stay
the action in favor of the previously filed actions pending in
Delaware or, in the alternative, to dismiss for failure to state
a claim.
On June 10, 2004, the court stayed the action on the basis of
the previously filed action in Delaware. TRSL subsequently
filed a motion to vacate the stay in the New York action, and
simultaneously filed a motion to intervene in the Delaware
action and to stay that action. Cablevision opposed both
motions.
On April 19, 2005, the court in the Delaware action denied the
motion to stay the Delaware action and granted TRSL's motion to
intervene in it. On June 22, 2005, the court in the New York
action denied TRSL's motion to vacate the stay in that action.
The company reported no development in the case at its Nov. 8
form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30.
Bethpage, New York-based Cablevision Systems, Corp. (NYSE: CVC)
-- http://www.cablevision.com/-- is a cable operator in the
U.S. that operates cable programming networks, entertainment
businesses and telecommunications companies. Cablevision owns
all of the outstanding common stock of CSC Holdings.
CANADIAN PACIFIC: N.D. Derailment Lawsuit Dismissal Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Mike Miller is appealing the dismissal by Judge Dan
Hovland of the U.S. District Court for the District of North
Dakota of a class action against Canadian Pacific Railway over a
2002 derailment and chemical spill in Minot.
Back in March 2006, Judge Hoyland ruled that the Federal
Railroad Safety Act pre-empts state law, thus making the
railroad immune from legal action (Class Action Reporter, March
8, 2006)
The Canadian railway class action stemmed from the January 2002
derailment and massive release of anhydrous ammonia from five
ruptured tank cars in Minot, South Dakota. Thirty-one cars on
the 112-car Canadian Pacific Railway train derailed on the west
edge of Minot and fire broke open early on the morning of Jan.
18, 2002.
The National Transportation Safety Board said the wreck was
caused by inadequate track maintenance and inspections, a
conclusion disputed by Canadian Pacific (Class Action Reporter,
July 11, 2005).
Mr. Miller has appealed Judge Hovland's ruling to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. However, a ruling is not
likely for months, according to Bismarck Tribune.
The suit is "Mehl, et al v. Canadian Pacific RR, et al., Case
No. 4:02-cv-00009-DLH-KKK,"on appeal from the U.S. District
Court for the District of North Dakota under Judge Daniel L.
Hovland with referral to Judge Karen K. Klein.
Representing the plaintiffs is Mike J. Miller of Solberg Stewart
Miller & Tjon, Ltd., P.O. BOX 1897, Fargo, ND 58107-1897, Phone:
701-237-3166, Fax: 701-237-4627, E-mail: mmiller@solberglaw.com.
CLEUGH'S FROZEN: Recalls Strawberries for Listeria Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleugh's Frozen Foods Inc., of Salinas, California, a wholly
owned subsidiary of SunOpta Inc., is recalling frozen
strawberries sold exclusively to Jamba Juice between Nov. 25,
2006 and Dec. 1, 2006 because of a concern that they may have
been contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.
The strawberries are for use in strawberry smoothies sold in
stores in Arizona, Nevada and Southern California.
Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although
healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as
high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain
and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.
The strawberry contamination was identified by Cleugh's who then
notified Jamba Juice. The recalled products have been removed
from the Jamba Juice stores in the affected areas and are no
longer being used to make smoothies. None of the potentially
affected individually quick frozen strawberries were sold to any
other customers or directly to retailers.
To date no suspected illnesses have been reported.
SunOpta and Jamba Juice have notified federal and state
authorities of the problem and are cooperating in the
investigation.
COVENTRY HEALTH: Plaintiffs in Managed Care Suit Appeal Rulings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the Managed Care Litigation "Charles B. Shane, et
al., v. Humana, Inc., et al." which names Coventry Health Care,
Inc. as defendant filed a Notice of Appeal against summary
judgments in favor of the company with the 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals.
The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, Miami Division, Multidistrict Litigation.
The lawsuit was filed by a group of physicians as a class action
against Coventry and nine other companies in the managed care
industry. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, conspiracy to violate
RICO and aiding and abetting a scheme to violate RICO.
In addition to these federal law claims, the complaint included
state law claims for breach of contract, violations of various
state prompt payment laws and equitable claims for unjust
enrichment and quantum meruit.
The trial court dismissed several of the state law claims and
ordered all physicians who had an arbitration provision in their
provider contracts to submit their direct RICO claims and their
remaining state law claims to arbitration. As a consequence of
this ruling, the plaintiffs who had arbitration provisions
voluntarily dismissed their claims that were subject to
arbitration.
In its order, the trial court also held that the plaintiffs'
claims of conspiracy to violate RICO and aiding and abetting
violations of RICO were not subject to arbitration. The trial
court then certified various subclasses of plaintiffs with
respect to these two federal law claims.
Settlements
Seven defendants have entered into settlement agreements with
the plaintiffs, which have received final approval from the
trial court. On June 16, 2006, the trial court filed an order
in the Shane lawsuit which granted summary judgment on all
claims in favor of the company. The trial court also granted
summary judgment on all claims in favor of two other defendants.
The plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Appeal of the trial
court's summary judgment order with the 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals.
The Shane lawsuit has triggered the filing of copycat class
action complaints by other health care providers such as
chiropractors, podiatrists, acupuncturists and other licensed
health care professionals. Each of these actions has been
transferred to the MDL and have been designated as "tag-
along"actions.
The court has entered an order that stays all proceedings in the
tag-along actions until all pre-trial proceedings in the Shane
action have been concluded.
The company reported no development in the case at its Nov. 8
form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30.
"In Re: Managed Care Litigation," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division,
Multi-District Litigation (MDL), No. 1334.
DEGUSSA CORP: March Hearing Set for $4M Antitrust Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will
hold a fairness hearing on March 20, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. for the
proposed $4,000,000 settlement by:
* Degussa Corp.,
* Degussa AG,
* Degussa Engineered Carbons LP
in the matter, "In re Carbon Black Antitrust Litigation, Master
Docket No. 03-CV-10191-DPW (Lead Case), MDL Docket No. 1543."
The hearing will be held on in Courtroom 1, before the Judge
Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge of the District of
Massachusetts, One Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210-3002.
The settlement covers purchasers of carbon black in the U.S.
during the period Jan. 30, 1999 through Jan. 18, 2005 directly
from one or more of the defendant companies (or co-
conspirators).
Case Background
Aside from Degussa other defendants named in the litigation are:
-- Cabot Corp., and
-- Columbian Chemicals Co.
The lawsuit claims that beginning in 1992 and continuing through
December 2002, defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to
fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices of carbon black in
the U.S. in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, Title 15
U.S.C. Section 1.
Plaintiffs allege that the conspiracy was effectuated, among
other things, by a series of coordinated price increase
announcements that began in 1992. Because of the statute of
limitations, the Damage Period can only extend to Jan. 30, 1999,
or four years prior to the filing of this case. These
coordinated price increases purportedly continued through
December 2002 and had an effect through February 2003.
Plaintiffs claim that as a result of the alleged conspiracy,
they and other members of the class described below have paid
more for carbon black than they would have absent the alleged
conspiracy.
For more details, contact:
(1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP, 401 B Street,
Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058,
Fax: 619-231-7423, Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com;
(2) Gold, Bennet, Cera & Sidener, LLP, 595 Market St.,
Suite 2300, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-777-
2230, Fax: 415-777-5189, Web site:
http://www.gbcslaw.com;
(3) Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia,
PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-3000, Fax: 215-875-4604, Web
site: http://www.bergermontague.com;and
(4) Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, 1100 New York
Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-408-4600,
Web site: http://www.cmht.com.
DENTSPLY INTL: Faces Penna. Suit Over Safeness of "Cavitron"
------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply International is facing a class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
claiming its Cavitron ultrasonic scalers could infect patients
by delivering to their mouths water that is ridden with
bacteria, the CourtHouse News Service reports.
Named plaintiffs are two periodontists, Carol Hilderbrand and
Robert Jaffin, who are suing on behalf of a class of dentists,
periodontists and oral surgeons in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Plaintiffs claim the device delivers a pulsed stream of water to
clean tooth, root and bone surfaces below the gum line. They
further alleged water lines of the Cavitron can be contaminated
by a bacteria-laden "biofilm,"making them dangerous to patients.
They claim Dentsply knew of and concealed this defect, and
profited by it. They claim damages will come to more than $5
million, though each affected Cavitron unit costs only $1,500 to
$3,500.
There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed
classes, among which are the following:
-- whether Dentsply's statement in print advertising,
Cavitron product literature, Directions for Use and
related materials constituted express warranties to
plaintiff class members as to the safe and appropriate
use of the Cavitron;
-- whether the design of the Cavitron was defective in a
manner that, even when used and maintained in its
intended fashion by class members, it was incapable of
reliably delivering an appropriately safe water stream
to dental patients' mouths that complied with
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) potable water
standards and standards established by the Centers
Disease Control (CDC), the American Dental Association
(ADA), the State of New jersey and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania;
-- whether the defective design of the Cavitron systems
breached warranties given by Dentsply and others as to
their safe and appropriate use in dental applications;
-- when and how Dentsply came to be aware of the fact that
the output stream of the Cavitron ultrasonic scalers
could be rendered unsafe and noncompliant with potable
water standards by the growth of bacteria-laden biofilm
within the water lines of these units;
-- whether defendants misrepresented the use of the
Cavitron to provide safe and appropriate water during
dental applications in print advertising, Cavitron
product literature, Directions for Use and related
materials;
-- whether, when and how defendants concealed from the
plaintiff class members the known safety risks of the
Cavitron when utilized by them in their dental practices
in the manner and for the procedures and uses indicated
by Dentsply;
-- whether defendants' misrepresentation and'or concealment
of the unsafe character of the Cavitron for dental
applications was done with the anticipation,
understanding and intent that plaintiff class members
would assume that the product was safe for use in those
dental procedures indicated by Dentsply, and thereby
purchase it and use it for such purposes in their
practices;
-- whether defendants provided adequate warnings to
plaintiff class members to enable them to identify the
defective character of Cavitron ultrasonic scalers for
dental uses and take responsible steps to prevent the
delivery of unsafe water to patients during such
indicated dental procedures;
-- whether defendants acted in a manner that was likely to
cause confusion within the marketplace as to the safety,
quality, reliability or durability of the Cavitron
ultrasonic scalers when used in those dental procedures
for which the Cavitron was indicated;
-- whether and how defendants profited from the sales of
the Cavitron, while knowing it was unsafe and unfit for
use in dental procedures;
-- whether all dentists who possess Cavitrons should be
notified in writing of the nature and seriousness of the
safety deficiencies in these systems to avoid the
Cavitron's use in ongoing or future dental applications;
-- whether defendants should be ordered to recall or
retrofit those Cavitrons in use by plaintiffs and
plaintiff class members to enable them to provide a safe
water stream for use in dentistry, periodontics and oral
surgery; and
-- whether the conduct of defendants in misrepresenting and
concealing the unsafe character of Cavitron ultrasonic
scalers from plaintiff class members rises to the level
of reckless or conscious disregard for their rights and
welfare, and the welfare of dental patients, warranting
an award of punitive damages under New Jersey and
Pennsylvania law.
Plaintiffs seek punitive damages.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1706
The suit is "Hildebrand et al. v. Dentsply International, Case
No. 2:06-cv-05439-RBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge R. Barclay Surrick.
Representing plaintiffs is Allan Klein of Duane Morris LLP, 30
South 17th St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196, Phone: 215-979-
1000, Fax: 215-979-1020, E-mail: aklein@duanemorris.com.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Judge Allows Inmates' Suit to Go to Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia allowed to
proceed to trial a purported class action that accuses D.C.
prison guards of injuring inmates with handcuffs that were too
tight and denying them food, water and access to toilets on a
trip to transfer them from Ohio to Virginia, The Examiner.com
reports.
Most of the inmates had been incarcerated in other states
because there was a shortage of space in D.C. facilities. They
were being transported from a prison in Youngstown, Ohio, to one
in Waverly, Virginia.
The suit, "Kenneth Anderson-Bey, et al., v. District of
Columbia, et al.," claims that prisoners' constitutional rights
were violated during the transfer.
Prisoners claim that during two long bus trips in February and
March of 1999, D.C. guards tightened the prisoners' handcuffs
too tightly, cutting into their wrists. They also claim that
some inmates were restrained with chains around their waists and
shackles at their ankles.
The prisoners allege they were denied food and water during the
trips, which they claimed lasted 10 to 15 hours. They also say
they were denied access to toilets and to their medications.
According to city lawyers, about 135 prisoners are part of the
class action, which alleges that due to the guards' actions some
of them suffered serious injuries that required ongoing medical
attention.
Attorneys for the district has sought to dismiss the case by
arguing that the claim wasn't valid as a violation of the Eighth
Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. They cited the
need to maintain safe and orderly buses during the transfer of
prisoners.
In addition, attorneys also disputed several of the allegations
regarding the tightness of the restraints and the severity of
injuries.
However, in a recently issued opinion, Judge Royce C. Lamberth
declined to dismiss the case, stating that the facts of the 1999
incident would have to be determined in court.
The judge's ruling also stated that conditions of confinement
could constitute an Eighth Amendment violation when two elements
are present. He pointed out that conditions must pose a
"substantial risk of serious harm" and be a result of prison
officials' deliberately ignoring inmates' health or safety.
While declining to dismiss the case, Judge Lamberth ruled
tentatively that the individual guards are entitled to
individual immunity as state officials, as long as they did not
knowingly violate the U.S. Constitution.
The suit is "Kenneth Anderson-Bey, et al., v. District of
Columbia, et al., Case No. 00-2000," filed in U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia under Judge Royce C.
Lamberth.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Mark McLaughlin Hager of American University,
Washington College of Law, 4801 Massachusetts Avenue,
NW Washington, DC 20016, Phone: (202) 274-4214, Fax:
202-274-0830;
(2) Daniel McCrea Schember of Gaffney& Schember, PC, 1666
Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 225, Washington, DC 20009,
Phone: (202) 328-2244, Fax: (202) 797-2354, E-mail:
dclaw@radix.net; and
(3) Samuel M. Shapiro of 200-A Monroe Street, Suite 233,
Rockville, MD 20850, Phone: (301) 340-1333, Fax: (301)
340-1149, E-mail: Rogah@aol.com.
Representing the defendants is Cary D. Pollak, Office Of
Corporation Counsel, District Of Columbia, 441 Fourth Street, NW
6th Floor South, Washington, DC 20001, Phone: (202) 724-6604,
Fax: (202) 727-0431, E-mail: cary.pollak@dc.gov.
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Named in Del. Lawsuit by TEPPCO Unitholder
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. is named in a purported class
action filed by a unitholder of its TEPPCO Partners, L.P.
affiliate, a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership.
On Sept. 18, 2006, Peter Brinckerhoff, a purported unitholder of
TEPPCO Partners, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of
New Castle County in the State of Delaware, in his individual
capacity, as:
* a putative class action on behalf of other unitholders of
TEPPCO, and
* derivatively on behalf of TEPPCO,
concerning, among other things, certain transactions involving
TEPPCO and Enterprise Products or its affiliates.
The complaint names as defendants TEPPCO, its directors, and
certain of its affiliates; Enterprise Products and certain of
the company's affiliates; EPCO, Inc.; and Dan L. Duncan, the
chairman and controlling shareholder of EPCO.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
have caused TEPPCO to enter into certain transactions with the
company or its affiliates that are unfair to TEPPCO or otherwise
unfairly favored the company or the company's affiliates over
TEPPCO.
These transactions are alleged to include the joint venture to
further expand the Jonah Gas Gathering System -- located in the
Greater Green River Basin of southwestern Wyoming -- entered
into by TEPPCO and one of the company's affiliates in August
2006 and the sale by TEPPCO to one of the company's affiliates
of the Pioneer gas processing plant in March 2006.
The Jonah system gathers and transports natural gas produced
from the Jonah and Pinedale fields to regional natural gas
processing plants and major interstate pipelines that deliver
natural gas to end-use markets.
The complaint seeks:
-- rescission of these transactions or an award of
rescissory damages with respect thereto;
-- damages for profits and special benefits allegedly
obtained by defendants as a result of the alleged
wrongdoings in the complaint; and
-- awarding plaintiff costs of the action, including fees
and expenses of his attorneys and experts.
EXXON MOBIL: Court Considers $4.5B Judgment in Exxon Valdez Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal against the $4.5 billion punitive damages judgment
by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in a case
against Exxon Mobil Corp. over the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
A number of lawsuits, including class actions, were brought in
various courts against the company and certain of its
subsidiaries relating to the accidental release of crude oil
from the tanker Exxon Valdez in 1989.
The vast majority of the compensatory claims have been resolved
and paid. All of the punitive damage claims were consolidated
in the civil trial that began in 1994.
The Ninth Circuit vacated the first judgment from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Alaska in the amount of $5
billion as being excessive under the U.S. Constitution.
The second judgment in the amount of $4 billion was also vacated
by the Ninth Circuit panel without argument and sent back for
the District Court to reconsider in light of the recent U.S.
Supreme Court decision in "Campbell v. State Farm."
The most recent District Court judgment for punitive damages was
for $4.5 billion plus interest and was entered in January 2004.
The company and the plaintiffs have appealed this decision to
the Ninth Circuit.
The company has posted a $5.4 billion letter of credit. Oral
arguments were held before the Ninth Circuit on Jan. 27, 2006.
The company reported no development in the case at its Nov. 8
form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30.
Texas-based Exxon Mobil Corp. -- http://www.exxonmobil.com/--
is engaged in exploration for, and production of, crude oil and
natural gas, manufacture of petroleum products and
transportation and sale of crude oil, natural gas and petroleum
products. It is a manufacturer and marketer of commodity
petrochemicals, including olefins, aromatics, polyethylene and
polypropylene plastics and a range of specialty products.
The suit is "Sea Hawk Seafoods Inc. et al. v. Exxon Corp. et al.
(3:89-cv-00095-HRH)," filed in the U.S. District Court of Alaska
under Judge H. Russel Holland.
Representing the defendants are:
(1) John F. Clough, III of Clough & Associates, POB 211187,
Auke Bay, AK 99821, U.S., Phone: 907-790-1912; Fax:
907-790-1913; and
(2) Douglas J. Serdahely of Patton Boggs LLP, 601 West 5th
Avenue, Suite 700, Anchorage, AK 99501 U.S., Phone:
907-263-6300; Fax: 907-263-6345; E-mail:
dserdahely@pattonboggs.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Charles W. Coe of the Law Office of Charles W. Coe, 805
W 3rd Avenue, #10, Anchorage, AK 99501 U.S., Phone:
907-276-6173; Fax: 907-279-1884; E-mail:
charlielaw@gci.net; and
(2) Lloyd B. Miller of Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Miller &
Munson, LLP, 900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 700, Anchorage,
AK 99501, U.S., Phone: 907-258-6377; Fax: 907-272-8332;
E-mail: lloyd@sonosky.net.
FEATHERLITE MFG: Iowa Appeals Court Allows Employee's Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Iowa Court of Appeals upheld an Iowa District Court's
decision to accept a class action that affects approximately 700
Featherlite Manufacturing, Inc. production employees, the Cresco
Times Plain Dealer reports.
Originally filed on March 17, 2005, Featherlite production
worker Bruce J. Ishman claimed that in 2003, Featherlite
implemented a vacation policy for production employees that
provided that each year, on an employee's anniversary date, the
employee would receive an allotment of vacation time based on
the employee's year's of service.
Court documents showed that Mr. Ishman had more than six years
of employment, and on his anniversary of June 1, 2004, he
received four weeks of vacation (160 hours). Employees were not
permitted to carry over vacation from one year to the next, the
court information said.
Over the course of the following two years, Featherlite changed
its vacation policy at least twice, which prompted Mr. Ishman to
file a petition against Featherlite, seeking to institute a
class action on behalf of all Iowa Featherlite production
employees who worked for Featherlite as of Dec. 30, 2004.
In his petition, Mr. Ishman claimed he lost vacation time
because of the changes made to the vacation policy, and he
alleged Featherlite had intentionally:
-- failed to pay him and other class members wages under
Iowa Code section 91A.3(2005);
-- failed to pay wages which were due under an agreement or
policy;
-- breached a contract for the payment of employee
benefits; and
-- defrauded him and other members of the class.
Mr. Ishman further alleged that under Featherlite's new policy,
the vacation hours received were not comparable to those
allotted under the previous policy, because employees could now
be asked to reimburse the company if they took more vacation
time than they had earned and then quit.
The Iowa District Court granted Mr. Ishman's petition, but
Featherlite argued against the class action certification,
saying that Mr. Ishman did not present sufficient information to
demonstrate that his claim exceeded the maximum jurisdictional
amount for small claims.
The appeals court upheld the civil suit, explaining that the
value of the suit is greater than $5,000 -- the limit for small
claims.
"We determine the district court did not abuse its discretion in
concluding the representative party fairly and adequately would
protect the interests of the class," the appeals court said.
FIRST HORIZON: Applicable Law Still a Question in Loan Fees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several important issues have not yet been finally resolved in a
suit over certain loan origination fees charged by a subsidiary
of First Horizon National Corp.
In November 2000, a complaint was filed in state court in
Jackson County, Missouri against First Horizon National's
subsidiary, First Horizon Home Loans. The case generally
concerns the charging of certain loan origination fees,
including fees permitted by Kansas and federal law but allegedly
restricted or not permitted by Missouri law, when First Horizon
Home Loans or its predecessor, McGuire Mortgage Co., made
certain second-lien mortgage loans.
Among other relief, plaintiffs seek a refund of fees, a
repayment and forgiveness of loan interest, prejudgment
interest, punitive damages, loan rescission, and attorneys'
fees. In response to pre-trial motions, the court has
* certified a statewide class action involving
approximately 4,000 loans and has made the following
rulings, among others:
-- Missouri law rather than Kansas law governs at least
some of those loans made before First Horizon National
acquired McGuire Mortgage (pre-acquisition loans) and
Missouri law was not complied with in certain respects
as to some such loans; and,
-- federal law governs and permits the charging of loan
discount fees as to those loans made after First Horizon
National acquired McGuire (post-acquisition loans).
Several important issues have not yet been finally resolved by
the court, including, among others:
-- whether Missouri or federal law generally governs the
post-acquisition loan fees (other than loan discount
fees);
-- whether plaintiffs are entitled to seek recovery and
forgiveness of loan interest;
-- whether prejudgment interest is available to be awarded;
and,
-- whether the applicable statute of limitations is three
or six years.
Trial had been scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2006.
As a result of mediation, First Horizon National has entered
into a verbal agreement in principle to settle the McGuire
lawsuit. In connection with this settlement, First Horizon
National has agreed to pay, under agreed circumstances using an
agreed methodology, an aggregate of up to approximately $36
million.
FHN has recorded a pre-tax charge to earnings of approximately
$21 million in the third quarter of 2006 in connection with the
settlement. The total amount currently reserved for this matter
is approximately $22 million. A written settlement agreement
currently is being negotiated by the parties, and the settlement
is subject to approval by the court.
GUESS? INC: Enters Mediation in Calif. Store Managers Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Guess? Inc. is in the process of finalizing a settlement
agreement in a purported class action brought on behalf of store
managers in California, according to the company's Nov. 8 form
10-Q filing for the quarter ended Sept. 30.
On Feb. 1, 2005, a complaint was filed by Michele Evets against
the company in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Francisco. The complaint purports to be a
class action filed on behalf of current and former Guess store
managers in California. Plaintiffs seek overtime wages and a
preliminary and permanent injunction.
The company answered the complaint on April 28, 2005. The
parties participated in a voluntary mediation on Aug. 16, 2006
and are in the process of finalizing a settlement agreement.
The company has accrued $1.0 million related to net charges in
connection with the proposed settlement arrangement.
ILLINOIS: City, Police Sued Over Sting Operation in Car Wash
------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Stone Park, Illinois and its police department faces
an amended lawsuit seeking class-action status, alleging that
defendants have trapped innocent men for solicitation of a
prostitute in a "money-making scheme" that and has generated
more than half a million dollars.
The alleged scheme involved an undercover officer, attempting to
solicit and ensnare customers who come to use the Blue Dolphin
Car Wash, which is the site of the fraudulent sting operation.
According to police misconduct attorney Blake Horwitz, who
represents 12 plaintiffs, typically, a man would pull into the
car wash and an undercover female officer would approach, saying
"I'll do anything" and "how much would you give me for," after
an exchange lasting no more than 30 seconds the innocent car
wash customers rebuff the Stone Park officer and then drive off.
Afterwards, the car wash customer is then pulled over by Stone
Park Officers who impound the cars to the tune of $500 plus
storage fees. Later the car wash customer gets a ticket for
solicitation and is summoned to a quasi-criminal hearing."
Mr. Horwitz said that hopefully the class action would get the
Stone Park police to stop their "corrupt tactics" and persuade
more victims to come forward.
For more details, contact Blake Horwitz or Jasmyn Smith of the
Law Offices of Blake Horwitz, Phone: 312-616-4433 or (cell) 773-
527-9674, E-mail: lobh@att.net.
IMAGITAS INC: To Request for MDL in DPPA Violation Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Pitney Bowes, in trying to defend one of its companies,
Imagitas, Inc., which is facing a national class action for
violation of driver's privacy rights in six states, has now
withdrawn a motion for summary judgment that claimed they had
not violated the law, according to law firm Spohrer Wilner.
Instead, they will file a motion for a multi-district litigation
to handle the violations of the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act.
A violation of the DPPA invokes a penalty of $2,500 per
incident.
"We estimate that Pitney Bowes has affected about 22 million
people by this violation," said Norwood "Woody" Wilner of the
Jacksonville-based trial firm Spohrer Wilner, and lead attorney
in the class action against Imagitas.
Mr. Wilner's comments were made during a meeting of lead
plaintiff lawyers from the six states where the Pitney Bowes
company did business.
Imagitas targeted drivers in six states: Florida, Ohio,
Missouri, Michigan, New York and Minnesota with commercial
solicitations in envelopes containing vehicle registration.
Mr. Wilner, said the arrogance of a company to ignore privacy
laws reminds him the early days of tobacco litigation. "Despite
explicit Federal Law, we have a company who is trying to work
the system. This is unacceptable in the age of privacy," said
Mr. Wilner. "The DPPA was created to protect drivers from
privacy invasion. Pitney Bowes has reversed course after their
lawyers worked with the court to set a hearing date in
February."
Earlier, Imagitas Inc. was named defendant in a lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts over
alleged invasion of the privacy of millions of drivers (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 16, 2006).
The class includes all persons who were mailed vehicle
registration notices and advertisements by defendant using
personal information obtained from any state department of motor
vehicles -- including, without limitation, those in Ohio,
Florida, Minnesota, Missouri and New York -- excluding
employees, officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs,
successors and assignees of the defendant.
The suit claims Imagitas abuses a state contract to handle mail-
in vehicle registration renewals to send unsolicited ads along
with the registration papers.
For more information, contact Doug Perkins of Spohrer Wilner,
Phone: +1-904-838-7801.
INNOVA INC: Recalls Ultrex Pressure Cookers Posing Burn Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Innova Inc., of Davenport, Iowa, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,450
Ultrex-brand pressure cookers.
The company said the pressure cooker's lid can open while its
contents are under pressure, allowing the hot contents to be
expelled and causing burn injuries to bystanders.
Retailer HSN LP, previously referred to as the Home Shopping
Network, of St. Petersburg, Florida has received two reports of
injuries which involve second and third degree burns to the
upper arm and an unspecified burn injury.
The recalled product is the Ultrex-brand 8-quart pressure cooker
set, model number 11453. The set includes a pressure cooker and
optional steamer basket. The model number is stamped on the
bottom of the pot.
Picture of the recalled Ultrex-brand pressure cooker:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07509.jpg
The Ultrex-brand pressure cookers were manufactured in China and
are being sold at HSN's television network, Web site, through
its toll-free number and an employee store in St. Petersburg,
Florida from June 2003 through October 2004 for about $90.
Consumers are advised to stop using these products immediately.
HSN will provide a refund of the purchase price.
For more information, consumers should contact HSN at (877) 710-
1527 anytime.
KINDER MORGAN: Ark. Court Considers Motions in "Johnson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Miller County, Arkansas has yet to rule on
various motions in the class action, "Weldon Johnson and Guy
Sparks, et al. v. Centerpoint Energy, Inc. et al., No. 04-327-
2," which names Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. and several
other firms including its subsidiaries as defendants.
The suit was filed on Oct. 8, 2004. It includes as defendants
the company and:
-- Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline L.P.;
-- Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc.;
-- KM Texas Pipeline, L.P.;
-- Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline G.P., Inc.;
-- Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline G.P., Inc.;
-- Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline, L.P.;
-- Gulf Energy Marketing, LLC;
-- Tejas Gas, LLC;
-- Midcon Corp.; and
-- CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
The complaint was served on the Kinder Morgan defendants on Oct.
21, 2004. It purports to bring a class action on behalf of
those who purchased natural gas from the defendants from Oct. 1,
1994 to the date of class certification.
It alleges that CenterPoint by and through its affiliates has
artificially inflated the price charged to residential consumers
for natural gas that it allegedly purchased from the non-
CenterPoint defendants.
The complaint further alleges that in exchange for CenterPoint's
purchase of such natural gas at above market prices, the non-
CenterPoint defendants sell natural gas to CenterPoint's non-
regulated affiliates at prices substantially below market, which
in turn sells such natural gas to commercial and industrial
consumers and gas marketers at market price.
The complaint purports to assert claims for fraud, unlawful
enrichment and civil conspiracy against all of the defendants,
and seeks relief in the form of actual, exemplary and punitive
damages, interest, and attorneys' fees.
On Nov. 18, 2004, the defendants removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Case No.
04-4154. On Jan. 26, 2005, the plaintiffs moved to remand the
case back to state court, which motion was granted on June 2,
2005.
The parties have concluded jurisdictional discovery and various
defendants have filed motions arguing that the Arkansas courts
lack personal jurisdiction over them. The court has not yet
ruled on these motions, according to the company's Nov. 8,
2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30.
For more details, contact:
(1) [Plaintiff] Richard A. Adams of Patton, Roberts,
McWilliams & Capshaw, LLP, 2900 Saint Michael Drive,
Suite 400, Texarkana, TX 75503, Phone: (903) 334-7107,
Fax: (903) 334-7007, E-mail: radams@pattonroberts.com;
(2) [Plaintiff] Michael B. Angelovich of Nix, Patterson &
Roach, LLP, 2900 Saint Michael Drive, Suite 500,
Texarkana, TX 75503, Phone: (903) 223-3999, Fax: (903)
223-8520, E-mail: mangelovich@nixlawfirm.com;
(3) [Plaintiff] John C. Goodson of Keil & Goodson, P.O. Box
618, Texarkana, AR 75504, Phone: (870) 772-4113, Fax:
(870) 773-2967, E-mail: jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com;
(4) [Defendant] Nelson V. Shaw of Hart, Cranford, Shaw &
Freeze, LLP, 5505 Plaza Drive, Texarkana, TX 75503,
Phone: (903) 838-5151, Fax: (903) 838-5961, E-mail:
nvshaw@hcsf-law.com; and
(5) [Defendant] J. Clifford Gunter, III of Bracewell &
Patterson, L.L.P., 711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2900,
Houston, TX 77002-2781, Phone: (713) 223-2900.
MACATAWA BANK: Mich. Court Mulls "Jenkins" Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District of Western Michigan has yet to rule on a motion to
certify a class in the suit "Jenkins, et al. v. Macatawa Bank
Corp., et al." after an October hearing.
In May 2003, a purported class action complaint was filed by
Forrest W. Jenkins and Russell S. Vail against the company in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Western Michigan.
As amended, this suit alleges that the former Grand Bank, which
the company acquired effective April 1, 2002, breached escrow
agreements and fiduciary duties and violated the Michigan
Uniform Securities Act with respect to the investments secured
by the purported class in viaticals and in interests in limited
partnerships which made loans to Trade Partners secured by
viaticals, and with respect to loans made by purported class
members directly to Trade Partners.
The class has not been certified. A hearing on plaintiffs'
motion for certification was held in October 2006, but no ruling
has yet been issued, according to the company's Nov. 8, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. The company has
answered this complaint denying the material allegations and
raising certain affirmative defenses.
In late July 2005 counsel to the former trust customer Trade
Partners Inc. receiver filed a purported class action on behalf
of Kelly Priest and certain trusts controlled by Gary Towle and
his wife, making substantially the same allegations as in the
Jenkins complaint, but on behalf of a class which was asserted
to comprise all investors who are holders of allowed claims in
the Trade Partners receivership.
This case has been subsumed within and superseded by the Jenkins
case, and the operative class allegations are those now set
forth in the Jenkins case.
Counsel to the Trade Partners receiver has withdrawn from this
litigation, though the Trade Partners receiver has stated that
he is cooperating with class counsel.
The suit is "Jenkins, et al. v. Macatawa Bank Corp., et al.,
Case No. 1:03-cv-00321-RHB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Michigan under Judge Robert Holmes
Bell.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Henry L. Guikema of Henry L. Guikema, P.C., 125 Ottawa
NW, Ste. 333, Grand Rapids, MI 49503, Phone: (616) 235-
2601, E-mail: h.guik@worldnet.att.net; and
(2) Jeffrey Donald Meyer and Cynthia Reba Levin Moulton of
Moulton & Meyer, L.L.P., 600 Travis, Ste. 6700,
Houston, TX 77002, Phone: (713) 353-6699, E-mail:
jmeyer@moultonmeyer.com and cmoulton@moultonmeyer.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Harold M. Hermanson of Harold M. Hermanson, PC, 201
AmeriBank Bldg., 896 Jefferson St., Muskegon, MI 49440,
Phone: (231) 727-8058;
(ii) Thomas F. Koernke of Koernke & Crampton, P.C., 940
Monroe Ave., NW, Ste. 250, Grand Rapids, MI 49503,
Phone: (616) 458-7900, Fax: (616) 458-7997, E-mail:
tkoernke@grandlaw.com;
(iii) John A. Smietanka, O-155 44th St., SW, Ste. 1,
Grandville, MI 49418, Phone: (616) 667-2217, E-mail:
jas@smietankalaw.com; and
(iv) Larry C. Willey of Willey Chamberlain & Yates, LLP, 940
Trust Bldg., 40 Pearl St., NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503,
Phone: (616) 458-2212, Fax: (616) 458-1158, E-mail:
tracy@wcylaw.com.
MASSACHUSETTS: Feoffees Sued Over Rent Increases in Little Neck
---------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Little Neck in Ipswich, Essex County who own their
homes but rent their land from the Feoffees of the Grammar
School filed a class action against the secret land trust in
Lawrence Superior Court, according to SalemNews.com.
According to the report, problems between about 167 homeowners
on Little Neck and the Feoffees began in 2000 when Feoffees
hired Lombardo Associates Inc. to operate a centralized sewage
collection system.
The lawsuit alleges the cost of the project rose from $3.6
million in 2003, or about $22,000 per household, to $7.3 million
last May, or about $43,700 per household. Added to this is a
monthly wastewater disposal fees of about $400 a month, plus a
$40-per-month maintenance fee, according to the report.
The cost overruns were allegedly the result of mismanagement in
the installation of a new wastewater treatment plant.
The Feoffees is a land trust established to support the town's
only school 356 years ago with income from a less than 40-acre
isthmus in Plum Island Sound called Little Neck. Previously,
most of its income came from farmers who rented the land, but
later it collected rent from cottages that were built in the
land.
For more than three centuries, homeowners on Little Neck have
not signed leases, the report said. But in June, the renters
said they received notice their rents were doubling and they
would have to sign 20-year leases. Failure to agree to the new
terms by Aug. 21 would mean the termination of their tenure by
Jan. 31, 2007.
The suit states the rent increases are unlawful and should be
returned to homeowners. It names as defendants self-appointed
Feoffees chairman Alex Mulholland; Clerk Jim Foley, who is also
a town selectman; Peter Foote; and Don Whiston. Also named are
three of the town's other selectmen, Pat McNally, Ed Rauscher
and Elizabeth Kilcoyne.
The suit seeks unspecified damages, including emotional
distress, and attorney's fees. Mr. McNally, Mr. Rauscher, and
Ms. Kilcoyne are exempted from damage claims because they only
recently reclaimed their historical positions as members of the
trust, according to the suit.
The plaintiffs are demanding that Feoffees return the rent
increases and sewer charges to the homeowners and to negotiate
new leases in good faith. They also demand an injunction to
keep them from being evicted from their homes.
MASSACHUSETTS: Negotiations on Plan for 'Stuck Kids' at Impasse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael Ponsor of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts
heard on Dec. 12 a class action over the state's program for
children needing mental health services, The Republican reports.
At the hearing, lawyers from both side reported that they had
made little progress in negotiations regarding changes to the
system.
The suit, "Rosie D. v. Romney," was filed by Northampton-based
Center for Public Representation in 2001. It is asking home-
care option for thousands of children with extreme functional
disabilities who participate in Medicaid. It said that most of
the roughly 15,000 children under Medicaid receive adequate
services only when placed in psychiatric hospitals, but they
often become just "stuck kids" there. Thus, they are asking for
homecare option.
In January, Judge Ponsor found that the state has failed to
identify children with mental health needs, notify their
families, connect their evaluations with a service plan,
coordinate their care, and provide home- and community-based
services. He ordered that several thousand Medicaid-eligible
children in Massachusetts who are now in institutions should be
released and provided with home-based treatment services.
He ordered the parties to carve out a program to do this, and
set the August deadline to file a status report. Parties
appeared in court on Sept. 13 to present proposals. The two
sides filed briefs with the court in preparation for the
hearing.
At the hearing, the lawyer for the plaintiff reportedly said the
state plan filed with the court seeks too much bureaucratic
oversight and limits the number of children who would be
covered, according to the report. The opposing lawyer countered
that "too lofty a plan would make it difficult for the state to
get necessary federal approval and funding," according to the
report.
Lawyer for the defendant, Deirdre Roney, has said in court
filings the proposed changes will require about half-billion in
annual spending for the affected population, which is more than
double the current $200 million annual allocation.
The suit is "Rosie D., et al. v. Romney, et al., Case No. 3:01-
cv-30199-MAP," filed in U.S. District of Massachusetts under
Judge Michael A. Ponsor with referral to Judge Kenneth P.
Neiman.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) James C. Burling of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr, LLP, 60 State St., Boston, MA 02115, Phone: 617-
526-6416, Fax: 526-5000, E-mail:
james.burling@wilmerhale.com; and
(2) Cathy E. Costanzo and Steven J. Schwartz of Center for
Public Representation, 22 Green Street, Northampton, MA
01060, Phone: 413-586-6024, Fax: 413-586-5711, E-mail:
ccostanzo@cpr-ma.org and sschwartz@cpr-ma.org.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Daniel J. Hammond and Deirdre Roney of Attorney
General's Office, One Ashburton Place, Room 2019,
Boston, MA 02108-1698, Phone: 617-727-2200, Fax: 617-
727-5785, E-mail: dan.hammond@ago.state.ma.us and
deirdre.roney@ago.state.ma.us; and
(ii) Adam Simms of Deutsch Williams, 99 Summer St., Boston,
MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-2300, Fax: 617-951-2323, E-
mail: ASimms@dwboston.com.
OREGON: Counties Face Federal Lawsuits Over Strip Search Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two Oregon counties are facing federal class actions filed by a
24-year-old Yamhill County resident over the strip search policy
at county jails, The OregonLive.com reports.
The suits were filed by Jacob Leon Miller in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon, claiming that Washington and
Yamhill counties are subjecting its jail prisoners to strip
searches regardless of the threat they pose to jail safety.
According to the suits, both filed on Dec. 1, 2006, such
searches violate protections against unreasonable search
contained in the Fourth and 14th amendments to the U.S.
Constitution.
The suit basically states that "it was not objectively
reasonable . . . to strip search plaintiff . . . based on . . .
arrests for misdemeanor/violation charges."
It alleges that the searches caused Mr. Miller psychological
pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish. Thus,
plaintiff seeks more than $2 million in real and punitive
damages.
Mr. Miller was arrested Dec. 1, 2004, in Washington County and
jailed on four misdemeanor charges: fourth-degree assault,
criminal trespassing and two counts of harassment.
He was subjected to jail strip searches Jan. 16, March 7, and
March 16, 2005, according to the suit. It was revealed that the
searches were conducted in the Washington County Jail's shower
area while a male guard looked on.
Additionally, Mr. Miller was also searched at the Yamhill County
Jail, where he was lodged in 2006 on misdemeanor charges of
disorderly conduct and third-degree escape, the suit revealed.
The suits are "Miller v. Washington County et al., Case No.
3:06-cv-01730-KI,"and "Miller v. Yamhill County et al., Case No.
3:06-cv-01731-BR," both filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon under Judges Garr M. King and Anna J. Brown,
respectively.
Representing the plaintiffs in both cases is Leonard Randolph
Berman of The Law Office of Leonard R. Berman, 4711 S.W. Huber
Street, Suite E-3, Portland, OR 97219, Phone: (503) 473-8787,
Fax: (503) 473-8787, E-mail: easyrabbi@excite.com.
PANTRY INC: N.C. Court Yet to Rule on Remaining Labor Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina has yet to determine whether the suit, "Barton, et al.
v. The Pantry, Inc." may proceed as a class action under state
law and/or a collective action under federal law.
The suit asserted claims on behalf of the company's North
Carolina present and former employees for unpaid wages under
North Carolina Wage and Hour laws.
It was filed in the Superior Court for Forsyth County, State of
North Carolina in June 2004. Plaintiffs in the suit are
Constance Barton, Kimberly Clark, Wesley Clark, Tracie Hunt,
Eleanor Walters, Karen Meredith, Gilbert Breeden, LaCentia
Thompson, and Mathesia Peterson, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of classes of those similarly situated.
The suit sought an injunction against any unlawful practices,
damages, liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees.
On Aug. 17, 2004, the case was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. On July 18,
2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting certain
additional claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act on
behalf of present and former store employees in the southeastern
U.S. It added one additional plaintiff, Chester Charneski.
The plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand the case to the
Superior Court for Forsyth County, which is presently pending
before the federal district court.
The company filed a motion to dismiss parts of the amended
complaint on Aug. 23, 2005. On May 17, 2006, the court granted
in part and denied in part the company's motion, with the result
that the court will now determine if the case may proceed as a
class action under state law and/or a collective action under
federal law and if so, who among the company's present or former
employees will be members of the classes.
The company reported no development on the suit at its form 10-k
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Sept. 28.
The suit is "Barton, et al. v. The Pantry, Inc., Case No. 1:04-
cv-00748-NCT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina under Judge N.C. Tilley, Jr.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Robert M. Elliot and J. Griffin Morgan of Elliot Pishko
Morgan, P.A., 426 Old Salem Road, Winston-Salem, NC
27101, Phone: 336-724-2828, Fax: 336-714-4499, E-mail:
rmelliot@epmlaw.com; and
(2) Charles Joseph of Joseph & Herzfeld, LLP, 757 Third
Ave., 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-688-
5640.
Representing the company are Kimberly Jo Korando, Kirk Alan
Parry, Jr., Carl N. Patterson, Kerry A. Shad, Donald Hugh Tucker
of Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, POB 2611,
Raleigh NC 27602-2611, Phone: 919-821-6671, Fax: 919-821-6800,
E-mail: kkorando@smithlaw.com, aparry@smithlaw.com,
cpatterson@smithlaw.com, kshad@smithlaw.com,
dtucker@smithlaw.com.
PERRIGO CO: Recalls Acetaminophen that May Contain Metal Traces
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Co. of Allegan, Michigan, in cooperation with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, is alerting the public to a
voluntary recall for 383 lots of acetaminophen 500 mg caplets
manufactured and distributed under various store-brands as a
result of small metal fragments found in a small number of these
caplets.
Approximately 11 million bottles containing varying quantities
of acetaminophen 500mg caplets are affected by this recall.
For a list of batches affected:
www.fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/perrigo/perrigobatchlist.html.
Consumers can determine if they are in possession of a recalled
product by locating the batch number printed on the container
label.
A list of stores that carry store-brands potentially affected by
this recall is located on FDA's website:
www.fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/perrigo/perrigocustlist.html.
To date, there have been no illness or injuries received related
to this problem and no consumer complaints have been reported to
the FDA or to Perrigo.
Based on information currently available, the FDA believes the
probability of serious adverse health consequences is remote;
however if a consumer were to swallow an affected caplet, it
could result in minor stomach discomfort and/or possible cuts to
the mouth or throat. Consumers should consult their physician
if they suspect they've been harmed by use of this product.
Consumers who believe they are in possession of the affected
products should discontinue use immediately and call Perrigo's
Consumer Affairs Department, 877-546-0454 for further
instructions.
Any adverse reactions experienced with the use of this product
should be reported to Perrigo at the above number and the FDA's
MedWatch Program by phone at 800-FDA-1088, by fax at 800-FDA-
0178 or on the MedWatch website: http://www.fda.gov/medwatch.
FDA is currently investigating the cause of the metal particles
found in the acetaminophen 500 mg caplets. Perrigo originally
informed FDA of this problem after discovering through their own
regulatory quality control procedures that their tableting
equipment was wearing down prematurely. The company is also
investigating the cause of the problem. The ongoing
investigations have revealed the presence of the metal fragments
in caplets of acetaminophen, 500 mg.
Perrigo reported to the FDA that 70 million caplets were passed
through a metal detector; resulting in the discovery of
approximately 200 caplets containing metal fragments ranging in
size from "microdots" to portions of wire 8 mm in length.
At this time FDA does not anticipate that this action will cause
a shortage of acetaminophen. Currently, only one strength (500
mg caplets) is affected.
Consumers may wish to take additional amounts of the lower
strengths of acetaminophen tablets or caplets, which are not
affected by this recall, to reach the 500 mg dose or access
acetaminophen produced by alternate manufacturers. In all
instances, FDA advises consumers to follow labeled instructions
for maximum daily dosage.
Perrigo is notifying its distributors and retailers of this
issue and will inform them of steps it will take to facilitate
product replacement.
REALLY USEFUL: Recalls Mood, Diva Necklaces on High Lead Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
Really Useful Products Inc., of Darien, Illinois, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 51,600 children's Mood Necklaces and Diva Necklaces.
The company said the recalled jewelry contains high levels of
lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause
adverse health effects. No injuries have been reported.
The recalled Mood Necklaces are multi-colored pendants shaped as
hearts, moons, shamrocks, spiders, butterflies and lizards that
hang from a black chord. The packaging is a black cardboard
wrapped in plastic with "Mood Necklace" printed on the front and
"Item # JW41001"and "UPC number 898846410011" printed on a
sticker on the back.
The recalled Diva Necklaces consist of pendants shaped as the
words "ANGEL" or "Diva" that hang from a black chord. The
packaging is pink cardboard with "Hand Painted" and "Diva
Necklace" printed on the front, and "Item # 21800020"and "UPC
number 898846200186"printed on the back.
Pictures of the recalled necklaces:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07042a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07042b.jpg
These necklaces were manufactured in China and are being sold by
children's, dollar, and discount stores nationwide from
September 2004 through November 2006 for about $1.
Consumers are advised to immediately take this jewelry away from
children. Consumers should return the recalled jewelry to the
store where purchased for a full refund or contact Really Useful
Products for information on how to receive a full refund.
Really Useful Products on the Net: http://www.ruproducts.com.
SILICON STORAGE: Calif. Court Mulls Stock Suit Dismissal Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to make a ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss a
second amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud
class action filed against Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. and
certain of its directors and officers.
In January and February 2005, multiple putative shareholder
class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, following the company's
announcement of anticipated financial results for the fourth
quarter of 2004.
On March 24, 2005, the putative class actions were consolidated
as "In re Silicon Storage Technology, Inc., Securities
Litigation, Case No. C 05 00295 PJH (N.D. Cal.)."
On May 3, 2005, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton appointed as lead
plaintiff:
-- The "Louisiana Funds Group," which consists of:
* the Louisiana School Employees' Retirement System, and
* the Louisiana District Attorneys' Retirement System.
Judge Hamilton also appointed as lead counsel and liason
counsel, respectively, for the class, the law firms of:
-- Pomeranz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, and
-- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.
The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on July 15, 2005. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages on alleged violations of federal securities laws during
the period from April 21, 2004 to Dec. 20, 2004.
The company moved to dismiss the complaint on Sept. 16, 2005.
Plaintiff served an opposition to the motion to dismiss on Nov.
4, 2005. The company's reply in further support of the motion
to dismiss was filed on Dec. 19, 2005.
On Jan. 18, 2006, the court heard arguments on the motion to
dismiss. On March 10, 2006, the court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, with leave
to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 1, 2006. The
company responded with a motion to dismiss on June 19, 2006.
On Aug. 17, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to
defendants' motion to dismiss. On Sept. 29, 2006, defendants
filed further briefing in support of their motion. A Nov. 8,
2006 hearing on the motion was set, but no update on the matter
is yet available.
The suit is "In re Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-00295-PJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Representing the plaintiffs is Christopher T. Heffelfinger of
Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco, P.C., 425 California Street,
Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415/433-3200, Fax:
415-433-6382, E-mail: cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com
Representing the company are Jonathan B. Gaskin and Robert P.
Varian of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 405 Howard Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-5700, Fax: 415-773-5759,
E-mail: jgaskin@orrick.com or rvarian@orrick.com.
UNITED STATES: New Suit Filed Over Mandatory Anthrax Vaccination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Six unnamed plaintiffs filed a purported class action in a D.C.
Court over the U.S. military's mandatory anthrax immunization
program, The NavyTimes.com reports.
The basic premise of the case is the plaintiffs' claim that the
vaccine is "unapproved for its applied/intended use," according
court documents.
The suit states that plaintiffs will suffer substantial and
irreparable injury if they are forced to take the vaccine, which
has not been properly approved by the federal government.
It accuses the U.S. Department of Defense of failing to follow
presidential orders and federal laws that require the government
to obtain informed consent before giving an unapproved and
experimental vaccine to anyone.
John J. Michels, Jr., co-counsel in the case, said that the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration's certification of the vaccine,
which is based on slipshod statistical analysis and improper use
of testing data, as well as DoD's alteration of the vaccine
dosing schedule, render the vaccine a drug unapproved for its
applied use under current federal law.
He pointed out that under these circumstances, the vaccine might
not be administered to service members without their informed
consent and added that it is patently illegal.
The plaintiffs, composed of five males and one female, are
unnamed out of "fear of retaliation by the government,"
according to their attorneys. Court documents claim plaintiffs
are one of those who will be required to take the vaccine next
year.
Named as defendants in the suit are:
-- Robert Gates, who will be sworn in as defense
secretary, replacing Donald Rumsfeld;
-- Heath and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, and
-- Andrew C. Von Eschnebach, commissioner of the Food and
Drug Administration.
For more details, contact John J. Michels, Jr. of McGuireWoods,
LLP, 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4100, Chicago, Illinois 60601-
1818, Phone: 312-849-8100, Fax: 312-849-3690, Web site:
http://www.mcguirewoods.com.
VANDERVOET: Recalls HDC Cantaloupes Over Possible Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vandervoet & Associates, Inc. of Rio Rico, Arizona announces a
voluntary recall of its cantaloupes, HDC label. The melons have
the potential to be contaminated with salmonella, a substance
which may render them injurious to health.
No illnesses have been reported to date. Healthy persons
infected with salmonella may experience fever, vomiting,
diarrhea, abdominal pain or nausea. Rarely, a salmonella
infection can enter the blood stream producing a more serious
illness.
In the elderly, weak, or infants, salmonella may prove fatal.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends that anyone
experiencing these symptoms following consumption of this
cantaloupe, should seek medical advice.
Approximately 7,400 cartons of cantaloupes were sold and
distributed in the U.S. and Canada between Nov. 9, 2006 and Nov.
15, 2006. The cantaloupes were packed in cardboard cartons with
contents of 9 to 23 melons per carton. The melons had a light
green cast to the exterior, orange flesh, and firm fruit.
Samples taken on Nov. 9, 2006 by the FDA resulted in the recall.
Laboratory tests made by the FDA demonstrated that a portion
contained salmonella.
Vandervoet & Associates, Inc. initiated the recall on Nov. 17,
2006. Working together with the FDA and other organizations,
Vandervoet & Associates is searching to identify all potential
sources of contamination, and to eliminate them.
WILLBROS GROUP: Feb. Hearing Set for $10M Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas will
hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 15, 2007, at 1:00 p.m. for the
proposed $10.5 million settlement in the matter, "In Re:
Willbros Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-
1778."
The hearing will be held at the U.S. Courthouse, 515 Rusk
Avenue, Houston, Texas.
The settlement covers all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Willbros Group, securities between May 6,
2002, and May 16, 2005.
Deadline for the filing of an objection or exclusion to and from
the settlement is on Feb. 1, 2007. Claim forms must be
submitted by Feb. 28, 2007.
Case Background
On May 18, 2005 a securities class action, "Legion Partners, LLP
v. Willbros Group, Inc. et al.," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas against the company and
certain of its present and former officers and directors.
Thereafter, three nearly identical lawsuits were filed.
Plaintiffs purport to represent a class composed of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Willbros Group, Inc. common
stock and/or other securities between May 6, 2002 and May 16,
2005, inclusive.
These complaints generally allege violations by the defendants
of Section 10(b) of U.S. the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and allege,
among other things, that defendants made false or misleading
statements of material fact about the company's financial
statements. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.
On Oct. 17, 2005, the court ordered these actions consolidated
and appointed ADAR Investments, LLC as lead plaintiff and
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz of New York as lead plaintiff's
counsel. As ordered by the court, the plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint on Jan. 9, 2006.
The consolidated amended complaint alleges that WGI and certain
of its present and former officers and directors, including
Michael Curran, Warren Williams, and J. Kenneth Tillery,
violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through a
series of false and misleading statements and a "scheme to
defraud."
The alleged misrepresentations and scheme to defraud relate to
the activities of Mr. Tillery in Nigeria and Bolivia, certain
alleged accounting errors, the restatement of past financial
results, and alleged Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations.
The plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of WGI common stock during the purported class
period. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.
For more details, contact:
(1) Willbros Group, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o The
Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, PO Box
9000 #6476, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: 1(866) 533-
0151, Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com;and
(2) Jeffrey M. Haber, Esq. of Bernstein Liebhard &
Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY
10016, Phone: (212) 779-1414, Web site:
http://www.bernlieb.com.
WISCONSIN: Appleton Residents File Suit Over Athletic Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
A suit by certain residents living near Appleton West High
School in Wisconsin against a planned new outdoor athletic
facilities in their area, now includes the owners of five of 21
homes on N. Mason Street that is on course for acquisition and
demolition, The Appleton Post-Crescent reports.
The 21 homes are to be demolished to make way for the $5.5
million project proposed by the West Terror Backers.
According to Lorn Dilley, an attorney representing homeowners in
the case pending in Outagamie County Circuit Court, his clients
are not going to sell their homes. He adds that plaintiffs have
told the Terror Backers about their refusal in writing.
The suit asks the court to permanently restrain the Terror
Backers from advocating publicly or privately for the
construction of an athletic field adjacent to the school that
would require the acquisition and demolition of their homes.
The city plan commission has recommended on a 5-1 vote that the
Common Council approve a concept plan for the project, which
would include a new football field, track, soccer fields, tennis
courts and other facilities.
For more details, contact Lorn Dilley of Dilley Schomisch &
Associates, Llc, 3945 W College Ave, Appleton, WI, Phone: (920)
735-0156.
Asbestos Alert
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Records $486.8M Liability at 3Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s long-term asbestos liability, as of Sept. 30, 2006,
was US$486,899,000, compared with US$526,830,000 as of Dec. 31,
2005.
As of June 30, 2006, the Company's long-term asbestos liability
was US$509,559,000. (Class Action Reporter, July 28, 2006)
As of Sept. 30, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, the Company's current
asbestos liability was US$55 million.
The Company's asbestos-related insurance receivable, as of Sept.
30, 2006, was US$214,626,000, compared with US$224,600,000 as of
Dec. 31, 2005.
As of June 30, 2006, the Company's asbestos-related insurance
receivable was US$216,449,000. (Class Action Reporter, July 28,
2006)
For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, asbestos-related
payments, net of insurance recoveries, amounted to
US$29,957,000, compared with US$24,556,000 for the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2005.
Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. makes industrial
products, including fluid handling equipment, aerospace
components, engineered materials, merchandising systems, and
controls. The Company serves the power generation, general
aviation, commercial construction, food and beverage, and
chemical industries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Has 89,314 Pending Claims in 3Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., as of Sept. 30, 2006, recorded 89,314 pending
asbestos-related claims, compared with 88,925 pending claims as
of Sept. 30, 2005.
As of June 30, 2006, the Company had 88,833 asbestos-related
claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, July 28, 2006)
For the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
1,555 new claims, 351 settlements, and 723 dismissals. For the
three months ended Sept. 30, 2005, the Company recorded 1,544
new claims, 449 settlements, and 733 dismissals.
For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
3,837 new claims, 923 settlements, and 2,617 dismissals. For the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005, the Company recorded 6,636 new
claims, 1,188 settlements, and 1,500 dismissals.
Of the 89,314 pending claims as of Sept. 30, 2006, about 25,000
claims were pending in New York, about 32,000 claims were
pending in Mississippi, about 9,200 claims were pending in
Texas, and about 3,400 claims were pending in Ohio.
On July 22, 2005, the Company entered into an agreement to
settle its insurance coverage claims for asbestos and other
liabilities against certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London
reinsured by Equitas Ltd. for a total payment of US$33 million.
Under the agreement, US$1.5 million was paid to the Company in
2005-3rd quarter.
Effective March 1, 2006, the Company entered into two agreements
with Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. and certain affiliated
firms settling all outstanding claims under the Company's
primary policies with Hartford for a final payment of US$1.3
million.
The agreements established a coverage-in-place arrangement for
asbestos claims under the Company's excess policies with
Hartford, including a payment of US$2.6 million for claims
billed to Hartford through Sept. 1, 2005.
Effective April 10, 2006, the Company and Everest Reinsurance
Co. and Mt. McKinley Insurance Co. reached a settlement
agreement pursuant to which, Everest's insurance coverage
obligations for asbestos claims under the three historical
Everest policies issued to the Company were released. On April
21, 2006, the Company received a US$3.8 million cash payment
under the settlement agreement.
On June 30, 2006, the Company and Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.
entered into an agreement, effective July 3, 2006, establishing
a coverage-in-place arrangement for asbestos claims under the
Company's excess policies with Fireman's Fund. The agreement
included a payment of US$2.3 million for claims billed to
Fireman's Fund through June 26, 2006, which was received by the
Company in August 2006.
Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. makes industrial
products, including fluid handling equipment, aerospace
components, engineered materials, merchandising systems, and
controls. The Company serves the power generation, general
aviation, commercial construction, food and beverage, and
chemical industries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Still Faces Insurance Suit in Conn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. continues to face an asbestos-related insurance
lawsuit, filed on Jan. 21, 2005, by five of the Company's
insurers within two corporate insurer groups, in which Everest
Reinsurance Co. and Mt. McKinley Insurance Co. are two of the
plaintiffs.
Filed in Connecticut state court, the suit sought injunctive
relief against the Company and declaratory relief against the
Company and dozens of the Company's other insurers.
On April 8, 2005, the insurer plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint raising five counts against the Company, in which the
Amended Complaint sought:
(i) Declaratory relief regarding the Company's rights to
coverage, if any, under the policies;
(ii) Declaratory relief regarding the Company's alleged breaches
of the policies in connection with an alleged increase in
asbestos claim counts;
(iii) A declaration of no coverage in connection with allegedly
time-barred claims;
(iv) Declaratory relief against the Company and the other
insurer defendants for allocation of damages that may be covered
under the insurance policies; and
(v) Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.
On April 18, 2005, the Company moved to dismiss the claims for
injunctive relief on the grounds that the Court had no
jurisdiction to consider the claims because they were
speculative and unripe.
On Oct. 19, 2005, the Court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss. The Court noted that the Company later could seek
summary judgment in connection with the injunctive claims if
discovery shows them to be without factual basis.
Effective April 10, 2006, the Company, Everest, and Mt. McKinley
reached a settlement agreement pursuant to which the insurers'
coverage obligations for asbestos claims under three historical
Everest policies issued to the Company were released in exchange
for a US$3.8 million cash payment, which was received by the
Company on April 21, 2006.
Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. makes industrial
products, including fluid handling equipment, aerospace
components, engineered materials, merchandising systems, and
controls. The Company serves the power generation, general
aviation, commercial construction, food and beverage, and
chemical industries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: "Premises" Claims v. Huntsman Drop to 1,396
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corp., for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006,
recorded 1,396 unresolved "premises" claims, compared with 438
for the same period in 2005.
For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company noted 990
claims tendered during the period, compared with 107 claims
tendered in the same period in 2005. For the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2006, the Company noted 170 claims resolved during the
period, compared with 67 claims for the same period in 2005.
In the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company had about
1,425 pending "premises" claims, compared with 461 of these
claims for the comparable period in 2005. For the period ended
June 30, 2006, the Company noted 962 cases tendered and 113
cases resolved. For the period ended June 30, 2005, the Company
noted 84 cases tendered and 21 cases resolved. (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 1, 2006)
The Company has been named as a "premises defendant" in asbestos
exposure cases, typically a claim by a non-employee of exposure
to asbestos while at a facility. These cases have involved
multiple plaintiffs suing multiple defendants, and the complaint
has not indicated which plaintiffs were making claims against
which defendants, where or how the alleged injuries occurred, or
what injuries each plaintiff claimed.
Where the alleged exposure occurred prior to the Company's
ownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners have
contractually agreed to retain liability for, and to indemnify
the Company against, asbestos exposure claims.
In the Company's 12-year experience with tendering these cases,
it has not made any payment with respect to any tendered
asbestos cases. The Company has never made any payments with
respect to these cases.
As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had an accrued liability of
US$12.5 million relating to these cases and a corresponding
receivable of US$12.5 million relating to its indemnity
protection with respect to these cases. As of Sept. 30, 2006,
the Company has made no accruals with respect to unasserted
asbestos exposure claims.
Certain cases in which the Company is a "premises defendant" are
not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators. For
those cases, the Company recorded 43 unresolved cases for the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, compared with 68 cases for the
same period in 2005.
For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company noted 18
cases tendered during the period, compared with 47 for the same
period in 2005. For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the
Company noted 9 resolved cases, compared with 8 cases for the
same period in 2005.
The Company paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure
cases that are not subject to indemnification of about US$10,000
during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, compared with
US$20,000 during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005.
As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had an accrual of about
US$600,000 relating to these cases.
Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, Huntsman Corp. makes
chemicals with products including MDI, amines, surfactants, and
epoxy-based polymers. The Company's chemicals are sold in more
than 100 countries to customers in the adhesives, construction
products, electronics, medical, and packaging industries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norcross Safety Has 60 Exposure Suits in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norcross Safety Products LLC, as of Sept. 30, 2006, recorded
about 669 product liability lawsuits, in which about 9 percent,
or about 60 suits, is asbestos-related.
These 669 suits represent a total of about 8,769 plaintiffs.
Most of these suits and claims are product liability matters
that arise out of the use of respiratory product lines made by
the Company's North Safety Products subsidiary.
The Company recorded 997 respirator suits as of July 1, 2006, 13
percent or 130 suits of which are related to asbestos exposure
injury. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 15, 2006)
As of Sept. 30, 2006, North Safety Products, along with its
predecessors and the former owners of those business were named
as defendants in about 657 suits involving respirators allegedly
made and sold by it or its predecessors.
The Company is also monitoring 12 more suits in which it feels
that North Safety Products, its predecessors and the former
owners of those businesses may be named as defendants.
About 91 percent of these suits involved plaintiffs alleging
injury resulting from exposure to silica dust, with the
remainder alleging injury resulting from exposure to other dust
particles, including asbestos.
Invensys plc, formerly Siebe plc, is contractually obligated to
indemnify the Company for any losses, including costs of
defending claims, from respiratory products made or sold before
the acquisition of North Safety Products in October 1998.
Headquartered in Oak Brook, Ill., Norcross Safety Products LLC
makes protective equipment like boots, clothing, eyewear, hats,
hearing protection aids, and respiratory devices, for the
agricultural, fire service, industrial, and utility markets.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbia Equity Has $156T Cleanup Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Equity Trust Inc., for the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2006, has accrued US$156,989 liability for asbestos remediation,
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.
This liability is assumed as part of purchase of rental
property.
COMPANY PROFILE
Columbia Equity Trust Inc.
1750 H St. NW, Ste. 500
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: 202-303-3080
Fax: 202-303-3088
http://www.columbiareit.com
Fiscal Year-End: December
2005 Sales (mil.): US$9.9
1-Year Sales Growth: 422.4%
2005 Net Income (mil.): (US$0.6)
2005 Employees: 12
1-Year Employee Growth: (52.0%)
Description:
A real estate investment trust, the Company acquires, renovates,
owns, and manages small and mid-sized office buildings in the
greater Washington, D.C. area.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CompuDyne Still Has Product Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CompuDyne Corp. continues to face lawsuits related to claims for
exposure allegedly from asbestos in certain of its predecessor's
products.
The Company has been named in suits involving asbestos related
personal injury and death claims.
The Company has advised its insurers of each of these cases, and
the insurers are providing a defense in agreement with the
Company.
The insurers have advised that claims in asbestos litigation for
punitive damages, exemplary damages, malicious and willful and
wanton behavior and intentional conduct are not covered.
One of the carriers has given notice that asbestos-related
claims are excluded from certain of these policies. The insurers
have additional coverage defenses, which are reserved, including
that claims may fall outside of a particular policy period of
coverage.
To date, litigation costs have not been significant and the
Company has not paid any settlements from its own funds.
Headquartered in Annapolis, Md., CompuDyne Corp. provides
products and services to the Public Security market. The Company
operates in four segments: Attack Protection, Federal Security
Systems, Institutional Security Systems and Public Safety and
Justice. The Company was founded in 1952.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Industries Has 10 Suits in Ala. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries Inc. has been named a defendant in 10 asbestos-
related lawsuits, with over 100 defendants in each case, filed
in Alabama state court by about 324 individual plaintiffs.
In all 10 cases, the plaintiffs claimed that they were exposed
to asbestos in the course of their employment at a former U.S.
Steel plant in Alabama and contracted mesothelioma, asbestosis,
lung cancer or other illness.
The plaintiffs claimed that they were exposed to asbestos in
products in the plant, which were made by each defendant. In
eight of the cases, plaintiffs also asserted wrongful death
claims.
The Company is a named defendant in eight asbestos-related suits
filed in Alabama State Court by a total of about 215 individual
plaintiffs. Each case names over 100 defendants. (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006)
Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) has tendered over 2,055 cases
pending in Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Nevada,
Mississippi, Wyoming, Louisiana, Georgia, Massachusetts and
California to the Company for defense and indemnification.
Regarding one case, Sterling has demanded that the Company
indemnify it for a US$200,000 settlement.
Sterling based its tender of the complaints on the provisions in
a 1993 Purchase Agreement between the parties where Sterling
bought the LaBour Pump business and other assets from the
Company. Sterling has not sued the Company in connection with
these matters.
The tendered complaints all purported to state claims against
Sterling and its subsidiaries. The Company and its current
subsidiaries are not named as defendants. The plaintiffs in the
cases also alleged that they were exposed to asbestos and
products with asbestos in the course of their employment.
Each complaint named as defendants many manufacturers of
products with asbestos, because plaintiffs came into contact
with different products in the course of their employment. The
plaintiffs' claimed that LaBour Pump and Sterling may have made
some of those products.
LaBour Pump Co., a former Company subsidiary, has been named a
defendant in over 335 similar cases in New Jersey. These cases
have also been tendered by Sterling. The Company has elected to
defend these cases, many of which have been dismissed or settled
for nominal sums.
Headquartered in Arlington, Va., Katy Industries Inc. makes
maintenance products like cleaning supplies, abrasives, and
stains. The Company also makes electric-corded products like
extension cords, surge protectors, and garden lighting. The
Company was established in 1967.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liggett Group Faces 4 Third-Party Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd., as of Sept. 30, 2006, recorded four third-
party payor actions pending against its subsidiary Liggett Group
LLC.
As of June 30, 2006, Liggett had three third-party payor actions
pending against it. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006)
Insurance companies, union health and welfare trust funds,
asbestos manufacturers and others have filed the third-party
payor actions.
Since 1954, Liggett and other U.S. cigarette makers have been
named as defendants in numerous direct and third-party actions
on the theory that cigarette makers should be liable for damages
alleged to have been caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure
to secondary smoke from cigarettes.
For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, Liggett incurred legal
fees and other litigation costs totaling about US$3,452,000,
compared with US$3,715,000 for the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2005.
In a California state court suit styled Fibreboard Corp., et al.
v. The American Tobacco Co., et al., the plaintiffs sought
reimbursement for damages paid to asbestos victims for medical
and other relief, which damages are allegedly attributable to
tobacco firms. Since December 2001, motions to dismiss have been
stayed.
Headquartered in Miami, Fla., Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett unit
makes cigarettes under brands including Liggett Select and Eve,
OMNI-branded "reduced-carcinogen" cigarettes, and several
generic lines of cigarettes.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Aluminum Corp. Has $1.115B Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Aluminum Corp., as of June 30, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005,
recorded a US$1.115 billion liability for subsidiary Kaiser
Aluminum & Chemical Corp.'s asbestos, silica, and coal tar pitch
volatiles-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, KACC's receivable for asbestos, silica, and
coal tar pitch volatiles-related claims was US$963.3 million,
compared with US$965.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2005.
KACC still faces lawsuits, some of which involved claims of
multiple persons, in which the plaintiffs allege that certain of
their injuries were caused by exposure to asbestos or exposure
to products with asbestos produced or sold by KACC or as a
result of employment or association with KACC. As of the Feb.
12, 2002 bankruptcy filing date, about 112,000 asbestos-related
claims were pending.
Since the latter half of 2005, the Company entered into
conditional settlement agreements with insurers, all of which
were approved by the Bankruptcy Court, under which the insurers
agreed in aggregate to pay about US$1.246 billion in respect of
substantially all coverage under certain policies having a
combined face value of about US$1.460 billion.
Many of the agreements provided for multi-year payouts and for
some of the settlement amounts to be accessed, claims would have
to be made against the Personal Injury Trusts that would
aggregate well in excess of the average US$1.115 billion
liability reflected by the Company at June 30, 2006.
In November 2005, one set of insurers paid about US$137 million
into a separate escrow account. As of June 30, 2006, the
insurers had paid US$250 million into the escrow accounts.
Headquartered in Foothill Ranch, Calif., Kaiser Aluminum Corp.
operates 11 fabricated products manufacturing plants in the U.S.
and Canada and a minority-owned aluminum smelting facility in
the U.K. The Company emerged from Chapter 11 in mid-2006.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. TriMas Corp. Surge to 1,704 in 3Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2006, was party to about 1,704
pending cases involving about 11,119 claimants alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing materials.
These materials were formerly used in gaskets, both encapsulated
and otherwise, made or distributed by certain of the Company's
subsidiaries for use in the petrochemical refining and
exploration industries.
As of July 31, 2006, the Company recorded about 1,605 pending
cases involving an aggregate of about 10,697 claimants alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing materials.
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 15, 2006)
For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
19,416 pending claims at the beginning of the period, 3,662
claims filed, 11,886 claims dismissed, and 73 claims settled.
For the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded
18,884 pending claims at the beginning of the period, 2,596
claims filed, 1,998 claims dismissed, and 66 claims settled.
For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the average settlement
amount per claim was US$8,607, compared with US$8,660 for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2005.
For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the total defense
costs were US$3,472,239, compared with US$5,324,407 for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2005.
Moreover, the Company acquired companies to distribute its
products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
before acquisition.
Of the 11,119 claims pending at Sept. 30, 2006, 123 claims set
forth specific amounts of damages, in which 93 claims sought
between US$1 million and US$5 million in total damages and 30
sought between US$5 million and US$10 million in total damages.
With respect to compensatory damages, 99 of the 123 claims
sought between US$50,000 and US$600,000 and 24 sought between
US$1 million and US$5 million. With respect to punitive damages,
93 of the 123 claims sought between US$1 million and US$2.5
million and 30 sought US$5 million.
Total settlement costs, exclusive of defense costs, for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 18 years ago, have been
about US$3.7 million. To date, about 50 percent of the Company's
costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos litigation
have been covered by its primary insurance.
Effective Feb. 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-
place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding
the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related
claims when the primary insurance is exhausted.
Headquartered in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., TriMas Corp. has five
business units: Recreational Accessories, RV & Trailer Products,
Packaging Systems, Industrial Specialties, and Energy Products.
The Company makes products from SUV and truck parts, packaging,
consumer products, tools, and agricultural equipment. The
Company was spun off from Metaldyne Corp.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Denies Motions of Two Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, N.D. California, denied the cross
motions for summary judgment by American Insurance Co. and
American Re-Insurance Co. in an asbestos-related insurance
lawsuit.
District Judge Jeffrey S. White handed down the decision of Case
No. C 05-01218 JSW on Nov. 27, 2006.
This dispute centered on a reinsurance certificate between
American Insurance and American Re.
American Insurance's affiliate, Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.,
provided excess insurance to General Refractories Co., an
asbestos manufacturer.
At issue are the two reinsurance policies issued by Fireman's
Fund to General Refractories. The first policy provided coverage
from Sept. 15, 1978 to Aug. 1, 1979, with a limit of US$10
million, in excess of US$25 million, in excess of US$1 million
(the 1978-79 excess policy).
The second policy provided coverage from Aug. 1, 1979 to Aug. 1,
1980, with a limit of US$10 million, in excess of US$25 million,
in excess of US$1 million (the 1979-80 excess policy).
Under the reinsurance certificates, American Re agreed to insure
50 percent of two excess liability policies.
General Refractories faced suits based on the asbestos it made.
General Refractories and Fireman's Fund disputed the extent and
availability of coverage under Fireman's Fund's excess policies.
General Refractories sued Fireman's Fund alleging that it
breached a policy covering 1971-74 and that Fireman's Fund
engaged in bad faith denial of benefits.
American Re disputed that it owed any money to American
Insurance under the reinsurance certificates. American Insurance
and American Re moved for summary judgment, arguing that the
Court may determine American Re's liability under the
reinsurance contracts as a matter of law.
The Court denied American Insurance's and American Re's motion
for summary judgment.
Lorraine A. Barrabee, Scott Michael Bloom, David W. Evans, and
Robert N. Schiff, of Haight, Brown & Bonesteel, L.L.P. in San
Francisco, Calif. represented American Insurance Co.
Bruce H. Winkelman of Berkeley, Calif., Robert J. Bates, Jr. of
Bates & Carey LLP, and Maryann Hayes of Chicago, Ill.
represented American Re-Insurance Co.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navy Veteran's Claim Denial Upheld in Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upheld the ruling
of the Board of Veterans' Appeals that denied Warren J. Bolton
entitlement to service in connection with an asbestos-related
respiratory disorder.
Judge Robert N. Davis handed down the decision of Case No. 04-
0230 on Nov. 6, 2006.
Mr. Bolton appealed from a Feb. 5, 2004 Board decision.
From November 1946 to October 1947, Mr. Bolton served in the
U.S. Navy. In October 2000, Mr. Bolton filed a claim for service
connection for asbestos exposure.
In January 2001, the Nashville, Tenn., regional office submitted
a letter informing Mr. Bolton of its duties under the Veterans
Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA).
In November 2002, the RO denied Mr. Bolton's claim for service
connection for asbestosis, finding that there was no medical
evidence of a current disability.
In January 2003, Mr. Bolton filed a Notice of Disagreement and a
timely Substantive Appeal in November 2003 after issuance of a
Statement of the Case (SOC). In its Feb. 5, 2004 decision, the
Board affirmed the RO denial of his service-connection claim.
On appeal, Mr. Bolton first argued that the Board failed to
afford him VCAA-compliant notice. He also contended that the
Board erred when it failed to provide an adequate statement of
reasons or bases when denying his service-connection claim.
Moreover, Mr. Bolton asserted that the November 2002 Veterans
Affairs (VA) examination relied upon by the Board was
inadequate, on the basis that the pulmonary functions test cited
to in the examination may not have been conducted.
Finally, Mr. Bolton argued that the Board erred because it
failed to apply the appropriate Diagnostic Code and denied his
service-connection claim for a respiratory disorder.
Since the November 2002 VA exam results were normal and the
diagnosis for asbestos related disability was negative, Mr.
Bolton failed to establish the first element of a test requiring
evidence of a current disability. His argument that the Board
failed to consider the appropriate Diagnostic Code is
irrelevant.
The Court held that the Board did not err when it denied Mr.
Bolton's service-claim for a respiratory disorder.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Remands Gaines Claim to Board
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated a
Feb. 11, 2004 Board of Veterans' Appeals ruling that denied Leon
Gaines entitlement to service connection for a lung disability,
including asbestosis. The matter has been remanded to the Board
for further proceedings.
Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr. handed down the decision of Case No.
04-570 on Nov. 3, 2006.
From December 1968 to February 1970, Mr. Gaines served in the
U.S. Navy. He asserted that he was exposed to asbestos while
doing "sand blasting" and "paint removal" on two Navy vessels.
Medical records dated June 1995 revealed a diagnosis of chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In September 1995, Dr.
Alvin J. Schonfeld indicated that Mr. Gaines' chest x-ray showed
signs of bilateral pleural thickening of the type consistent
with asbestos exposure and resultant pleural asbestosis.
In November 1995, a Veterans Affairs examiner "found no
objective findings of active lung disease." A March 1997 VA
report continued the diagnosis of COPD and found no radiological
evidence of asbestosis. This VA examiner attributed Mr. Gaines'
COPD to his "long-standing smoking."
The Board denied Mr. Gaines' claim because it found no current
medical diagnosis of asbestosis.
Although the Board acknowledged the favorable medical opinion,
it did not provide any reasons or bases why that diagnosis was
inadequate or why the physician's opinion lacked credibility.
The Court ordered that the Feb. 11, 2004 decision is vacated and
the matter remanded for further proceedings.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Records $46M Liability in 3Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor Inc.'s non-current asbestos-related liabilities, as
of Sept. 30, 2006, were US$46 million, compared with US$38
million as of Sept. 30, 2005.
As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's current asbestos-related
liabilities were US$11 million, compared with US$16 million as
of Sept. 30, 2005.
As of June 30, 2006, the Company's asbestos-related liabilities
totaled US$54 million, in which US$14 million was current and
US$40 million was non-current. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 11,
2006)
The Company's non-current asbestos-related recoveries were US$30
million as of Sept. 30, 2006, compared with US$22 million as of
Sept. 30, 2005.
As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's current asbestos-related
recoveries were US$8 million, compared with US$13 million as of
Sept. 30, 2005.
Maremont Corp., a Company subsidiary, made friction products
with asbestos from 1952 through 1977, when it sold its friction
product business. The Company acquired Maremont in 1986.
Maremont and other companies face lawsuits brought by
individuals claiming personal injuries from exposure to
asbestos-containing products.
The Company, with many other companies, has also been named a
defendant in suits alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell Automation Inc.
products.
Headquartered in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor Inc. makes components
for commercial vehicles (axles, transmissions, and clutches) and
for light vehicles (door, roof, exhaust, wheels, and suspension
systems).
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Maremont Drop to 51,895 1n 3Q06
--------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor Inc.'s subsidiary, Maremont Corp., recorded about
51,895 pending asbestos-related claims at Sept. 30, 2006,
compared with 61,700 pending claims at Sept. 30, 2005.
At June 30, 2006, Maremont had about 60,500 pending asbestos-
related claims, compared with 61,100 claims at March 31, 2006.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 11, 2006)
Maremont made friction products with asbestos from 1953 through
1977, when it sold its friction product business. The Company
acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont and many other companies
face lawsuits brought by individuals claiming personal injuries
from exposure to asbestos-containing products.
In the cases where actual injury has been alleged, very few
claimants have established that a Maremont product caused their
injuries.
At Sept. 30, 2006, Maremont's total asbestos-related reserves
were US$50 million, in which US$41 million were for pending
claims and US$9 million were for shortfall and others.
At Sept. 30, 2005, Maremont's total asbestos-related reserves
were US$54 million, in which US$50 million were for pending
claims and US$4 were for shortfall and others.
At Sept. 30, 2006, Maremont's asbestos-related insurance
recoveries were US$31 million, compared with US$35 million at
Sept. 30, 2005.
Billings to insurance companies for indemnity and defense costs
of resolved cases were US$6 million in fiscal year 2006 and
US$12 million in fiscal year 2005.
Headquartered in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor Inc. makes components
for commercial vehicles (axles, transmissions, and clutches) and
for light vehicles (door, roof, exhaust, wheels, and suspension
systems).
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Has $7M Rockwell Receivable
-------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor Inc., at Sept. 30, 2006, recorded US$7 million as
insurance receivable related to Rockwell Automation Inc. legacy
asbestos-related liabilities.
The Company has been named co-defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in
certain Rockwell products. Liability for these claims was
transferred to the Company at the time of the spin-off of the
automotive business to Meritor Automotive Inc. from Rockwell in
1997.
A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of
Rockwell's products or specify which of the claimants were
exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell products. Past
experience has shown that most of the claimants will never
identify any of Rockwell's products.
Historically, the Company has been dismissed from most of these
claims with no payment to claimants.
Headquartered in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor Inc. makes components
for commercial vehicles (axles, transmissions, and clutches) and
for light vehicles (door, roof, exhaust, wheels, and suspension
systems).
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crowley Faces 15,251 Suits in Ohio, Mich.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crowley Maritime Corp. remains a defendant, with other
shipowners and other entities, in 15,251 maritime asbestos cases
and other toxic tort cases, most of which were filed in
Cleveland, Ohio and Detroit, Mich. Federal Courts.
Filed on behalf of a seaman or his representative, each of these
cases alleged injury or illness based on exposure to asbestos or
other toxic substances and sets forth a claim based on the
theory of negligence under the Jones Act and on the theory of
unseaworthiness under the General Maritime Law.
Moreover, the Company is named a defendant with others in 92
asbestos or other toxic cases pending in jurisdictions other
than the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. These other
jurisdictions include state and federal courts in Northern
California, Oregon, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Maryland and New
York.
In all claims that have been asserted against the Company in the
Multidistrict Litigation, the plaintiffs have been unable to
establish any causal relationship to the Company. Moreover, in
all asbestos cases not currently before a court for
adjudication, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate
that they have suffered any injury or compensable loss that
resulted from asbestos exposure or that alleged exposure was
related to the Company.
At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company has accrued US$2,751,000 as its
best estimate of the liability and has recorded a receivable
from its insurance companies of US$851,000 related to its
reinstated asbestos litigation and other asbestos and toxic
claims.
For the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company noted 10
claims filed and 3 claims settled. For the three months ended
Sept. 30, 2005, the Company noted 12 claims filed and one claim
dismissed.
For the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
US$81,000 as total settlements paid, US$27,000 as the average
settlement, US$184,000 as the legal expenses paid, and
US$6,372,000 as the insurance proceeds received.
For the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
US$133,000 as the legal expenses paid and US$13,000 as the
insurance proceeds received.
For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company noted 52
claims filed, 4 claims settled, and 3 claims dismissed. For the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005, the Company noted 54 claims
filed, 6 claims settled, and 5 claims dismissed.
For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded
US$83,000 as the total settlements paid, US$21,000 as the
average settlement, US$546,000 as the legal expenses paid, and
US$6,377,000 as the insurance proceeds received.
For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005, the Company recorded
US$93,000 as the total settlements paid, US$16,000 as the
average settlement, US$414,000 as the legal expenses paid, and
US$74,000 as the insurance proceeds received.
In 2004 the Company settled for about US$6,325,000 certain
asbestos-related claims that involved seamen employed by the
Company for over 30 years. In August 2006, the Company entered
into a settlement agreement with two insurance firms for
recovery of amounts paid by the Company for these claims.
Headquartered in Oakland, Calif., Crowley Maritime Corp.'s Liner
Services unit provides scheduled transportation of containers,
trailers, and other cargo, mainly between ports in the US, the
Caribbean, and Latin America, plus logistics services. Other
units transport oil and chemical products and oil field
equipment and provide ship escort services.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Airguide Inc. Assesses $875,000 for Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Airguide Inc. has estimated US$875,000 asbestos removal costs in
properties it acquired in Pryor, Okla. from Kaiser Aluminum and
Chemical Co., according to the Company's quarterly report, on
Form 10-QSB, for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006 filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
On Feb. 1, 2006, the Company acquired the Oklahoma properties
for US$700,000 plus related costs of US$12,071.
As part of the asset purchase agreement, the Company assumed all
obligations for removing the asbestos within 18 months, and was
required to provide a US$800,000 letter of credit to the seller.
If the asbestos obligations have not been settled within the
required period, the seller may draw upon the letter of credit
for any costs incurred by the seller to complete the asbestos
removal and any damages permitted to be recovered under the
agreement.
The Company has placed US$800,000 in a separate bank account as
collateral to the bank issuing the letter of credit. The
US$1,575,000 fixed asset cost was allocated to the individual
assets based on their estimated fair values.
Headquartered in Tulsa, Okla., Airguide Inc., formerly known as
CDX.com Inc., is engaged in the industrial and household waste
management services industry and the environmental remediation
and abatement services industry. Its waste management services
are conducted through Amerex and Waste Express Inc., an Amerex
subsidiary.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Liability Remains at $7.02M in 3Q06
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corp.'s current asbestos-related liability, as of Oct. 1,
2006 and Jan. 1 2006, was at US$7,023,000, according to the
Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ended
Oct. 1, 2006 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
As of July 2, 2006, the Company recorded US$7,023,000 current
asbestos-related liabilities. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 8,
2006)
As of Oct. 1, 2006 and Jan. 1, 2006, the Company recorded
US$30,867,000 in non-current asbestos-related liabilities.
The Company, as of Oct. 1, 2006 and Jan. 1, 2006, recorded
US$7,023,000 in current asbestos-related insurance receivables.
As of Oct. 1, 2006 and Jan 1, 2006, the Company recorded
US$30,581,000 in non-current asbestos-related insurance
receivables.
Headquartered in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corp.'s specialty
materials are used in electronic and consumer products. Its
products include printed circuit board laminates and polyester-
based industrial laminates, which are used in digital cellular
communications, mobile radios, and direct broadcast TV.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Has 157 Pending Claims in 3Q06
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corp., as of Oct. 1, 2006, recorded about 157 pending
asbestos-related claims filed against it, compared with 215
pending claims at Jan. 1, 2006. The claims have been filed in
Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi.
As of July 1, 2006, the Company recorded about 160 pending
asbestos-related claims filed against it. (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006)
In virtually all of these claims filed against the Company, the
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages or, if an amount is
specified, it merely represents jurisdictional amounts or
amounts to be proven at trial.
The Company made some limited products, which had encapsulated
asbestos. Those products were provided to industrial users. The
Company stopped making these products in 1987.
In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable loss as a result of exposure to
the Company's asbestos-containing products.
Cases involving the Company name 50-300 defendants, although
some cases have had as few as one and as many as 833 defendants.
The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these claims.
In the first nine months of 2006, the Company was able to have
about 56 claims dismissed, including 16 in the 2006-3rd quarter,
and settled 10 claims. For the full year 2005, the Company
disclosed that about 99 claims were dismissed. However, in the
2006-2nd quarter, the Company received new information from its
legal counsel reporting that about 158 claims were dismissed in
2005. About 12 claims were settled in 2005.
The majority of costs have been paid by the Company's insurance
carriers, including the majority of costs associated with the
small number of cases that have been settled. Payments related
to those settlements were about US$1.8 million through the first
nine months of 2006, and US$4.4 million in all of 2005.
Headquartered in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corp.'s specialty
materials are used in electronic and consumer products. Its
products include printed circuit board laminates and polyester-
based industrial laminates, which are used in digital cellular
communications, mobile radios, and direct broadcast TV.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Building Materials Has 1.9T Pending Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Building Materials Corp. of America, as of Oct. 1, 2006,
recorded about 1,900 alleged asbestos-related bodily injury
claims, which are pending against the Company, relating to the
inhalation of asbestos fiber.
In connection with its formation, the Company contractually
assumed and agreed to pay the first US$204.4 million of asbestos
liabilities of its indirect parent, G-I Holdings Inc. As of
March 30, 1997, the Company paid all of its assumed asbestos-
related liabilities.
In January 2001, G-I Holdings filed for reorganization, which
remains pending, under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
Most asbestos claims did not specify the amount of damages
sought.
On Feb. 2, 2001, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order enjoining any
existing or future claimant from bringing or prosecuting an
asbestos claim against the Company.
By oral opinion on June 22, 2001, and written order entered Feb.
22, 2002, the Court converted the temporary restraints into a
preliminary injunction, prohibiting the bringing or prosecution
of any asbestos claim against the Company.
On Feb. 7, 2001, G-I Holdings filed an action in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey seeking a
declaratory judgment that the Company has no successor liability
for asbestos claims against G-I Holdings and that it is not the
alter ego of G-I Holdings.
The Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants, a party in this
matter, subsequently filed a counterclaim against the Company
seeking a declaration that the Company has successor liability
for asbestos claims against G-I Holdings and that the Company is
the alter ego of G-I Holdings.
On May 13, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey withdrew the reference of the BMCA Action from the
Bankruptcy Court, and this matter will therefore be heard by the
District Court.
Headquartered in Wayne, N.J., Building Materials Corp. of
America, which does business as GAF Materials, deals in shingles
and roofing systems. The Company also makes flashing, vents,
decorative stone for fireplaces, and wrought iron balusters. The
Company was founded in 1886.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Corp. Provides $3.056B for Claims in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corp., in the 12 months ended Sept. 30, 2006, recorded a
US$3.056 billion provision for asbestos claims, according to a
Company press release dated Nov. 14, 2006.
Headquartered in Chicago, Ill., USG Corp., together with
subsidiaries, makes gypsum wallboard, joint compound and related
gypsum products, cement board, gypsum fiber panels, and ceiling
panels and grid. The Company also distributes building products.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Records AUD55.9M Provision Increase
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V., at Sept. 30, 2006, recorded an
AUD55.9 million, or US$41.8 million, asbestos provision increase
to reflect the results of the actuarial estimate prepared by
KPMG Actuaries and for payments made to claimants by the Medical
Research and Compensation Foundation during the half year.
Moreover, the provision was adjusted for the effect of foreign
exchange leading to a charge of US$5.4 million for the quarter.
These adjustments, with no current cash impact, reduced net
operating profit to US$21.1 million, down 56 percent compared
with the same quarter last year.
For the half year, net operating profit excluding adjustments to
the asbestos provision increased 27 percent to US$131 million
from US$103.5 million. Including the adjustments to the asbestos
provision of US$74.4 million, of which US$32.6 million related
to the effect of foreign exchange for the half year, net
operating profit decreased 45 percent to US$56.6 million.
The asbestos provision is based on an estimate of future
Australian asbestos-related liabilities in accordance with the
Final Funding Agreement that was signed with the New South Wales
Government on Dec. 1, 2005.
For the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's net
operating profit, excluding adjustments to the asbestos
provision, increased 43 percent compared with the same quarter
last year, to US$68.3 million from US$47.6 million.
Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, James Hardie
Industries N.V. 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: Grace Argues Prudential Time-Barred Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
James E. O'Neill, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young Jones &
Weintraub LLP, in Wilmington, Del., recounts that during the
September 2006 omnibus hearing, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
sustained W.R. Grace & Co. and the other Debtors' objections to
two asbestos property damage claims filed by Prudential
Insurance Co. of America on account of buildings located in
Georgia.
The September 2006 Ruling held that:
(i) To determine whether an Asbestos PD Claim is time-barred,
Delaware choice of law rules require the Bankruptcy Court to
apply the shorter of (x) Delaware's limitations period, or (y)
the limitations period of the state where the subject property
is located; and
(ii) The District Court for New Jersey held in a 2001 opinion
that Prudential should have known of any claims on account of
asbestos-containing materials in its buildings at least as early
as 1981.
By this motion, the Debtors ask the Bankruptcy Court to apply
the September 2006 Ruling to Prudential's six remaining asbestos
PD claims filed in their Chapter 11 cases on account of
buildings located in Florida, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Texas.
Mr. O'Neill tells Judge Judith Fitzgerald that since the
Delaware's applicable limitations period is four years, the
relevant limitations periods for the Prudential Claims are:
(a) For the two Minnesota Prudential Claims, 10 years from the
construction date (1980 and 1981);
(b) For the Florida and New Jersey Prudential Claims, four years
from the date Prudential knew or should have known of its
injuries (no later than 1985); and
(c) For the Texas Prudential Claim, two years from the date
Prudential knew or should have known of its injuries (no later
than 1983).
Given that Prudential should have known of its claims by at
least 1981, Prudential's claims for those buildings had already
lapsed when it filed its complaint in a New Jersey action on
Oct. 20, 1987, Mr. O'Neill states. Prudential, however, did not
file its claims in the Bankruptcy Court until March 2003, even
longer after the statute of limitations had lapsed with respect
to all of the Prudential Claims, he points out.
The Debtors insist that the Prudential Claims are proscribed as
a matter of law, and, thus should be disallowed and expunged
pursuant to Rule 7056 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure.
(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 120; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Objects to Document Production
--------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. delivered to the Court an opposition to the
request of the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury
Claimants to compel production of documents.
Grace argues that Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence bars
evidence of settlement practices generally. Grace wants a clear
and particularized explanation for why the documents the PI
Committee seeks to discover will be admissible.
Grace's objection was filed under seal.
With respect to the joinder of David Austern, the legal
representative for future asbestos claimants, Grace argues that
the FCR provided no support to the PI Committee's request.
Contrary to the FCR's contention, Grace says there is no bedrock
principle of federal law that requires that an asbestos
estimation abide by the preferred methodology of the PI
Committee or FCR's experts by extrapolating liability from past
settlements. Moreover, the assertion that the FCR "needs"
discovery of matters that are privileged and inadmissible is
both wrong and inappropriate.
The FCR's principal effort is to urge the Court to "go with the
flow" of recent decisions regarding the estimation of asbestos
liabilities of other debtors, James E. O'Neill, Esq., at
Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young Jones & Weintraub LLP, in
Wilmington, Delaware, says. "This is hardly legal analysis and
is misleading both because it is predicated on the incorrect
premise that those decisions have application to [Grace's] case,
and because it implies that the proper methodology for
estimating Grace's merits-based liability will be informed by
those decisions."
Representing the PI Committee, Mark T. Hurford, Esq., at
Campbell & Levine, LLC, in Wilmington, Del., reminds Judge
Judith Fitzgerald that Grace has contended from the very start
of the case, that its past history should be ignored or heavily
discounted because -- it asserts -- Grace settled many claims
that it was aware were invalid.
"Grace is entitled, if it wishes, to maintain that its past
settlement history should be discounted for whatever reasons it
thinks persuasive. However, Grace is not entitled to advance a
factual assertion -- that it settled claims it knew were
invalid, rather than because it knew it risked large damages --
and then deny discovery designed to produce evidence relevant to
testing those arguments," Mr. Hurford contends.
Mr. Hurford also points out that Grace's Rule 408 argument is
simply inconsistent with the Rule, which only bars "[e]vidence
of . . . compromising . . . a claim . . . to prove liability for
or invalidity of the claim."
Courts have repeatedly held that evidence about settlements is
admissible, not to prove the amount or validity of the claim at
issue in the case in which it is offered, but to establish some
other relevant point, Mr. Hurford says, citing In re Babcock &
Wilcox Co., 274 B.R. 230, 256 (E.D. La. 2002); Lesal Interiors,
Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 153 F.R.D. 552, 561 (D.N.J.
1994); and Broadcort Capital Corp. v. Summa Medical Corp., 972
F.2d 1183, 1194 (10th Cir. 1992).
Mr. Hurford further contends that the PI Committee and the FCR
are entitled to prepare for the possibility that -- having
raised the issue of settling non-meritorious cases -- Grace will
offer some evidence in support of it. To do that preparation,
the PI Committee and the FCR must undertake discovery that will
lead to evidence appropriate to refute the claim -- that is,
that Grace settled cases it believed would be likely to survive
summary judgment and in which it therefore risked large jury
verdicts.
Raymond G. Mullady, Jr., Esq., at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, on the FCR's behalf, insists that
estimation through use of historical settlements is very likely
to survive any Daubert challenge and be put to use by the PI
Committee and the FCR in Grace's case.
Evidence of the Debtors' considerations when choosing whether to
settle past claims will be highly important in estimating
aggregate asbestos liability. It will facilitate determination
of the proper weight to accord to the past settlements under
present conditions, Mr. Mullady explains.
The Court authorizes the PI Committee and the FCR to file their
requests under seal. The Debtors are permitted to file their
Objection under seal.
(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 120; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000)
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Ltd. Stock Rises on Asbestos Optimism
--------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Ltd. shares are headed for their biggest gain in more than
five months after the insurer said a review of asbestos-related
liabilities showed its most vulnerable unit has set aside enough
to pay expected claims, The Royal Gazette reports.
Reviews by the Company and an independent actuary found that
Brandywine Holdings Corp., a unit the company bought from Cigna
Corp. in 1999, would not require additional reserves to pay
claims on asbestos and environmental hazards.
In 2004, the last time the Company commissioned an independent
study, it added US$465 million to reserves.
Evan Greenberg, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, said
state legislation and recent judicial decisions have started to
limit questionable asbestos claims in the United States.
The stock rose US$1.61, or 2.7 percent, to US$60.32 at 12:50
p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The stock has
not increased since June 29, 2006.
Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, ACE Ltd., through its
subsidiaries, sells property and casualty insurance and
reinsurance in the U.S. and about 50 other countries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA to Conduct Libby, Mont. Cleanup Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Parker Bodine, assistant U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
said the Agency would do testing to prove the effectiveness of
its work removing asbestos in Libby, Mont., The Associated Press
reports.
Libby is home to the now-closed W.R. Grace & Co. vermiculite
mine.
The announcement came after the U.S. EPA's inspector general
issued a report saying the Agency needs to do more testing to be
certain its asbestos cleanup reduces the risk that Libby
residents may become ill or sicker from asbestos contamination.
In a letter to Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, Ms. Bodine
said the agency would conduct an asbestos toxicity study within
45 days. The test would collect data to determine ways in which
exposure can occur and the potential of the contaminants to
cause harmful effects to people. It would also calculate the
risk to people exposed.
The vermiculite had tremolite asbestos, which was released into
the air, carried home on miners' clothing and even used in
material spread on a high school running surface. Some health
authorities blamed it for killing about 200 people and sickening
one of every eight residents.
The U.S. EPA, which has declared the area a Superfund site,
first arrived in Libby in November 1999, when news reports
linked asbestos contamination from the mine to the deaths and
illnesses.
Ms. Bodine said the U.S. EPA would also "review and correct any
statements that cannot be supported in any documentation mailed
or made available to Libby residents regarding the safety of
living with or handling asbestos until the U.S. EPA confirms
those facts through a toxicity assessment."
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker Sues Owens-Illinois, 12 Cos. in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Anderson, a former mold-maker at Owens-Illinois Glass in
Alton, Ill., sued Owens-Illinois Inc. and 12 other defendant
corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, claiming exposure
to asbestos caused his lung cancer, The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.
The defendants include A.W. Chesterton Co., John Crane Inc., The
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Owens-Illinois Inc., and Strange and
Coleman Inc.
Mr. Anderson claimed he worked at Owens-Illinois from 1954 to
1993. He was diagnosed on June 9, 2006.
Mr. Anderson claimed the defendants failed to exercise ordinary
care and caution for his safety by including asbestos in their
products even though it was completely foreseeable that people
working with and around asbestos would inhale, ingest or
otherwise absorb great amounts of asbestos.
Mr. Anderson also claimed the defendants failed to provide
adequate warning to people working with and around the products
of the dangers of inhaling, ingesting or otherwise absorbed
fibers in them and failed to provide adequate instruction
concerning the safe methods of working with and around asbestos
products.
Mr. Anderson's wife, Doris, also seeks damages claiming her
husband's illness has interfered with her marital relationship
and all the elements of married life she was accustomed to
receiving.
Represented by Barry Julian of Alton, Ill., the Andersons seek
at least US$250,000 in compensatory damages, plus punitive and
exemplary damages in excess of US$100,000.
The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Daniel Stack.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Wins Appeal v. Fibre in Wash. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Mae Crawford, representing her husband William, won in an
asbestos-related appeal against Longview Fibre Co. in Cowlitz
County Superior Court in Washington, The Daily News reports.
Mr. Crawford died in 2002 at age 76. He worked as a millwright
at Longview for 42 years, during a time when asbestos was used
as pipe insulation at pulp and paper mills across the nation.
After health hazards of asbestos became known, Fibre removed the
fire-retardant material from the plant.
After her husband died, Mrs. Crawford filed a Labor & Industries
claim. Fibre denied the claim in 2004.
The dollar amount of judgment was not included in court
documents. Mrs. Crawford's attorney will draw up a judgment and
schedule a court appearance.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Widow Files Suit v. 109 Firms in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Moore, of Oregon, sued 109 defendants in Madison County
Circuit Court in Illinois on Dec. 1, 2006, for the asbestos-
related death of her husband Ronald, The Madison St. Clair
Record reports.
Mrs. Moore alleged that her late husband was exposed to airborne
asbestos fibers from family members' clothing. Mr. Moore died on
August 2006.
Mrs. Moore claimed that Mr. Moore worked from 1961 to 1980 at
various locations as a mechanic, laborer and bricklayer. She
claimed her husband's family members would carry the asbestos
dust on their clothing home with them where it would again
become airborne.
Mrs. Moore claimed that Mr. Moore was also exposed to asbestos
during non-occupational work projects including home and
automotive repairs, maintenance and remodeling.
The suit claimed that Mr. Moore was diagnosed with mesothelioma
in May 2006 and subsequently became aware his illness was
wrongfully caused.
The complaint alleges that defendants failed to require and
advise their employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce
or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home.
As a result of the alleged negligence, Mrs. Moore claimed her
husband was exposed to fibers with asbestos and developed a
disease caused only by asbestos, which disabled and disfigured
him.
Mrs. Moore also claimed that she has sought, but has been unable
to obtain, full disclosure of relevant documents and information
from the defendants leading her to believe the defendants
destroyed documents related to asbestos.
Represented by Nicholas Angelides, Perry Browder and John
Barnerd of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., Mrs. Moore seeks
compensatory damages in excess of US$700,000, plus punitive
damages.
The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Dan Stack.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lung Cancer Victim's Family Awarded AUD600T
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Western Australia has awarded AUD600,000
compensation to the family of Paul Cotton, a man who died of
lung cancer after asbestos exposure, ABC NewsOnline reports.
The legal claim was against James Hardie Industries N.V., the
South Australian Government, and the Millennium Inorganic
Chemicals Co.
The decision is being described as a legal first, as Mr. Cotton
had no pre-existing asbestos disease, like asbestosis, when he
died of lung cancer at the age of 45 in 2002.
Mr. Cotton laid Hardie asbestos cement water pipes in South
Australia in the 1970s and was also exposed to asbestos while
working at a chemicals plant in Western Australia in the 1990s.
Lawyer Tim Hammond said the decision is a massive victory for
Mr. Cotton's wife and four children and has set a new benchmark
for asbestos victims.
ASBESTOS ALERT: Fansteel Faces Ivan Hand Wrongful Death Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Fansteel Inc. faces a complaint for wrongful death from exposure
to asbestos, filed by the Estate of Ivan Hand, 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.
Filed in August 2005, the lawsuit was filed against multiple
defendants.
The Company's insurance carriers have been notified and are in
the process of evaluating coverage. One insurance carrier has
agreed to defend the Company.
COMPANY PROFILE
Fansteel Inc.
1 Tantalum Place
North Chicago, Ill. 60064
Phone: 847-689-4900
Fax: 847-689-0307
http://www.fansteel.com
Fiscal Year-End: December
2005 Sales (mil.): US$56.3
1-Year Sales Growth: 8.1%
2005 Net Income (mil.): (US$1.4)
Description:
The Company and its subsidiaries are manufacturers of engineered
metal components using the sand castings, investment casting and
powdered metal processes. Products made are used in various
markets including automotive, energy, military and commercial
aerospace, agricultural and construction machinery, lawn and
garden equipment, marine, plumbing and electrical hardware
industries.
ASBESTOS ALERT: GS CleanTech Corp. Has $650T Contamination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
GS CleanTech Corp. faces an action, filed by a customer, who
claimed the Company was negligent in its failure to recognize
asbestos contamination in its Phase I Environmental report.
The complaint seeks damages of US$650,000.
The Company's insurance carrier defends the matter and the
amount appears to be within policy limits. Moreover, the Company
has accrued US$25,000, which is the maximum amount for which the
Company would be responsible.
COMPANY PROFILE
GS CleanTech Corp.
535 34th St., Ste. 203
New York, N.Y. 10001
Phone: 888-870-9197
Fax: 646-792-2636
Toll Free: 888-870-9197
http://www.veridium.com
Fiscal Year-End: December
2005 Sales (mil.): US$14.0
1-Year Sales Growth: 5.8 percent
2005 Net Income (mil.): (US$5.7)
Description:
The Company, formerly known as Veridium Corp., recycles
industrial hazardous wastes and converts them into usable
commodities. The Company also provides site-based remedial,
industrial cleaning, and other related services for its clients.
New Securities Fraud Cases
BODISEN BIOTECH: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood, LLP filed a class action on behalf of all
securities purchasers of Bodisen Biotech, Inc. between Aug. 26,
2005 and Nov. 10, 2006, both dates inclusive.
The action, entitled, Stubblefield v. Bodisen Biotech, Inc., et
al. Case No. (not yet assigned), 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.
According to the company website, Bodisen "engages in the
research, manufacturing and marketing of proprietary technology
based environmentally friendly fertilizers targeting the $17
billion per year Chinese fertilizer industry."
The complaint charges defendants, the company and certain of its
executive officers, with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
More specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the class
period, the defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business and management
practices and financial results.
As a result of defendants' false statements, Bodisen stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period,
reaching a high of $20.65 per share on Jan. 31, 2006.
On Nov. 12, 2006, Bodisen stunned investors with its
announcement that on Nov. 6, 2006, the company received a
Deficiency Letter from the American Stock Exchange (AMEX)
stating that the Staff had determined that the company was not
in compliance with AMEX continued listing standards.
Bodisen also revealed that AMEX "believes that the company made
insufficient or inaccurate disclosure in its public filings with
regard to its relationship with, and payments to, a consultancy
firm and its affiliates both prior to and subsequent to its
listing on the AMEX. Additionally, in the context of the
company's relationship with the consultancy firm, AMEX expressed
concern that the company has internal control issues related to
its accounting and reporting obligations."
Prior to receipt of the letter from AMEX, the company publicly
announced that it had terminated its relationship with the
consultancy firm.
On news of the restatement, the price of Bodisen stock plummeted
almost 70% from a high of $10.84 on Nov. 10, 2006, to an intra
day low of $3.93 per share on Nov. 16, 2006.
Interested parties may move the court no later than Jan. 15,
2007 for appointment as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.
For more details, contact Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq. and
Tanya Korkhov, Esq. of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, Phone: (877) 935-
7400, E-mail: jmn@whesq.com and tkorkhov@whesq.com, Web site:
http://www.whesq.com.
PEGASUS WIRELESS Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven announced that a securities class
action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Pegasus Wireless Corp.
between Dec. 22, 2005 and Sept. 5, 2006. Also included are
those who acquired Pegasus through its acquisitions of SKI
Technologies and AMAX Engineering.
The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against defendant Pegasus and one or more
of its officers and/or directors.
The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.
Interested parties may move the court no later than Jan. 8, 2007
for appointment as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.
For more details, contact Brower Piven at The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@browerpiven.com.
TOP TANKERS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all common stock purchasers of TOP Tankers Inc.
from June 28, 2005 through Nov. 28, 2006, inclusive.
The complaint charges TOP Tankers and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:
-- that the company improperly accounted for certain sale
and leaseback transactions involving ships during the
class period;
-- specifically, that the company recognized certain gains
from these transactions before receipt of payment;
-- that the company's financial statements were in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;
-- that the company lacked adequate internal controls; and
-- that as a consequence of the foregoing, the company's
financial results were materially overstated at all
relevant times.
On Nov. 29, 2006, before the market opened, TOP Tankers
disclosed that its auditors, Ernst & Young, LLP, had resigned as
the company's independent auditors over a disagreement between
the company and Ernst & Young over the accounting treatment of
certain aspects of the sale and leaseback of thirteen vessels
that closed in March and April 2006.
The company also reported that it would restate its interim
unaudited financial statements for the first and second quarters
of 2006.
On this news, shares of TOP Tankers' stock sank $0.82, or 14
percent, to close, on Nov. 29, 2006, at $5.04, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
Interested parties may move the court no later than Feb. 9, 2007
for appointment as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class.
For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Phone: 1-888-299-
7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.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 * * *