/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070202.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, February 2, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 24 Headlines AG-MART PRODUCE: Workers File Fla. Suit for Damages, Back Wages APPLIED SIGNAL: Calif. Court Mulls Appeal of Nixed Stock Suit BIOPURE CORP: Court Mulls Class Certification in Securities Suit CITIBANK N.A.: Feb. 2007 Hearing Set for FCRA Suit Settlements CNET NETWORKS: N.Y. Judge Stays Proceedings in Securities Suit EBAY INC: Feb. 13 Hearing Set for "Rockers" Suit Settlement ENTROPIN INC: Still Faces Stock Suit in Calif. Superior Court FINE LAND: Recalls Ying Feng Foodstuffs Over Undeclared Sulfites FORD MOTOR: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Defective Speed Switches FRANCE: Class Action Legislation Withdrawn From Parliament GAMEWELL-FCI: Recalls Faulty Fire Alarm System Control Boards GOLD FIELDS: Continues to Face Suits by Quapaw Tribes in Okla. HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Consejo Settles Price Gouging Lawsuit in Fla. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Continues to Face Calif. Labor Lawsuit ITT CORP: Recalls 500 Units of Flojet VAC Pumps for Shock Hazard JANUS CAPITAL: Still Faces Consolidated MDL-1586 Lawsuit in Md. LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: No Ruling Yet in $3.5M Stock Suit Deal MERCK & CO: N.J. Third-Party Payors Lawsuit Over Vioxx Stayed MERCK & CO: Seeks to Dismiss N.J. Shareholder Suit Over Vioxx MERRILL LYNCH: $40.3M Securities Suit Deal Gets Final Approval NATIONAL CITY: Still Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over "Interchange Fees" NESTOR TRAFFIC: Continues to Face Suits Over Ohio Speed Program NORTEL NETWORKS: Court Approves N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement OLD WILLIAMSBURGH: Recalls Jar Candles at Risk of Breakage PHILIPPINES: First Gentleman Seeks Dismissal of Reporters' Suit QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Cellular Phone Sales RYAN'S RESTAURANT: S.C. Court Mulls Approval of Merger Suit Deal TAM SA: Brazilian Airline Faces Overbooking Practices Lawsuit TELAXIS COMMS: N.Y. Court Mulls Final OK for IPO Suit Settlement TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Face Calif. Wage, Hour Lawsuits TENET HEALTHCARE: Faces Three Medical Malpractice Suits in La. TENNESSEE: Employees Need More Funding to Finish Case v. City TJX COS: Faces Second Mass. Suit Over Client Information Leak TJX COS: Faces Litigation in Ala. Over Client Information Leak UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Settles N.Y. Suit Over Claim Terminations UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Motion to Remand N.J. Suit to Fla. Pending WASHINGTON: Seattle to Appeal Verdict in WTO Protesters' Suit XTO ENERGY: No Ruling Yet on Kans. Antitrust Suit Certification XTO ENERGY: No Certification Yet in Kan. Gas Royalty Owners Suit Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tokyo Moves to Prevent Illegal Demolitions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Somerset Deaths on the Rise, Coroner Says ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coroner Links Newsagent's Death to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco Records $25.4M Net Charge for Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Baldor Records $487T Adjustments for Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Inc. Has 154 Claims in Fiscal 2006 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Fin'l Has $2.24B Liability in 4Q06 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Reverses Ruling to Favor Wilsons ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Continues to Face Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus Metering Still Faces 3rd Party Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $1.079B Liability in 4Q06 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Saint-Gobain Notes 7T Claims v. CertainTeed ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Locals of Malvern Hills Exposed to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEQ to Impose Higher Penalty on Contractor ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. AG Sues Chippewa Loft LLC for Release ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Seoul Metro to Remove Hazard on 17 Subways ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Records $459.5M Liability in 4Q06 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Records 85,941 Pending Claims in 4Q06 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane's Appeal in Norris Litigation Pending ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Insurance Suit v. Crane Still Pending ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Open Claims v. BNS Holding Inc. Drop to 196 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allis-Chalmers Still Faces Liability Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Graham Corp. Continues to Face Injury Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Liability Stays at $512.5M in 4Q ********* AG-MART PRODUCE: Workers File Fla. Suit for Damages, Back Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- AG-Mart Produce Inc. faces a lawsuit seeking class-action status that was filed by more than 170 workers on behalf of 3,000 Mexican and Central American workers who picked tomatoes for the company, The FOX 10 Mobile reports. The suit, "Mesa et al v. Ag-Mart Produce Inc.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Jan. 26. It states that workers are seeking back wages and damages up to $500,000 as allowed under the federal law. The workers were hired by the company at piecework rates to pick tomatoes, lay plastic, operate irrigation and perform other post-harvest jobs. The complaint alleges that: -- Ag-Mart failed to accurately record the number of compensable hours of the plaintiffs and other class members, and -- Ag-Mart altered the hours worked of the plaintiffs. According to plaintiffs' attorney Greg Schell, the workers work at piecework rates but if the piecework doesn't equal minimum wage, the workers should make up for it. The company does this by writing down fewer hours than the workers had actually worked. The suit is "Mesa et al v. Ag-Mart Produce Inc., Case No. 2:07- cv-00047-UA-DNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida with referral to Judge Douglas N. Frazier. Representing the plaintiffs is Gregory Scott Schell of Migrant Farmworker Justice Project, Florida Legal Services, 508 Lucerne Ave., Lake Worth, FL 33460-3819, Phone: 561/582-3921, Fax: 561/582-4884, E-mail: Greg@Floridalegal.Org. APPLIED SIGNAL: Calif. Court Mulls Appeal of Nixed Stock Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to rule on an appeal in relation to the dismissal of the consolidated securities class action against Applied Signal Technology, Inc. On March 11 and July 19, 2005, purported securities class actions were filed against the company. Later, these suits were consolidated as, "In re Applied Signal Technology Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 4:05-cv-1027 (SBA)." The amended consolidated complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the company's company's securities from Aug. 24, 2004 to Feb. 22, 2005. The complaints name the company, its chief executive officer, and its chief financial officer as defendants, and allege that false and misleading statements regarding the company were issued during the class period. On Feb. 8, 2006, the court dismissed the case with prejudice and entered judgment in defendants' favor. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal on March 23, 2006. The company said any future unfavorable outcome of the litigation could have an adverse impact on the company's business, financial condition, and results of operation. The suit is "In Re: Applied Signal Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-01027," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, 2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120, Walnut Creek, CA, 94598, Phone: (925) 945-0200, Fax: (925) 945-8792, E-mail: info@bramsonplutzik.com; (2) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com; and (3) Robert S. Green of Green Welling, LLP, 595 Market Street, Suite 2750, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415/477-6700, Fax: 415-477-6710, E-mail: RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM. Representing the defendants is David A. Priebe of DLA Piper US, LLP, 2000 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2248, Phone: 650-833-2000, Fax: 650-833-2001, E-mail: david.priebe@dlapiper.com. BIOPURE CORP: Court Mulls Class Certification in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has yet to certify a class in the consolidated securities litigation against Biopure Corp. Following the announcement in December 2003 that Biopure was being investigated by the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission, the company, two directors (one a former director), its former chief executive officer, former chief technology officer and former chief financial officer were named as defendants in a number of similar, purported class action complaints, filed between Dec. 30, 2003 and Jan. 28, 2004 by alleged purchasers of the company's common stock. According to the complaint, Biopure artificially inflated its stock price by misrepresenting the prospects for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of the marketing of the company's main product, Hemopure. The lawsuit says that the company knew by virtue of its ongoing communications with the FDA that regulators had strong reservations about Hemopure's safety but continued to publicly hype the product throughout the class period. Hemopure is an investigational product for the treatment of acutely anemic surgical patients and for the elimination, delay or reduction of red blood cell transfusions in these patients. It is a human blood substitute derived from cow's blood, which acts like red blood cells to deliver oxygen to the body. Unlike donated blood, Hemopure does not have to be matched to a patient's blood type. The truth about Hemopure began to emerge on Dec. 24, 2003. After the close of the markets on Christmas Eve, Biopure announced a potential SEC inquiry for securities fraud and, for the first time, disclosed substantial problems with its Hemopure product and the FDA approval process. Those complaints have since been consolidated in a single action as, "Biopure Corp. Securities Litigation." On July 23, 2004, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who acquired the common stock of Biopure during the period of March 17, 2003 through Dec. 24, 2003 and names as additional defendants Ronald F. Richards, Howard P. Richman, Charles A. Sanders and J. Richard Crout. On Oct. 6, 2004, defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint and on Dec. 7, 2004 lead plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' motions. Defendants filed their replies in further support of their motions on Jan. 24, 2005. On Feb. 2, 2006 the Judge heard oral arguments on all outstanding motions. On March 28, 2006 Judge Nancy Gertner issued an order denying the motions to dismiss and on the same date the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which the defendants filed answers to on April 28, 2006. On May 5, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Defendants filed their opposition to plaintiff's motion for class certification on July 25, 2006. A class has not yet been certified, according to the company's Jan. 29, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2006. The suit is "In Re Biopure Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-12628-NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-7230; (2) Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail: ted@shulaw.com; and (3) Gilman and Pastor, LLP, Suite 500, Stonehill Corporate Center, 999 Broadway, Saugus, MA 01906, Phone: 781-231- 7850, Fax: 781-231-7840 (fax) E-mail: palagorio@gilmanpastor.com or dpastor@gilmanpastor.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Bingham McCutchen LLP, 150 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-8717, Fax: 617-951-8736, E-mail: robert.buhlman@bingham.com, eunice.lee@bingham.com and raquel.webster@bingham.com; and (ii) Mary P. Cormier of Edwards & Angell, LLP, 101 Federal St., Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-2225, Fax: 617- 439-4170, E-mail: mcormier@edwardsangell.com. CITIBANK N.A.: Feb. 2007 Hearing Set for FCRA Suit Settlements -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 12, 2007, at 1:30 p.m., for the proposed settlement in the matters: -- "Nienaber v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., Case No. 04-4054," and -- "Romanelli v. Associates National Bank, Case No. 05- 4130." The hearing will be held in Courtroom 1 of the U.S. District Court for District of South Dakota (Southern Division), located at 400 S. Phillips Avenue, Sioux Falls, SD 57104. The deadline to file for objections and exclusions top and from the settlement is on Jan. 4, 2007. Deadline to file claims is on March 16, 2007. The purpose of this notice is to describe the proposed settlement and provide notice to the settlement class, which includes Each and every person who had one or more account(s), including any cosigner, joint or authorized user on such account(s), with Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., Associates National Bank (Delaware) and/or Universal Bank, N.A. (collectively Citibank), for which consumer report information, in the form of account review inquiries, was pulled, obtained or accessed on such account(s) by or on behalf of Citibank at any time during the period beginning April 27, 2002 through Sept. 29, 2006 at a time when Citibank allegedly did not have a permissible purpose for doing so pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(a) because Citibank and the person purportedly had no relationship as described in 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(a)(3)(A)- (F). Case Background Plaintiffs Karey Nienaber and Lisa Romanelli filed separate class action complaints against Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. and Associates National Bank (Delaware), alleging that the banks purportedly violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in connection with account review inquiries by supposedly accessing consumer report information on certain accounts without a permissible purpose. On Sept. 29, 2006, this Court gave preliminary approval for settlement of the actions listed above. For more details, contact: (1) FCRA Claim Form, PO Box 44034, Jacksonville, Florida 32231-4034, E-mail: case044054@stroock.com; (2) Daniel R. Fritz, II of Lynn, Jackson, Shultz & Lebrun, P.C., PO Box 1920, Sioux Falls, SD 57101-3020, Phone: 332-5999, Fax: 332-4249, E-mail: dfritz@lynnjackson.com; (3) James A. Francis of Francis and Mailman, PC, Land Title Bldg., 19th Floor, 100 S. Broad St., Philadelphia, PA 19110, Phone: (215) 735-8600, Fax: (215) 940-8000, E- mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com; and (4) Michael D. Donovan of Donovan Searles, LLC, 1845 Walnut St., Suite 1100, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215) 732-6067, Fax: (215) 732-8060. CNET NETWORKS: N.Y. Judge Stays Proceedings in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Shira Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York stayed all proceedings in a securities fraud class action involving CNET Networks, Inc. Two shareholder class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Aug. 16, 2001 and Sept. 26, 2001, against Ziff-Davis, Eric Hippeau and Timothy O'Brien, and investment banks that were the underwriters of the public offering of ZDNet series of Ziff-Davis stock (ZDNet Offering). One of the complaints also names CNET Networks as a defendant, as successor in liability to Ziff-Davis. The complaints are similar and allege violations of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and one of the complaints also alleges violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints allege the receipt of excessive and undisclosed commissions by the underwriters in connection with the allocation of shares of common stock to certain investors in the ZDNet Offering and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre- determined prices. Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the ZDNet Offering was false and misleading and in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose the arrangements. A consolidated amended complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 19, 2002. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The action is being coordinated with over 300 nearly identical actions filed against other companies and their underwriters. On Feb. 19, 2003, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim with leave to replead, and denied the motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim. Plaintiffs did not replead the Section 10(b) claim, and the time to replead that claim has expired. On Oct. 13, 2004, the court certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions (Focus Cases) and noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases. The underwriter defendants appealed the decision and the second Circuit vacated the district court's decision granting class certification in those six cases on Dec. 5, 2006. Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the CNET Networks case. The majority of the issuers, including CNET Networks, and their insurers have approved a settlement agreement and related agreements. The agreements set forth the terms of a settlement between CNET Networks, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other approximately 300-issuer defendants. It is unclear what impact the Second Circuit's decision vacating class certification in the six focus cases will have on the settlement, which has not been finally approved by the court. Plaintiffs are expected to file a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. On Nov. 14, 2006, Judge Scheindlin held a hearing and stayed all proceedings, including a decision on final approval of the settlement and any amendments of the complaints, pending the Second Circuit's decision on plaintiffs' expected petition for rehearing. CNET Networks, Inc. on the Net: http://www.cnet.com/. EBAY INC: Feb. 13 Hearing Set for "Rockers" Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of the State of California, County Of Santa Clara will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 13, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., for the proposed settlement in the matter, "Rockers v. eBay, Inc., Case No. 1:05-CV-035930." The hearing will be held before Judge Jack Komar in Department 17C at the Santa Clara Superior Old Courthouse, 161 North First Street, San Jose, California 95113. The settlement covers all eBay users from Feb. 16, 2001 to the present, who claim to have been harmed by eBay raising the eBay bidder's existing bid where no higher competing bid had been made and where raising the bid was not necessary to meet a reserve minimum. Generally, the suit is alleging that eBay would automatically increase in certain circumstances an existing bid where no competing bid had been made and where it was not necessary to meet a reserve minimum. Case Background On Feb. 17, 2005, a complaint was filed by plaintiff Glenn Block in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Santa Clara as a class action, alleging that eBay's automatic increase in certain circumstances of an existing bid where no competing bid had been made and increasing the bid was not necessary to meet a minimum reserve was improper and artificially inflated the bids of eBay buyers, thus causing damage to eBay buyers. On April 17, 2006, an amended complaint which, among other things, substituted plaintiffs John Rockers, Mark Rawling and Brian Mork, for the original plaintiff was filed under the caption, "Rockers v. eBay, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-CV- 035930." For more details, contact Jeffrey D. Light of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, Fax: (619) 231-7423. ENTROPIN INC: Still Faces Stock Suit in Calif. Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Entropin, Inc., along with two of its former officers and directors, remain a defendant in a securities class action that is pending in California Superior Court. The allegations and parties in this lawsuit are largely identical to a securities fraud class action that is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs in the suit are a class of shareholders who purchased Entropin securities in the Company's March 15, 2000 public offering. In the lawsuit, Entropin is accused of violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements in the its March 15, 2000 registration statement regarding the scientific and regulatory development of its developmental drug Esterom. Specifically, the company and the individual defendants are accused of making false and misleading statements regarding: -- the results of its Phase II clinical study of Esterom; -- the Phase III clinical study of Esterom; and -- Entropin's intention to file a new drug application for Esterom in early 2001. In June 2004, the California Superior Court dismissed this lawsuit as having been filed after the statutes of limitations had expired. However, the California Court of Appeals has reversed the California Superior Court's order of dismissal and has taken actions to remand the matter back to the California Superior Court for further deliberations. FINE LAND: Recalls Ying Feng Foodstuffs Over Undeclared Sulfites ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fine Land Corporation, 376 Vernon Avenue, Brooklyn, New York is recalling "Ying Feng Foodstuffs brand Melon Candy" due to the presence of undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites may run the risk of serious or life-threatening reactions if they consume this product. The recalled "Ying Feng Foodstuffs brand Melon Candy" is packaged in a 12-ounce, un-coded plastic bag. It was sold in the New York City area. It is a product of China. Routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the product contained high levels of sulfites, which were not declared on the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites. No illnesses have been reported to date to this Department in connection with this problem. Consumers who have purchased "Ying Feng Foodstuffs brand Melon Candy" should return them to the place of purchase. FORD MOTOR: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Defective Speed Switches ------------------------------------------------------------ The Ford Motor Co. is a defendant in a purported class action claiming that certain Ford vehicles have defective and unsafe speed control deactivation speed switch (SCD Switch), The Madison County Record reports. Paul Sharwell whose Ford F-150 truck was burned said that he and the putative class members have suffered damages and monetary losses of the use of their Ford vehicles while these are on repair and additional damages for the destruction of theses vehicles by fire. Mr. Sharwell filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Jan. 26. In it, he alleges that the Ford vehicles in questions are defective because: -- the SCD Switch is located in a circuit that is always energized with electricity even when the vehicle is off or in parked position, -- SCD Switch's circuitry does not contain a fused wiring harness as the switch's power interrupter it starts to overheat, -- the SCD switch has two switches, the hydraulic, which contains the brake fluid, and the electrical, which contains always-energized electric components, -- the SCD switch which is typically mounted on the brake proportioning valve, is mounted in the master cylinder in a vertically angled up and down so that metallic corrosion products can settle in a way that dendrite growth can develop. The claims that the positioning of the SCD Switch creates a significant fire risk not only to the Ford vehicles but also to other properties where these vehicles are parked. It further alleged that Ford knew of these problems nevertheless Ford still used similar designs in vehicles that are the subject of the lawsuit. Mr. Sharwell and the class are seeking an amount to be determined at the trial plus punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial. The suit is "Sharwell v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 3:07-cv- 00068-DRH-PMF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois under Judge David R. Herndon with referral to Judge Philip M. Frazier. Representing the plaintiffs is Jeffrey J. Lowe of Jeffrey J. Lowe, P.C., Generally Admitted, 8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63105, 314-678-3400, Phone: 314-678-3401, Fax: jeff@jefflowepc.com. FRANCE: Class Action Legislation Withdrawn From Parliament ---------------------------------------------------------- The French government has finally withdrawn a bill that would have introduced class-action-style lawsuits in France, The Business Insurance reports. The class action action bill was initially set for debate in early February but was finally taken off the Parliament's list of items to consider. The withdrawal of the bill from the list was requested my Minister of Health Xavier Bertrand due to his absence for the discussion in Parliament. Another reason cited for such withdrawal is the heavy workload of the parliament. Under the proposed bill, a lawsuit could only be brought by a national customer association, on products and services with a value of less than $2,550 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 2, 2007). Consumer associations who pushed for the change said the bill would allow the consumers who are wronged and cheated to take companies to court collectively, rather than being forced to bring individual lawsuits. However, business representatives have expressed opposition citing concerns over its potential impact on the economy. The bill was to be debated on Feb. 6, however legislators cancelled it. The schedule change means that the next government will likely have control over the bill. The Parliament will close later this year. Leading Presidential candidate Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy recently said that he had strong reservations about allowing class actions in the country. GAMEWELL-FCI: Recalls Faulty Fire Alarm System Control Boards ------------------------------------------------------------- Gamewell-FCI, of Northford, Connecticut, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 700 units of Gamewell-FCI Electronic Control Boards by Honeywell. The company said incoming and outgoing messages to and from the control board could interfere with each other, preventing it from sending a message to the command center in the event of fire. Gamewell-FCI has received one report of failed communications during an electrical short that was not due to a fire. There have been no reports of property damage or injury. The software upgrade involves Gamewell-FCI model ILI-MB-E3 and ILI-S-E3 loop control boards. These boards are components of the Gamewell-FCI E3 Series fire alarm system. They provide the signaling line circuits and display information for the system. These recalled fire alarm system control boards were manufactured in the U.S. and are being sold through authorized distributors nationwide from October 2005 through September 2006. Authorized distributors resell and install loop control boards for commercial end users in facilities such as hotels and office buildings. Picture of recalled fire alarm system control boards: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07526.jpg Gamewell-FCI is contacting customers directly and is providing a free firmware software upgrade. For more information, contact Gamewell-FCI at (800) 633-1311 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit their distributor's Web site: http://www.gamewell-fci.com. GOLD FIELDS: Continues to Face Suits by Quapaw Tribes in Okla. -------------------------------------------------------------- Gold Fields Mining, LLC, a subsidiary of Peabody Energy Corp., and two other companies continue to face two class actions seeking medical monitoring and relocation programs for people allegedly exposed to lead. Plaintiffs have asserted claims predicated on allegations of intentional lead exposure by the defendants and are seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages and the implementation of medical monitoring and relocation programs for the affected individuals. Gold Fields is also a defendant, along with other companies, in several personal injury lawsuits involving over 50 children, arising out of the same lead mill operations. Plaintiffs in these actions are seeking compensatory and punitive damages for alleged personal injuries from lead exposure. In December 2003, the Quapaw Indian tribe and certain Quapaw land owners filed a class action lawsuit against Gold Fields and five other companies. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of theories. Gold Fields has filed a third-party complaint against the United States, and other parties. In February 2005, the state of Oklahoma on behalf of itself and several other parties sent a notice to Gold Fields and other companies regarding a possible natural resources damage claim. All of the lawsuits are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, according to Peabody Energy's Form 10-Q filing for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "Cole, et al v. Asarco Incorporated, et al., case no. 4:03-cv-00327-JOE-PJC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma under Judge James O. Ellison. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Tammy R. Dodson, Donnamarie Antoinette Landsberg of Speer Law Firm PA, 104 W 9th St, Ste 305, Kansas City, MO 64105, Phone: 816-472-3560, Fax: 816-421-2150, E- mail: tdodson@speerlawfirm.com; and (2) Tony Wayne Edwards, Stipe Law Firm (McAlester), P O BOX 1369, Mcalester, OK 74501-1369, Phone: 918-423-0421, Fax: 918-423-0266, E-mail: twedwards@stipelaw.com. Representing the Company are: (1) Stacy L. Acord, Robert Joseph Joyce, Archer Scott McDaniel, Chris A. Paul, Joyce Paul & McDaniel PC, 1717 S Boulder, Ste 200, Tulsa, OK 74119, Phone: 918-599- 0700, Fax: 918-732-5370, E-mail: sacord@jpm-law.com, rjoyce@jpm-law.com, Smcdaniel@jpm-law.com, cpaul@jpm-law.com; and (2) Mark Douglas Anstoetter, Stanley D. Davis, John K. Sherk, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP (Kansas City), 2555 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, MO 64108-2613, Phone: 816- 474-6550, Fax: 816-421-5547, E-mail: manstoetter@shb.com or sddavis@shb.com. HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Consejo Settles Price Gouging Lawsuit in Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consejo de Latinos Unidos announced a settlement with Naples- based hospital operator Health Management Associates that will lower costs for patients without insurance. Under the settlement, uninsured patients who receive services from an HMA facility will now be charged the average managed care rate by hospital. When calculating the average managed care rate, the rate will be weighed by the volume of business that each managed care company provides to the HMA hospital. "The average rate being weighed accordingly establishes a truly fair and equitable pricing structure," said K.B. Forbes, Executive Director of the Consejo. According to published reports, HMA will offer discounts and refunds of up to 60 percent. "This victory for the uninsured would not have happened without the outstanding legal work of nationally recognized healthcare attorney Archie Lamb," said Mr. Forbes. "In 2004, we established an alliance with Mr. Lamb to help those who did not have a voice -- uninsured minorities. Today, together, we can claim a resounding victory for uninsured patients and applaud HMA for turning a potential black eye into a golden fair pricing policy." Archie Lamb, nationally recognized class action attorney who led a coalition of lawyers which were instrumental in major reforms among the largest HMO insurance companies in the nation, and a team of lawyers from across the country, have filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in a Florida district court on behalf of victims of for-profit hospitals' unconscionable billing practices of the uninsured (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 9, 2004). The lawsuit charged national for-profit hospital chain Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA) with billing uninsured patients amounts substantially greater than amounts accepted by the hospital from Medicare and insurance companies for the same procedures. Hospitals traditionally have charged uninsured patients three or four or five times more than what they would accept as payment in full from an insurance company. Jose Manuel Quintana, who contacted the Consejo in 2003 and attended a Consejo workshop in Miami, was charged $3,040 by an HMA hospital after visiting the hospital for chest pain. An insurance company would have paid no more that $1,000 for the exact same care. Mr. Quintana was the class representative in the class action lawsuit that was filed in 2005 by Mr. Lamb. For more details, contact: (1) Archie C. Lamb, Jr. of the Law Offices of Archie Lamb, LLC, 2017 2nd Ave., N. Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-324-4644 or 1-800-324-4425, Fax: 205-324-4649, E- mail: alamb@archielamb.com; and (2) Darren Spinck and K.B. Forbes, both of Consejo de Latinos Unidos, Phone: +1-202-486-2008 or +1-202-320- 1212. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Continues to Face Calif. Labor Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- International Business Machines Corp. or IBM remains a defendant in a nationwide overtime pay class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On Jan. 24, 2006, a putative class action was filed against IBM on behalf of technical support workers whose primary responsibilities are or were to install and maintain computer software and hardware. The complaint was subsequently amended on March 13, 2006. The first amended complaint, among other things, adds four additional named plaintiffs and modifies the definition of the workers purportedly included in the class. The suit alleges the company failed to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law, and asserts violations of various state wage requirements, including record keeping and meal-break provisions. It also asserts certain violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Specifically, the suit charges that IBM deprives its employees who install, maintain, and support computer software and hardware by unlawfully characterizing them as "exempt" from state and federal labor law protections. The proposed classes consist of current and former IBM technical support workers with the primary duties of installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware for IBM who were wrongly classified by the company as exempt from the overtime provisions of federal law and/or applicable state wage and hour laws. Relief sought includes: back wages, corresponding 401K and pension plan credits, interest, and attorneys' fees. The company reported no development in the case at its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "Rosenburg et al. v. International Business Machines Corporation, Case No. 3:06-cv-00430-PJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) James M. Finberg of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Phone: 415-956-1000; (2) Todd F. Jackson of Lewis Feinberg Renaker & Jackson, P.C., Phone: 510-839-6824; (3) Steven G. Zieff of Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, LLP, Phone: 415-434-9800 or 800-869-0165; (4) Adam T. Klein of Outten & Golden LLP, Phone: 212-245- 1000; (5) Ira Spiro of Spiro, Moss, Barness, Harrison & Barge, LLP, Phone: 310-235-2468; (6) J. Derek Braziel of Lee & Braziel, LLP, Phone: 214-749- 1400; (7) Richard Burch of Bruckner Burch, PLLC, Phone: 713-877- 8065; (8) David Borgen of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, Phone: 510-763-9800. Representing the company is Donna M. Mezias of Jones Day, 555 California Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415-875-5822, Fax: 415-875-5700, E-mail: dmezias@jonesday.com. For more details, call: 1-866-397-1008 or visit the Web site: http://www.overtimepaylawsuitagainstIBM.com. ITT CORP: Recalls 500 Units of Flojet VAC Pumps for Shock Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Corp.'s Flojet Division, of Santa Ana, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 500 units of Flojet duplex II 115 VAC pump, a component of the LeBleu Automatic 50 Gallon Bottled Water System. The company said a manufacturing defect could cause consumers to receive an electric shock when the metal housing is touched. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves Duplex II 115 VAC Pumps sold as a component of the LeBleu Automatic 50 Gallon Bottled Water System. Model numbers included in this recall are D08X000A and D08X000B. A silver Flojet label that includes the model number is affixed to the front of the pump. The pumps are installed exclusively in 50 gallon bottled water that were sold, installed, and maintained by LeBleu Corp. or its licensees. These recalled Flojet duplex II 115 VAC pumps were manufactured in the United States and are being sold through LeBlue Corporation directly and through its licensees from June 2004 to November 2006. Pictures of the recalled Flojet duplex II 115 VAC pumps: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07524a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07524b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07524c.jpg A representative of the LeBleu Corp. or a trained licensee will inspect all installed pumps to determine if the defect is present, and, if so, the pump will be replaced. All products installed in new home construction, which have not yet been started up will be removed and replaced. For more information, call Diane Forsdic collect at (714) 628- 8113 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.flojet.com.Or the firm's media contact, Glenn Leibowitz at (714) 628-8223. JANUS CAPITAL: Still Faces Consolidated MDL-1586 Lawsuit in Md. --------------------------------------------------------------- Janus Capital Group Inc. and certain affiliates were named as defendants in a consolidated lawsuit, "In re: Alger, Columbia, Janus, MFS, One Group, Putnam, Allianz Dresdner, Case Number MDL No. 1586, 04-MD-15863," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, according to the company's July 27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006. The suit came in the wake of market timing investigations by both the New York Attorney General and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Five amended complaints were filed in these coordinated proceedings, including: (1) claims by a putative class of Janus fund investors asserting claims on behalf of the investor class; (2) derivative claims by investors in the Janus funds ostensibly on behalf of the Janus funds; (3) claims on behalf of participants in the Janus 401(k) plan; (4) claims brought on behalf of shareholders of Janus on a derivative basis against Janus' board of directors; and (5) claims by a putative class of Janus shareholders asserting claims on behalf of the shareholders. On Aug. 25, 2005, the court entered orders dismissing most of the claims asserted against the company and its affiliates by fund investors -- actions (1) and (2) -- except certain claims under Section 10(b) of U.S. the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The complaint in the 401(k) plan class action -- action (3) -- was voluntarily dismissed, but was refiled using a new named plaintiff, "Wangberger v. Janus Capital Group Inc., et al., 05 CV-02711, D. Maryland," and asserting claims similar to the initial complaint. On June 2, 2006, the plaintiffs asserting claims on behalf of Janus corporate shareholders -- action (5) -- filed an amended complaint, which asserts similar claims to the initial complaint. As a result of the above events, the company, Janus Capital Management, LLC, the Advisory Committee of the Janus 401(k) plan, and the current or former directors of the company are the remaining defendants, in some capacity, in one or more of the actions described above. The company reported no development in the case at its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "In re: Alger, Columbia, Janus, MFS, One Group, Putnam, Allianz Dresdner, case no. 1:04-md-15863-JFM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, under Judge J. Frederick Motz. Representing the plaintiffs is Christopher S. Hinton of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP, 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 12125454663, Fax: 12125454653. Representing the company is Andrew Santo Tulumello, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, 1050 Connecticut Ave NW Ste 300, Washington, DC 20036-5306, Phone: 12029558657, Fax: 12024670539, E-mail: atulumello@gibsondunn.com. LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: No Ruling Yet in $3.5M Stock Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon has yet to grant final approval to a $3.5 million settlement of a securities fraud suit filed against Lattice Semiconductor Corp. In September and October 2004, three putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against Lattice Semiconductor Corp., the company's chief executive officer and president Stephen A. Skaggs, and former chief executive officer Cyrus Y. Tsui. These complaints were filed on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased our stock between April 22, 2003 and April 19, 2004. They generally alleged violations of federal securities laws arising out of the company's previously announced restatement of financial results for the first, second and third quarters of 2003. Consistent with the usual procedures for cases of this kind, these cases were amended and consolidated into a single action. In an amended and consolidated complaint filed Jan. 27, 2005, the company's former president and our former controller were added as defendants. The complaints generally sought an unspecified amount of damages, as well as attorney fees and costs. The company has entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the consolidated action. The agreement, which has preliminary court approval, does not contain any admission of fault or wrongdoing on the part of the company or any of the individual defendants in the litigation. The agreement is subject to, and conditioned upon, final court approval. The agreement provides that plaintiffs will receive an aggregate amount of $3.5 million, inclusive of fees and expenses of counsel, in exchange for a release of the company and the individual defendants from all claims asserted in the litigation. Insurance carriers have agreed to pay the entire $3.5 million settlement amount. The company reported no development in the case at its form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "Autumn Partners, LLC v. Lattice Semiconductor Corporation et al., case no. 6:04-cv-01255-AA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, under Judge Ann L. Aiken. Representing the Company is Lois O. Rosenbaum, Timothy W. Snyder, Stoel Rives, LLP, 900 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600, Portland, OR 97204, Phone: (503) 294-9293, Fax: (503) 294-9113, E-mail: lorosenbaum@stoel.com or twsnider@stoel.com. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Tamara J. Driscoll, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2260, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (206) 749-5544, Fax: (206) 749-9978, E- mail: tdriscoll@lerachlaw.com; and (2) Dennis J. Herman, William S. Lerach, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLC, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 288- 4545, Fax: (415) 288-4534, E-mail: dennish@lerachlaw.com. MERCK & CO: N.J. Third-Party Payors Lawsuit Over Vioxx Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division ordered a stay on a lawsuit filed by third-party payors against Merck & Co. pending a ruling on an appeal of the certification of the suit by the Supreme Court. On July 29, 2005, a New Jersey state trial court certified a nationwide class of third-party payors (such as unions and health insurance plans) that paid in whole or in part for the Vioxx used by their plan members or insureds. The named plaintiff in that case seeks recovery of certain Vioxx purchase costs (plus penalties) based on allegations that the purported class members paid more for Vioxx than they would have had they known of the product's alleged risks. Merck believes that the class was improperly certified. The trial court's ruling is procedural only; it does not address the merits of plaintiffs' allegations, which the company intends to defend vigorously. On March 31, 2006, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the class certification order. On July 19, 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided to exercise its discretion to hear the company's appeal of the Appellate Division's decision. On Aug. 24, 2006, the Appellate Division ordered a stay of the proceedings in Superior Court pending a ruling by the Supreme Court. The company has also been named as a defendant in separate lawsuits brought by the Attorneys General of Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Texas and Utah. These actions allege that the company misrepresented the safety of Vioxx and seek: -- recovery of the cost of Vioxx purchased or reimbursed by the state and its agencies; -- reimbursement of all sums paid by the state and its agencies for medical services for the treatment of persons injured by Vioxx; -- damages under various common law theories; and/or -- remedies under various state statutory theories, including state consumer fraud and/or fair business practices or Medicaid fraud statutes, including civil penalties. MERCK & CO: Seeks to Dismiss N.J. Shareholder Suit Over Vioxx ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants in the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits are seeking to dismiss a consolidated action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In addition to the Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits, the company and various current and former officers and directors are defendants in various putative class actions and individual lawsuits under the federal securities laws and state securities laws. All of the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits pending in federal court have been transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey before District Judge Stanley R. Chesler for inclusion in a nationwide multidistrict litigation. Judge Chesler has consolidated the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits for all purposes. Plaintiffs request certification of a class of purchasers of company stock between May 21, 1999 and October 29, 2004. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Vioxx in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and the costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. The complaint also asserts a claim under Section 20A of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act against certain defendants relating to their sales of Merck stock. In addition, the complaint includes allegations under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 that certain defendants made incomplete and misleading statements in a registration statement and certain prospectuses filed in connection with the Merck Stock Investment Plan, a dividend reinvestment plan. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which is pending, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "Merck & Co. Inc. Securities Litigation in Re: MDL1658, case no. 3:05-cv-02367-SRC-TJB," filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, under Judge Stanley R. Chesler. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) David A.P. Brower, Milberg Weiss Bershad Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 594-5300, E-mail: dbrower@milbergweiss.com (2) Mark Levine, Stull, Stull & Brody, ESQS., 6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 07661, Phone: (212) 687-7230 (3) Peter S. Pearlman, Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, LLP, Park 80 Plaza West One, Saddle Brook, NJ 07663, Phone: (201) 845-9600, E-mail: PSP@njlawfirm.com. Representing the company is Robert H. Baron of Cravath Swaine & Moore, LLP, World Wide Plaza 825 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 474-1000, E-mail: merck@cravath.com. MERRILL LYNCH: $40.3M Securities Suit Deal Gets Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John F. Keenan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has given final approval to a $40.3 million settlement in the matters: -- "In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 MDL 1484 (JFK);" -- "In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Internet Strategies Fund Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 CV 3176 (JFK);" -- "In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Global Technology Fund Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 CV 7854 (JFK);" and -- "In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Focus Twenty Fund Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 CV 10221 (JFK)," According to the an AP WorldStream report, an order issued by Judge Keenan, certified the class and granted attorney's fees and expenses of about $9.37 million. "The court finds that the settlement is substantively fair and reasonable," the judge wrote in a 73-page opinion. The settlement covers all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the: -- "Merrill Lynch Internet Strategies Fund, Inc. (ISF) from March 16, 2000 through and including Oct. 12, 2001 (ISF Class);" -- "Merrill Lynch Global Technology Fund, Inc. (Global Technology Fund) From Oct. 2, 1999 through and including Oct. 1, 2002 (Global Technology Fund Class); and/or -- Merrill Lynch Focus Twenty Fund, Inc. (Focus Twenty Fund) from March 3, 2000 through and Including Dec. 23, 2002 (Focus Twenty Fund Class) (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 25, 2006). Litigation Background The Global Technology Fund Litigation On or about Oct. 1, 2002, Michal N. Merritt filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of herself and the Global Technology Fund Class alleging violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and section 34(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA) against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (ML & Co.), Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., (MLPF&S), Global Technology Fund, Princeton Funds Distributor, Inc., FAM Distributors, Inc., Princeton Services, Inc., Merrill Lynch Asset Management, L.P., Merrill Lynch Investment Managers, L.P. (MLIM) and the Global Technology Fund's officers and directors Terry K. Glenn, Donald C. Burke, Donald Cecil, Roland M. Machold, Edward H. Meyer, Charles C. Reilly, Richard D. West, Arthur Zeikel, Edward D. Zinbarg, Roscoe S. Suddarth, Ronald W. Forbes, Cynthia A. Montgomery and Kevin A. Ryan (Global Technology Fund Defendants). On Feb. 5, 2003, the court appointed Michal N. Merritt as lead plaintiff for the Global Technology Fund Class (Global Technology Fund Lead Plaintiff) and appointed Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, as lead counsel (Global Technology Fund Lead Counsel). On or about March 14, 2003, the Global Technology Fund Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint (Global Technology Fund Complaint), asserting claims under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act, section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and section 34(b) of the ICA. She alleged that the Registration Statement/Prospectus for the Global Technology Fund failed to disclose that: -- a material percentage of the companies in which Global Technology Fund invested were companies which defendant MLPF&S had represented as lead or co-lead underwriter or investment banker; -- MLPF&S allegedly issued misleading research reports on many of the securities held in Global Technology Fund's portfolio; -- Global Technology Fund invested in companies at prices allegedly inflated by MLPF&S' research reports in order to enhance MLPF&S' ability to obtain investment banking business from those companies; -- MLPF&S allegedly issued research reports on over 80% of the companies whose securities were in the Global Technology Fund; and -- MLPF&S research analysts allegedly received the majority of their compensation from generating investment banking business. The Global Technology Fund Lead Plaintiff asserted that the Global Technology Fund Defendants were liable for the decline in the trading price of the Global Technology Fund, which allegedly resulted from the conduct alleged in the Global Technology Fund Complaint. On July 2, 2003, the district court granted the Global Technology Fund Defendants' motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and dismissed the Global Technology Fund Complaint with prejudice on the grounds that: -- there was no duty to disclose the allegedly omitted information; -- the claims were barred by the statute of limitations; -- the Global Technology Fund Lead Plaintiff could not plead loss causation; -- the Global Technology Fund Lead Plaintiff lacked standing to assert a violation of section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act; -- there is no private right of action under section 34(b) of the ICA and even if there was, it would have to be brought derivatively; -- the claims under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act failed for the additional reasons that the claims were insufficiently particularized and no facts supporting an intent to defraud had been pled. On July 17, 2003, the Global Technology Fund Lead Plaintiff moved the Court to alter its judgment and allow her to file a second consolidated amended complaint on the ground that the claims were not barred by the statute of limitations. That motion was denied. On Sept. 17, 2003, the Global Technology Fund Lead Plaintiff filed her notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That appeal was fully briefed and the parties were awaiting oral argument at the time this proposed settlement was reached. The ISF Litigation Beginning on April 24, 2002, at least nine securities class actions relating to ISF were filed in the district court against the ISF Defendants alleging violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act. On June 25, 2002, five motions for the consolidation of all the related ISF cases, and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed. On Feb. 5, 2003, the court appointed Ruth Manton as lead plaintiff for the ISF class and appointed Abbey Gardy, LLP as lead counsel. Subsequently, Abbey Gardy, LLP, changed its name to Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP. On March 14, 2003, the ISF Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint asserting claims under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and section 34(b) of the ICA on behalf of herself and the ISF class against ML & Co., MLPF&S, ISF, Master Internet Strategies Trust, Global Technology Fund, Fund Asset Management, L.P., Princeton Services, Inc., FAM Distributors, Inc., Paul G. Meeks, and the Fund's officers and directors, Donald C. Burke, Terry K. Glenn, Charles C. Reilly, Roscoe S. Suddarth, Richard R. West, Edward D. Zinbarg and Arthur Zeikel. The ISF Lead Plaintiff alleged, among other things that the Registration Statement/Prospectus for the ISF failed to disclose that: -- the ISF allegedly invested in the securities of companies with which MLPF&S had or sought investment banking business; -- that MLPF&S allegedly issued misleading research reports on many of the securities held in the ISF's portfolio; and -- that the ISF invested in companies at prices allegedly inflated by MLPF&S' research reports in order to enhance MLPF&S' ability to obtain investment banking business from those companies. The ISF Lead Plaintiff further alleged that the ISF Defendants were liable for the decline in the trading price of the ISF shares, which allegedly resulted from the alleged conduct of the ISF Defendants. On Oct. 29, 2003, the district court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), dismissed the ISF Complaint with prejudice on the grounds that: -- there was no duty to disclose the allegedly omitted information; -- the claims were barred by the statute of limitations; -- the ISF Lead Plaintiff failed to allege losses recoverable under sections 11 or 12(a)(2); -- there is no private right of action under section 34(b) of the ICA and even if there was, it would have to be brought derivatively. On Nov. 24, 2003, the ISF Lead Plaintiff filed her notice of appeal from the district court's Oct. 29, 2003 decision in the Second Circuit. That appeal was fully briefed and the parties were awaiting oral argument at the time this proposed settlement was reached. The Focus Twenty Fund Litigation On Dec. 23, 2002, Cynthia McGinnes filed the first class action complaint involving the Focus Twenty Fund in the district court, alleging violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. By order dated July 22, 2003, the court consolidated the McGinnes complaint with several other actions alleging violations of the securities laws in connection with purchases of Focus Twenty Fund. On July 22, 2003, the court appointed Archie Lofberg as Lead Plaintiff for the Focus Twenty Fund class (Focus Twenty Fund Lead Plaintiff) and appointed Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, as Lead Counsel (Focus Twenty Fund Lead Counsel). On or about Aug. 25, 2003, the Focus Twenty Fund Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint (Focus Twenty Fund Complaint), against ML & Co., MLPF&S, Focus Twenty Fund, Fund Asset Management, L.P., Princeton Funds Distributor, Inc., FAM Distributors, Inc. and Princeton Services, Inc. (collectively the Focus Twenty Fund Defendants), making essentially the same allegations as made in the Global Technology Fund Complaint by the Global Technology Fund Lead Plaintiff. The Focus Twenty Fund Defendants subsequently moved to dismiss the Focus Twenty Fund Complaint on the basis of the district court's decisions in the coordinated cases, particularly the decisions on essentially the same grounds as in the Global Technology Fund action. In its Oct. 22, 2003 decision on defendants' motions to dismiss, the court struck certain allegations as irrelevant and dismissed, without prejudice, those portions of the Amended Complaint that were not stricken. The Focus Twenty Fund Lead Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint on Nov. 5, 2003, which defendants moved to dismiss. That motion was fully briefed and was awaiting oral argument at the time the parties reached this proposed settlement. During the spring and summer of 2006, settlement negotiations occurred between Lead Counsel and counsel for Defendants. On Sept. 22, 2006, the parties presented to the district court a proposed Stipulation of Settlement between Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants. For more details, contact: (1) Jill S. Abrams, Esq. of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, New York, 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700; (2) Jeffrey G. Smith, Esq. of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, Phone: (212) 545-4740; and (3) Merrill Lynch Funds Securities Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6449, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: 1-800-327- 3664 or 631-470-5000, Fax: 631-470-5100, E-mail: info@gardencitygroup.com, Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com/. NATIONAL CITY: Still Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over "Interchange Fees" --------------------------------------------------------------- National City Corp. remains a defendant in a consolidated class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in relation to "interchange fees." Beginning on June 22, 2005, a series of antitrust class action lawsuits were filed against Visa, MasterCard, and several major financial institutions, including eight cases naming the company and its subsidiary, National City Bank of Kentucky, since merged into National City Bank. The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claim that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are unreasonable and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The cases have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the caption, "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No. 1:05-md-01720- JG-JO." The company recorded no new developments in this matter in its Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No. 1:05-md-01720- JG-JO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge John Gleeson with referral James Orenstein. Representing some of the plaintiffs: (1) Darla Jo Boggs of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P., 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneappolis, MN 55401, US, Phone: 612-339-6900, Fax: 612-339-0981, E-mail: djboggs@locklaw.com; (2) Christopher M. Burke of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, US, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231- 7423, E-mail: chrisb@lerachlaw.com; and (3) Jason S. Cowart of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-661-1100, Fax: 212-661-8665, E-mail: jasoncowart@yahoo.com. Representing the defendants is John M. Majoras of Jones Day, 51 Louisiana Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001, Phone: 202-879-3939, Fax: 202-626-1700, E-mail: jpcooney@jonesday.com. NESTOR TRAFFIC: Continues to Face Suits Over Ohio Speed Program --------------------------------------------------------------- Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Nestor, Inc., and the City of Akron, remain defendants in class actions that were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Initially, two purported class actions were filed that seek damages and injunction against the city's speed program. These cases, which have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, are: -- "Mendenhall v. City of Akron, et al., Case No. 5:06-cv- 00139-DDD;" and -- "Sipe, et al. v. Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-00154-DDD." Both actions were originally filed in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, but were later removed to federal court. In "Mendenhall," which was filed on Jan. 19, 2006, plaintiff brought a complaint and class action for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and for a money judgment in an unspecified amount against city of Akron and all of its city council members in their official capacity and the company, alleging federal and state constitutional violations. On Feb. 17, 2006, defendants filed a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on March 24, 2006. On May 19, 2006, the court ruled that the Akron ordinance permitting photo enforcement of speeding laws was a proper exercise of municipal power under the Ohio Constitution, but deferred ruling on the alleged due process violations pending an opportunity for discovery by the plaintiff, which was completed on Oct. 20, 2006. The plaintiff amended her complaint on Aug. 8, 2006 to include equal protection violations among her federal constitutional claims. The company filed an answer to that amended complaint on Aug. 18, 2006. Dispositive motions in the case are due by Nov. 22, 2006. In "Sipe," which was filed on Jan. 23, 2006, plaintiffs filed a complaint and class action for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and for a money judgment in an unspecified amount against the company, various past and present employees of the company and the city of Akron and alleging fraud, civil conspiracy, common plan to commit fraud, violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, nuisance, conversion, invasion of privacy, negligence, and federal constitutional violation. For more details, contact: (1) [Mendenhall Plaintiff] Jacquenette Geggus Corgan, Ste. 201, 190 North Union Street, Akron, OH 44304, Phone: 330-535-8160, Fax: 330-762-9743, E-mail: j.corgan@justice.com; (2) [Sipe Plaintiff] Antoni Dalayanis, 5th Floor, 12 East Exchange Street, Akron, OH 44308, Phone: 330-315-1060, Fax: 800-787-4089, E-mail: lawyer@bright.net. (3) [Mendenhall & Sipe Defendant] Michael J. Defibaugh of City of Akron, Law Department, Ste. 202, 161 South High Street, Akron, OH 44308, Phone: 330-375-2030, Fax: 330- 375-2041, E-mail: defibmi@ci.akron.oh.us; and (4) [Mendenhall & Sipe Defendant] Richard Gurbst and Donald W. Herbe of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, 4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: 216-479- 8607 and 216-479-8312, Fax: 216-479-8777, E-mail: rgurbst@ssd.com and dherbe@ssd.com. NORTEL NETWORKS: Court Approves N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard Berman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved a $438.7 million settlement in a class-action securities claim against Nortel Networks, including $16.7 million in attorneys' fees, The Courthouse News Service reports. In 2006, Nortel reached a proposed settlement in the class action, "In Re Nortel Networks Corp. Securities Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No.: 2001-CV-1855 (RMB)" in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2006). Terms of Proposed Settlement The settlement will provide total proceeds consisting of approximately $438,667,428 in cash, which is already on deposit and earning interest, to provide for benefit of the class of 314,222,875 Nortel shares. In addition, Nortel will adopt certain corporate governance enhancements. The settlement resolves lawsuits over whether Nortel misled investors about its historic and future earnings during the class period. The settlement constitutes a full and final resolution of claims and causes of action raised by members of the classes in the Nortel I Actions and encompassed in the settlement. Notice of Certification of Classes The U.S. Action was certified in 2004 to proceed as a class action on behalf of persons and entities, wherever located, who bought Nortel common stock or call options on Nortel common stock or who wrote (sold) put options on Nortel common stock during the period Oct. 24, 2000 through Feb. 15, 2001, inclusive, and suffered damages thereby, including, but not limited to, those persons or entities who traded in Nortel Securities on the New York Stock Exchange and/or the Toronto Stock Exchange (U.S. Global Class). A copy of the judge's order is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?193f The suit is "In Re Nortel Networks Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:01-cv-01855-RMB-MHD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard M. Berman, with referral to Judge Michael H. Dolinger. Lead plaintiff's counsel are George A. Bauer III of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New, York 10119-0165; and Murray Gold of Koskie Minsky LLP, 20 Queen Street West, Suite 900, Toronto, Ontario M5H 3R3. OLD WILLIAMSBURGH: Recalls Jar Candles at Risk of Breakage ---------------------------------------------------------- Old Williamsburgh Candle Corp., of Brooklyn, New York, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 3.7 million units of Old Williamsburgh Mason Jar Candles, sizes 3.5 to 5.0 oz. The company said the wick can move from the center of the jar to the side causing the glass to overheat and possibly crack or shatter. Exposure to broken glass and molten wax poses laceration and burn hazards to consumers. Old Williamsburgh Candle Corp. has received 11 reports of the candles cracking or shattering, including one laceration injury. This recall involves all scents and colors of Mason Jar Candles in 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, and 5.0 oz. sizes. The size of the candle is specified on the label at the bottom of the jar, on the last line of the label. Replacement Mason Jar Candles, which are not included in the recall, have a "Q" on either side of the label. These recalled jar candles were manufactured in the United States and are being sold through Dollar stores, discount stores, and grocery stores nationwide from May 2006 through December 2006 for between $1 and $1.50. Pictures of recalled jar candles: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07092a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07092b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07092c.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the candles and return them to the place of purchase for an exchange or full refund. For additional information, call Old Williamsburgh Candle Corp. toll-free at (866) 564-1500 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.oldwilliamsburgh.com. PHILIPPINES: First Gentleman Seeks Dismissal of Reporters' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers for the Philippines' First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo asked the Makati Regional Trial Court to drop the PHP15 million civil class action brought by dozens of Filipino journalists who are facing libel suits filed by Mr. Arroyo, The Manila Mall reports. At the same time, Jesus Santos, Mr. Arroyo's spokesman, said that the media would never bully the First Gentleman into dropping the libel cases he had filed against journalists. Mr. Santos adds that his boss will not be deterred from seeking legal redress whenever irresponsible journalists malign the First Gentleman's honor and reputation with lies and unfair reporting. According to Mr. Santos it is totally unfair for the complainants to try and stop the First Gentleman from further filing libel cases against journalists who fabricate malicious lies and to make him withdraw libel cases he had filed. On Dec. 28, 2006, dozens of Filipino journalists who are facing libel suits filed by Mr. Arroyo filed a civil class action against the presidential spouse at the Makati Regional Trial Court (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 29, 2006). Plaintiffs most of whom are charged by Mr. Arroyo with libel are backed by other journalists, media, and journalists' organizations. Such groups include the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism and Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility. They are contesting the First Gentleman's claim that he has been maligned as a private citizen, for which he is seeking at least $2,872,275.41 (P141 million) in damages. The libel cases were in connection with reports of alleged election fraud and corruption involving Mr. Arroyo. The journalists are accusing Mr. Arroyo of trying to stifle freedom of the press (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2006). Retaliating against the charges filed against them, the journalists are in turn suing Mr. Arroyo for abuse of power and for seeking to undermine civil liberties. The suit is asking for about $305,561.21 (PHP15 million) in damages for the anxiety, loss of income, and other inconveniences Mr. Arroyo's libel suits have allegedly caused. Earlier, Mr. Arroyo filed a counterclaim against dozens of Filipino journalists who filed a class suit against him in December (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 10, 2007). Mr. Arroyo's lawyer, Ruy Rondain, said the class suit, was defective, claiming that other plaintiffs did not sign the class suit while those who joined had nothing to do with the case as they are not facing libel charges filed by Mr. Arroyo. QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Cellular Phone Sales --------------------------------------------------------------- QUALCOMM, Inc. along with many other manufacturers of wireless phones, wireless operators and industry-related organizations, was named as a defendant in several purported class actions, and several individually filed actions pending in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Washington D.C., and Louisiana, seeking monetary damages arising out of its sale of cellular phones. The courts that have reviewed similar claims against other companies to date have held that there was insufficient scientific basis for the plaintiffs' claims in those cases. QUALCOMM, Inc. -- http://www.qualcomm.com-- designs, manufactures, and markets digital wireless telecommunications products and services based on its code division multiple access technology and other technologies. RYAN'S RESTAURANT: S.C. Court Mulls Approval of Merger Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Common Pleas in Greenville, South Carolina has yet to give final approval to a proposed settlement in a putative shareholder class action against Ryan's Restaurant Group in connection with the anticipated merger between Ryan's and Buffets, Inc. On July 28, 2006, Ryan's shareholder Marjorie Fretwell, with the help of law firm Motley Rice LLC, filed a class action in the Court of Common Pleas in Greenville, South Carolina alleging the purchase price didn't result from a fair and open process. The deal would combine Ryan's 340 restaurants with Buffet's 337 to form what the two companies said would be the nation's largest buffet restaurant chain. The suit alleges Ryan's and its directors breached their fiduciary duty to shareholders by failing to disclose material information about the sale. On Aug. 28, Ryan's and its directors filed an answer denying the substantive claims of the shareholder action, and also filed a motion to dismiss the case. On Sept. 14, the first amended class action complaint was filed in the shareholder action. Ryan's has reached an agreement in principle with plaintiff's counsel, subject to court approval, to resolve the litigation by responding to certain allegations in the amended complaint. Although plaintiff believes the information is material, Ryan's does not consider any of such information to be material to the merger or otherwise. The settlement is pending court approval, according to the company's Jan. 29, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 13, 2006. TAM SA: Brazilian Airline Faces Overbooking Practices Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Brazilian Consumer Relations Defense and Study Institute (Ibedec) filed a civil class action against airline TAM SA on behalf of passengers from Brasilia for overbooking practices, The Investnews (Brazil) reports. Ibedec requested the application of about $472 in fines for each new overbooking case. According to Ibedec, the practice of overbooking harms passengers' rights. TAM SA -- http://www.tam.com.br/-- operates regular flights to 47 destinations throughout Brazil. It serves 72 different cities in the domestic market through regional alliances. Additionally, it maintains code-share agreements with international airline companies that allow passengers to travel to a large number of destinations throughout the world. TAM was the first Brazilian airline company to launch a loyalty program. The program has over 3.3 million subscribers and has awarded more than 3.6 million tickets. TELAXIS COMMS: N.Y. Court Mulls Final OK for IPO Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against Telaxis Communications Corp., a predecessor Company to Terabeam, Inc. During the period from June 12 to Sept. 13, 2001, four purported securities class actions were filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the captions: -- "Katz v. Telaxis Communications Corp., et al.;" -- "Kucera v. Telaxis Communications Corp., et al.;" -- "Paquette v. Telaxis Communications Corp., et al.;" and -- "Inglis v. Telaxis Communications Corporation, et al." The lawsuits also named one or more of the underwriters in the Telaxis initial public offering and certain of its officers and directors. On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a single consolidated amended complaint, which supersedes the individual complaints originally filed. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws due to alleged statements in and omissions from the company's initial public offering registration statement concerning the underwriters' alleged activities in connection with the underwriting of the company's shares to the public. The amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified damages and costs associated with the litigation. These lawsuits have been assigned along with, the company understands, approximately 1,000 other lawsuits making substantially similar allegations against approximately 300 other publicly traded companies and their public offering underwriters to a single federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for consolidated pre-trial purposes. The company believes the claims against it are without merit and have defended the litigation vigorously. The litigation process is inherently uncertain, however, and there can be no assurance that the outcome of these claims will be favorable for the company. On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the company filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint against the issuers on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants. The underwriters also filed separate motions to dismiss the claims against them. In October 2002, the court approved a stipulation dismissing without prejudice all claims against the company directors and officers who had been defendants in the litigation. On Feb. 19, 2003, the court issued its ruling on the separate motions to dismiss filed by the issuer defendants and the underwriter defendants. The court granted in part and denied in part the issuer defendants' motions. The court dismissed, with prejudice, all claims brought against the company under the anti-fraud provisions of the securities laws. The court denied the motion to dismiss the claims brought under the registration provisions of the securities laws (which do not require that intent to defraud be pleaded) as to the company and as to substantially all of the other issuer defendants. The court denied the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects. In June 2003, the company elected to participate in a proposed settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. The company understands that virtually all of the other non- bankrupt issuer defendants have also elected to participate in this proposed settlement. If ultimately approved by the court, this proposed settlement would result in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the company and against the other issuer defendants who have elected to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the current or former officers and directors of participating issuers who were named as individual defendants. The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of any claims against the underwriter defendants. The proposed settlement provides that the insurers of the participating issuer defendants will guarantee that the plaintiffs in the cases brought against the participating issuer defendants will recover at least $1 billion. If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the plaintiffs from the underwriter defendants, however, the monetary obligations to the plaintiffs under the proposed settlement will be satisfied. In addition, the company and the other participating issuer defendants will be required to assign to the plaintiffs certain claims that the participating issuer defendants may have against the underwriters of their IPOs. The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary to fund the guarantee contained in the settlement or settlement- related expenses would come from participating issuers' directors and officers liability insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the participating issuer defendants themselves. A participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the settlement costs. The company currently expects that its insurance proceeds will be sufficient for these purposes and that the company will not otherwise be required to contribute to the proposed settlement. Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon obtaining approval by the court. On Sept. 1, 2005, the court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement, directed that notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be provided to class members, and scheduled a fairness hearing for April 24, 2006, at which objections to the proposed settlement will be heard. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement. After the fairness hearing, the court took under advisement whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement. For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/. TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Face Calif. Wage, Hour Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- Tenet Healthcare Corp. remains a defendant in a proposed class action alleging that Tenet hospitals violated certain provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. The alleged violations were with respect to: -- meal breaks; -- rest periods; -- the payment of compensation for meal breaks and rest periods not taken; -- the payment of compensation and appropriate premiums for overtime, including the California Differential payments; -- "rounding off" practices for time entries on timekeeping records; and -- the information shown on pay stubs. Plaintiffs are seeking back pay, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees, and seek to certify this action on behalf of virtually all non-exempt employees of the company's California subsidiaries. Two other proposed class actions pending in Southern California involve allegations regarding unpaid overtime. The lawsuits allege that our pay practices since 2000 for California-based 12-hour shift employees violate California and, in one of the cases, federal overtime laws by virtue of the alleged failure to include certain payments known as Flexible (or California) Differential payments in the regular rate of pay that is used to calculate overtime pay. Plaintiffs in both cases are seeking back pay, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees. The company has recorded an accrual of $24 million ($18 million in the three months ended June 30, 2006 and $6 million in prior years) as an estimated liability for the wage and hour actions and other unrelated employment matters. TENET HEALTHCARE: Faces Three Medical Malpractice Suits in La. -------------------------------------------------------------- Tenet Healthcare Corp. hospitals are defendants in three medical malpractice cases filed as purported class actions by former patients of Memorial Medical Center and Lindy Boggs Medical Center in New Orleans. In each case, family members allege, on behalf of themselves and a purported class of other patients and their family members, damages as a result of injuries sustained during Hurricane Katrina. Tenet Healthcare Corp. -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is an investor-owned health care services company whose subsidiaries, and affiliates operate general hospitals and related health care facilities, and hold investments in other companies, including health care companies. TENNESSEE: Employees Need More Funding to Finish Case v. City ------------------------------------------------------------- Representatives for city workers involved in a class action against the City of Columbia, Tennessee, say that they need more money to finish the suit, The Columbia Daily Herald reports. Spokesman Pat Prince told a gathering at the American Legion Building that the court ruled in favor of the employees, however to avoid a contempt of court ruling the plaintiffs must pay a special accountant about $12,000. According to plaintiffs' attorney, Phillip Davidson, the money should be the last that will be needed to see the case through. Columbia Police Officers Brad Collins, and John Ussery filed the suit in 2000, claiming a personnel handbook promising merit- based pay raises constituted a contract between the employees and the city. In general, the suit contends that the city breached its contract with the police officers and the firefighters by not giving them a pay increase as required by the city's policy manual (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 3, 2001). In 2004, after several delays and three contempt of court rulings against the city, Judge Stella L. Hargrove ruled the city had breached a contract with employees promising merit- based pay raises. The case covers most employees working for the city from Sept. 5 1994-Sept. 5 2000. Employees did receive raises during this period, but they were based on service time and cost of living. Since 2004, the city and employees have been arguing over the amount of damages. Judge Hargrove appointed a special master to the court, a lawyer with accounting credentials, to devise a formula for assessing damages. During this time the plaintiffs have been accruing 10 percent interest on any potential damages. Though the now fired city manager Mike Miller said in 2004 that the city would appeal the decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, many plaintiffs believe that the city would be more willing not to pursue an appeal. Mr. Davidson projected that if an appeal was ever made, the case could continue for another nine months. He pointed out that during that time the plaintiffs would continue to earn interest on the damages. At the gathering, Mr. Prince said that any employee who is eligible for the suit is encouraged to come forward with funds to pay for the legal expenses. Mr. Said that those who will contribute will get their money back. He adds that before any damages are paid out those who paid the costs will be reimbursed. TJX COS: Faces Second Mass. Suit Over Client Information Leak -------------------------------------------------------------- The Lamb Firm, LLC and the law firm of Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Massachusetts against TJX Companies and Fifth Third Bank on behalf of AmeriFirst Bank of Union Springs, Alabama over the companies' collective failure in securing the personal data of millions of consumers. It seeks protection and damages for the millions of unwitting customers injured by the failure of the defendants as well as protection and indemnification for the hundreds of banks affected. "The magnitude of this failure by TJX and the Fifth Third Bank is international in its reach with the full extent of damages unknown until independent experts can investigate all of the issues. It is apparent the costs to customers and banks will be enormous," noted Archie Lamb, who along with Joe Whatley is primary counsel in the litigation. Mr. Whatley concurred, noting that this litigation seeks to ensure that those responsible for this massive failure to secure private information of unwitting consumers are also responsible for the cost to remedy the problem. In May 2006, an "unauthorized intruder" penetrated the network of TJX Corp. -- owners of TJ Maxx, Bob's Goods, HomeGoods, and Marshalls. In January 2007, TJX issued a statement acknowledging the breach. TJX spokeswoman Sherry Lang indicated the data breach was discovered sometime in mid-December. Ms. Lang, however, denied notification was delayed because of the impending holiday shopping season. TJX's statement occurred just hours after The Wall Street Journal reported TJX's security breach. Earlier, the law firms of Berger & Montague, P.C., and Stern Shapiro Weissberg & Garin, LLP, filed a similar class action on behalf of all consumers in the U.S. who had personal, and financial data stolen from the computer network of TJX Companies, Inc., and were damaged thereby (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 30, 2007). The recent suit is "Amerifirst Bank v. TJX Companies, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10169-JLT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Joseph L. Tauro. Representing plaintiffs is Patrick Sheehan of Whatley Drake & Kallas, 1540 Broadway, 37th Floor, New York, NY 10036, Phone: 212-447-7070. TJX COS: Faces Litigation in Ala. Over Client Information Leak -------------------------------------------------------------- The Lamb Firm, LLC and the law firm of Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of Alabama against TJX Companies and Fifth Third Bank over the companies' collective failure in securing the personal data of millions of consumers. The suit was filed on behalf of Jo Wood and Kate Willoughby of Birmingham, Alabama. It seeks protection and damages for the millions of unwitting customers injured by the failure of the defendants as well as protection and indemnification for the hundreds of banks affected. "The magnitude of this failure by TJX and the Fifth Third Bank is international in its reach with the full extent of damages unknown until independent experts can investigate all of the issues. It is apparent the costs to customers and banks will be enormous," noted Archie Lamb, who along with Joe Whatley is primary counsel in the litigation. Mr. Whatley concurred noting that this litigation seeks to ensure that those responsible for this massive failure to secure private information of unwitting consumers are also responsible for the cost to remedy the problem. In May 2006, an "unauthorized intruder" penetrated the network of TJX Corporation -- owners of TJ Maxx, Bob's Goods, HomeGoods, and Marshalls. In January 2007, TJX issued a statement acknowledging the breach. TJX spokeswoman Sherry Lang indicated the data breach was discovered sometime in mid-December. However, Ms. Lang denied that notification was delayed because of the impending holiday shopping season. TJX's statement occurred just hours after The Wall Street Journal reported TJX's security breach. The suit is "Wood et al v. TJX, Inc et al., Case No. 2:07-cv- 00147-RDP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under Judge R. David Proctor. Representing plaintiffs are: (1) Andrew C. Allen, Richard P. Rouco and Joe R. Whatley, Jr., all of Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC, 2323 Second Avenue North, Post Office Box 10647, Birmingham, AL 35202-0647, Phone: 205-328-9576, Fax: 205-328-9669, E- mail: ecf@whatleydrake.com or jwhatley@whatleydrake.com; and (2) Archie C. Lamb, Jr. and F. Inge Johnstone, both of The Lamb Firm, 2017 Second Avenue North, Suite 200, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-324-4644, Fax: 205- 324-4649, E-mail: alamb@archielamb.com or ijohnstone@archielamb.com. UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Settles N.Y. Suit Over Claim Terminations ------------------------------------------------------------- UnumProvident Corp. settled a purported class action, "Jeffrey A. Weiller v. New York Life Insurance Company, UnumProvident Corporation, and The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company," pending before the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This complaint, filed in December 2004, is brought by the plaintiff on behalf of himself and a purported class alleging that the company schemed to improperly deny or terminate legitimate claims filed under policies issued by several non- UnumProvident insurers on behalf of whom the company administers claims. On Feb. 18, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action. On June 20, 2005, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking certification of a putative class. On April 27, 2006, the court denied class certification and dismissed all claims except the individual contract claim of plaintiff. Plaintiff has appealed these orders. The parties have reached a settlement of the case while this appeal was pending. Under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiff will release all claims and withdraw his appeal. The amount of settlement was immaterial. UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Motion to Remand N.J. Suit to Fla. Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The District Court of New Jersey has yet to rule on a motion to remand the suit, "Palm Tree Computers Systems, Inc. v. ACE USA, et al." to a Florida state court. The company is a defendant in the action, which was originally filed in the Florida state Circuit Court on Feb. 16, 2005. The complaint is a putative class action and alleges violations of the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act of Florida and other states, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. The allegations are brought against numerous broker organizations and insurers and assert the company and its subsidiaries engaged in illegal and unethical contingent commission arrangements. The case was removed to federal court and, on Oct. 20, 2005, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey multidistrict litigation. A motion to remand the case to the state court in Florida remains pending, but no further action has been taken in the case subsequent to the transfer, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006. WASHINGTON: Seattle to Appeal Verdict in WTO Protesters' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys for the city of Seattle vowed to appeal a split federal court verdict in the purported class action, "Hankin et al. v. Seattle City of, et al.," which was in relation to the arrests of about 200 protesters during a 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in the city, The United Press International reports. After three days of deliberation, a federal court jury issued a mixed verdict in the purported class action, "Hankin et al. v. Seattle City of, et al.," which was in relation to the arrests of about 200 protesters during a 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in the city, according to a report by The Seattle Times (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 31, 2007). The jury found that the city violated the Fourth Amendment rights of roughly 200 protesters arrested at Westlake Park during the WTO upheaval on Dec. 1, 1999, but determined the city was not guilty of violating the plaintiffs' free-speech rights. City attorneys say that split verdict, which could lead to a multimillion-dollar award against, shows that the jurors were confused by their instructions. Previously, in testimony before the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Washington, former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper said that the city did not establish a policy on Dec. 1, 1999, to arrest protesters. In addition, the former police chief said that he would have resigned rather than enforce such a directive (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 22, 2007). The case centers on an emergency ordinance that took effect on Dec. 1, 1999, imposing downtown as off-limits to ensure public safety amidst protests while the conference is ongoing. Eight people arrested on Dec. 1, 1999 are serving as lead plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12, 2007). Plaintiffs contend that the city violated their First Amendment right to free speech by arresting them because they were espousing anti-WTO sentiments. They also say the city violated their Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Previously, Judge Barbara Rothstein, who presided over the case back then, threw out protesters claims, saying the city had imposed a proper "time, place or manner" restriction to ensure public safety (Class Action Reporter, June 6, 2005). The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth upheld the ordinance, it pointed out, however, that the city might have gone too far in targeting only anti-WTO protesters within the restricted zone, raising questions about discrimination. In his opening statement, plaintiffs' attorney Michael Withey told jurors that his clients were arrested merely for speaking out against WTO. The matter to be decided now is whether police singled out people because of their views and illegally arrested them as part of a city policy to go after protesters. To prevail, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that such unconstitutional acts were made in accordance with official city policy, or that city leaders such as Mr. Stamper were aware of and authorized the improper behavior. Ted Buck, an attorney representing the city, asked Mr. Stamper if then-Mayor Paul Schell instructed the police to seek out and arrest protesters. Mr. Stamper denied that the former mayor issued such a directive. He adds that if the mayor had given him such orders, "I would have fought it. If I had lost that battle, I would have offered my resignation." Mr. Withey had sought to establish that then-Assistant Chief Ed Joiner, acting with Mr. Stamper's authority, declared a "no- protest zone" in the downtown area near the Seattle Convention Center, where WTO meetings were taking place. During a 7 a.m. news conference Dec. 1, 1999, Mr. Joiner declared that "anyone that goes into that area to protest will be arrested immediately," according to a transcript Mr. Withey introduced into evidence. Mr. Stamper explains that he delegated Mr. Joiner to plan the department's tactics and strategy ahead of the WTO meetings and gave him operational command during the meetings. However, Mr. Stamper added that Mr. Joiner never had authority to set policy for the department. On Nov. 30, 1999, Seattle erupted in chaos as some 50,000 people arrived to protest the policies of the WTO. In a bid to avoid a second day of unrest, Mayor Schell in the early hours of Dec. 1, 1999, issued "Emergency Order No. 3," which declared parts of downtown Seattle off-limits to all but a handful of people. Among the exempt groups: WTO delegates and workers; residents of the area; business owners and employees; and safety personnel. The order said nothing about banning protesters from the area. Case Background On Oct. 2, 2000, the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice filed the original suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The class action was brought on behalf of anyone detained during mass arrests at Westlake Park between 6 a.m. and noon on Dec. 1, 1999. Specifically, plaintiffs' lawyers alleged that the city engaged in a policy of suppressing First Amendment rights by arresting protesters without being ordered to disperse and jailing them using an incorrect arrest record. The complaint, thus seeks damages from the city, Mayor Schell, and former Police Chief Norman Stamper on behalf of more than 600 protesters and others arrested and imprisoned on Dec. 1 and 2, 1999, pursuant to the city's "no-protest zone" policy. The suit is "Hankin et al. v. Seattle City of, et al., Case No. 2:00-cv-01672-MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Representing the plaintiffs is Michael E. Withey of Law Office Of Mike Withey, Two Union Square, 601 Union St., Ste. 4200, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-405-1800, E-mail: mike@witheylaw.com. Representing the defendants is Theron A. Buck of Stafford Frey Cooper, 601 Union St., 3100 Two Union Sq., Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-9900, Fax: 624-6885, E-mail: tbuck@staffordfrey.com. XTO ENERGY: No Ruling Yet on Kans. Antitrust Suit Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- XTO Energy, Inc. is awaiting the decision of the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas on a motion to certify a new class action, styled "Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al.," which was filed against one of the company's subsidiaries. The action was filed in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, against natural gas pipeline owners and operators. It seeks to represent a class of plaintiffs consisting of all similarly situated gas royalty owners either from whom the defendants had purchased natural gas or measured natural gas since January 1, 1974 to the present. The new petition alleges the same improper analysis of gas heating content that had previously been alleged in "Price" until it was removed from the case by the filing of the amended class action petition. The previous "Price" case is styled, "Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al. (formerly "Quinque" case)." It was filed in June 2001, on behalf of a class of plaintiffs consisting of all similarly situated gas working interest owners, overriding royalty owners and royalty owners either from whom the defendants had purchased natural gas or who received economic benefit from the sale of such gas since Jan. 1, 1974. In all other respects, the new petition appears to be identical to the amended class action petition in that it has a proposed class of only royalty owners, alleges conspiracy, unjust enrichment and accounting, and only applies to gas measured in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming. The court held an evidentiary hearing in April 2005 to determine whether the amended class should be certified, and the Company is awaiting the Court's decision. The company reported no development in the case at its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006. XTO ENERGY: No Certification Yet in Kan. Gas Royalty Owners Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has yet to rule on a motion to certify a lawsuit filed by gas royalty owners against a subsidiary of XTO Energy, Inc. On August 5, 2003, plaintiffs in "Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al.," served one of the company's subsidiaries with a new original class action petition, "Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al." The action was filed in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, against natural gas pipeline owners and operators. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of plaintiffs consisting of all similarly situated gas royalty owners either from whom the defendants had purchased natural gas or measured natural gas since Jan. 1, 1974 to the present. The new petition alleges the same improper analysis of gas heating content that had previously been alleged in the Price case discussed above until it was removed from the case by the filing of the amended class action petition. In all other respects, the new petition appears to be identical to the amended class action petition in that it has a proposed class of only royalty owners, alleges conspiracy, unjust enrichment and accounting, and only applies to gas measured in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming. The court held an evidentiary hearing in April 2005 to determine whether the amended class should be certified, and the company is awaiting the decision of the court. The amount of damages was not specified in the complaint. The company reported no development in the case at its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006. Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tokyo Moves to Prevent Illegal Demolitions --------------------------------------------------------------- The government of Chiyoda Ward in Tokyo has decided to inspect buildings slated for demolition to check whether they contain asbestos, The Daily Yomiuri reports. Due to start in April 2007, the inspections are a step toward preventing illegal demolitions. When a contractor is found to have attempted to raze a building without permission, the Ward Govt. could file criminal complaints under the Construction Waste Recycling Law. According to the Construction Waste Recycling Law, when planning to tear down those buildings, a contractor must file an application with the labor standards supervision office and the local government. Containing asbestos during demolition is expensive, and many contractors are thought to simply sidestep the application process. According to the Construction and Transport Ministry, more than 250,000 buildings with a floor space of 1,000 square meters or more were built between 1955 and the late 1980s, when asbestos was used in buildings as a fire retardant. In fiscal 2005, in Chiyoda Ward, 269 buildings with a floor space of 80 square meters or more were pulled down, 34 of which were suspected of having asbestos. A total of six applications were recorded to have been submitted by contractors. A Ward official said, "It's highly possible that the other buildings also included asbestos, but no measures were taken [during demolition]. This could have posed health risks to workers and those living in the area." The Ward Govt. has decided to dispatch officials to inspect all buildings with a floor space of 80 square meters or more, contractors claim are asbestos-free. The demolition of buildings thought to contain asbestos will peak between 2010 and 2020. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Somerset Deaths on the Rise, Coroner Says -------------------------------------------------------------- West Somerset, U.K. coroner Michael Rose said that asbestos deaths have increased dramatically in recent years, Burnham & Highbridge Weekly News reports. Mr. Rose made the comments at an inquest into the death of 72- year-old Victor Deane, a former Royal Marine from Berrow, Somerset. Mr. Rose revealed that mesothelioma was virtually unheard of in the area 20 years ago, but said he now deals with about 14 cases where it has proved fatal. During the hearing, Mr. Rose revealed that two Somerset sites are often the source of the poisoning - the former Royal Ordnance plc factory at Puriton, and Hinkley Point Power Station. Although Mr. Rose heard that Mr. Deane had worked in an asbestos mining town while serving with the Marines in Cyprus in 1955 to 1956, he said he doubted that that had been the cause of Mr. Deane's death. Instead, it was suggested that a later career in oven manufacturing and an incident with a fire extinguisher might have been the cause. Mr. Deane's friend Giovanni Pooley recalled how he Mr. Deane had lived in the Cyprus mining village of Troodos in the 1950s. Mr. Pooley revealed that, in 2004, Mr. Deane had used a fire extinguisher to put out a small electrical fire in his home. He revealed that fire officers had told Mr. Deane the old type of extinguisher he had used was "effective, but lethal." Mr. Rose said the asbestos disease usually manifests within 30 years of exposure. For that reason, the coroner said he believed it was unlikely to have stemmed from Mr. Deane's days as a Marine. Instead, he suggested Mr. Deane's time making ovens might have been a factor, perhaps accelerated by the fire extinguisher incidents. Mr. Rose concluded that Mr. Deane died of an industrial disease. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coroner Links Newsagent's Death to Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Rose, the coroner of West Somerset in the United Kingdom, recorded a verdict that newsagent Peter York died from the industrial disease, mesothelioma, This is Somerset reports. An inquest heard that the 57-year-old Mr. York probably breathed in asbestos fibers while serving in the Royal Navy between 1966 and 1969, when he was an Engineering Mechanic First Class working in the boiler room of HMS Eagle. Mr. York's daughter, Natalie, said he then joined the Merchant Navy and later worked for a Norwegian shipping company before going into pub management in the London area. He later worked as a relief manager for a betting company before buying The Paper Shop. Mr. York was a moderate smoker until 2000. In April 2006, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma and died later that year. Mr. Rose said he had no doubt that Mr. York had been in contact with asbestos during his Navy service. Although the risks from asbestos disease were known long ago, precautions were not started until about 1970. "I have had officers and men here with similar histories. It normally takes 20-30 years between contacting asbestos and the illness," Mr. Rose said. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco Records $25.4M Net Charge for Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp. recorded an asbestos-related net charge of about US$25,467,000 that, after provision for income tax, reduced net income for the year and quarter ended Dec. 31, 2006 by about US$15,888,000 or US$1.62 a share, according to a Company news release, dated Jan. 25, 2007, reported to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The claims resulted from alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing equipment made decades ago by certain subsidiaries within the Company's Air and Liquid Processing group. The Corporation determined that it could reasonably estimate those costs for a period of seven years ending December 2013. Based in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp. makes various metal products. The Company's forged steel rolls unit (Union Electric Steel, Davy Roll Co.) makes forged hardened-steel rolls for the steel and aluminum industries. The air and liquid processing segment (Buffalo Pumps, Aerofin, Buffalo Air Handling) makes centrifugal pumps for refrigeration and power generation, finned-tube heat-exchange coils, and air-handling systems. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Baldor Records $487T Adjustments for Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Baldor Electric Co. recorded US$487,000 for the nine months ended June 30, 2006 related to costs incurred to defend asbestos product liability claims, according to a U.S Securities and Exchange Commission report dated Jan. 25, 2007. The pro forma adjustments included in the unaudited pro forma condensed combined statements of earnings reflect the exclusion of US$562,000 in Selling and administrative for the year ended Sept. 30, 2005. The adjustments also included US$487,000 for the nine-months ended June 30, 2006 in relation to costs incurred to defend asbestos product liability claims the liabilities for which will be indemnified by Rockwell Automation Inc. Based in Fort Smith, Ark., Baldor Electric Co. makes industrial electric motors, controls, and drives that power products like giant rock tumblers to industrial pumps. The Company has agreed to acquire most of Rockwell Automation Power Systems for about US$1.8 billion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Inc. Has 154 Claims in Fiscal 2006 --------------------------------------------------------------- GenCorp Inc., for the year ended Nov. 30, 2006, recorded 154 pending asbestos-related claims filed against it, compared with 152 claims for the year ended Nov. 30, 2005, according to the Company's annual report, on Form 10-Q, reported to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 25, 2007. For the nine months ended Nov. 30, 2006, the Company had 155 pending asbestos-related cases. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 13, 2006) The Company has been named a defendant in suits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products or in manufacturing operations. Most of the claims have been filed in Madison County, Ill. and San Francisco. Since 1998, more than 200 of these suits have been resolved with the majority being dismissed. For the year ended Nov. 30, 2006, the Company recorded 62 claims filed, 55 claims dismissed, and five claims settled. The aggregate settlement costs were US$67,000 and the average settlement costs were US$14,000. For the year ended Nov. 30, 2005, the Company recorded 149 claims filed, 65 claims dismissed, and two claims settled. The average settlement costs were US$50,000 and the average settlement costs were US$25,000. For fiscal years 2006 and 2005, legal and administrative fees for the cases were US$500,000 and US$1 million for fiscal year 2004. Based in Rancho Cordova, Calif., GenCorp Inc. is a technology- based maker of aerospace and defense systems with a real estate business segment that includes activities related to the entitlement, sale, and leasing of its excess real estate assets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Fin'l Has $2.24B Liability in 4Q06 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., for the three and 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2006, recorded US$2.242 billion as net asbestos-related liability, according to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing reported on Jan. 25, 2007. For the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company estimated its net asbestos-related liability at US$2.254 billion. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 1, 2006) For the three months ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company incurred US$42 million in losses and loss adjustment expenses and paid US$44 million for losses and LAE. For the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company incurred US$314 million in losses and LAE and paid US$363 million for losses and LAE. Based in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. offers personal and commercial property-casualty insurance products, including homeowner, auto, and workers' compensation. Since 1810, the Company has been selling its products through about 11,000 independent agencies and more than 100,000 registered broker-dealers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Reverses Ruling to Favor Wilsons ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, 12th District, Butler County, reversed a decision against the defendants in an asbestos- related lawsuit filed by Barbara Wilson, who represented her deceased husband Chester. The matter has been remanded for further proceeding consistent with the Appeals Court's opinion and in accordance with Ohio law. The Panel, comprised of Judges William W. Young, Stephen W. Powell, and H.J. Bressler, handed down the decision of Case No. CA2006-03-056 on Dec. 18, 2006. From 1964 to April 2000, Chester Wilson worked for A.K. Steel Corp., f/k/a Armco Steel Corp., in Butler County, Ohio. He worked in various jobs around the plant, including the position of furnace tender. A two-or-three-pack-a-day smoker, Mr. Wilson was diagnosed with lung cancer on Aug. 4, 2000. On Dec. 14, 2001, Mr. Wilson sued a number of companies that have been engaged in the mining, processing, manufacturing, or sale, and distribution of asbestos or asbestos-containing products or machinery. The defendants-appellants in this case are 3M Co., Oglebay Norton Co., Certainteed Corp., Union Carbide Corp., CBS Corp., Ingersoll-Rand Corp., Uniroyal Inc., Georgia-Pacific Corp., Cleaver-Brooks Inc., Riley Stoker Corp., Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, and Rapid American Corp. On April 15, 2003, Mr. Wilson died of lung cancer. Mr. Wilson's wife, Barbara Wilson, was substituted as the party in interest for the deceased Mr. Wilson. On Sept. 2, 2004, H.B. 292 went into effect. The key provisions require a plaintiff bringing an asbestos claim to make a prima facie showing that the exposed person has a physical impairment resulting from a medical condition and that the person's exposure to asbestos was a factor to the illness. In March 2005, Mrs. Wilson sought to establish the prima facie showing required under H.B. 292. Appellants opposed. On Aug. 30, 2005, the Butler County Court of Common Pleas heard the parties' assertions regarding Mrs. Wilson's asbestos claim. At the hearing, she acknowledged that her evidence was insufficient to establish the prima facie showing required under H.B. 292. Nevertheless, she argued that H.B. 292 should not apply to her asbestos claim. On Feb. 24, 2006, the Trial Court held that the retroactive application of H.B. 292 was substantive rather than merely remedial in its effect and therefore violated the Ohio Constitution. On March 7, 2006, the Trial Court journalized its order. Appellants appealed from the Trial Court's March 7, 2006 order. The Trial Court ruled that statutes addressing asbestos liability claims could be applied retroactively to Mrs. Wilson's action. She appealed. The Appeals Court held that statutes addressing prima facie showing of asbestos liability were remedial, and thus, retroactive application of statutes did not violate state constitutional provision generally prohibiting retroactive laws. William N. Riley and Christopher Moeller of Price Waicukauski & Riley LLC, John J. McConnell and Vincent L. Greene of Motley, Rice LLC represented Barbara Wilson. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Continues to Face Injury Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Rockwell Automation Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to face lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos used in certain Company products, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 26, 2007. Thousands of claimants are involved in suits that name the Company a co-defendant. However, most of the complaints do not identify any Company product or specify which of these claimants were exposed to asbestos attributable to its products. Moreover, when products appear to be identified, in some cases they are from divested businesses, the Company is indemnified for most of the costs. The Company has agreed to defend and indemnify against asbestos claims associated with products made or sold by its Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services businesses before divestiture by the Company, which is expected to occur on or about Jan. 31, 2007. Historically, the Company has been dismissed from most of these claims with no payment to claimants. The Company has maintained insurance coverage that covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured retentions, for most of these claims. On Feb. 12, 2004, the Company initiated litigation in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court to enforce the insurance policies against Nationwide Indemnity Co. and Kemper Insurance, the insurance carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to the Company's former Allen-Bradley subsidiary. As a result, the insurance carriers have paid some past defense and indemnity costs and have agreed to pay most of future defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. Based in Milwaukee, Rockwell Automation Inc. operates through two segments. Its control systems unit makes industrial automation products. The power systems unit offers power transmission products, bushings, clutches, motor brakes, conveyor pulleys, couplings, bearings, and mechanical drives. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus Metering Still Faces 3rd Party Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sensus Metering Systems Inc. and other third parties still face several lawsuits related to illnesses from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 26, 2007. The complaints did not specify which plaintiffs allegedly were involved with the Company's products. Since the cases are in its initial stages, it is uncertain whether any plaintiffs have asbestos-related illnesses or dealt with the Company's products. It is also uncertain whether any plaintiffs were exposed to an asbestos-containing component part of the Company's product or whether that part could have been a contributing factor to the alleged illness. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the amount of its exposure related to these claims. Based in Raleigh, N.C., Sensus Metering Systems Inc. provides metering and related communications solutions to the utility industry. The Company makes water, gas, heat, and electric meters. The Company was formed on Dec. 17, 2003 through the acquisition of the metering systems and certain other businesses of Invensys plc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $1.079B Liability in 4Q06 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Dow Chemical Co.'s non-current asbestos-related liabilities, in the 2006-4th quarter, were US$1.079 billion, compared with US$1.384 billion in the 2005-4th quarter, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 25, 2007. The Company's non-current asbestos-related liabilities, in the 2006-3rd quarter, were US$1.273 billion. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006) In the 2006-4th quarter, the Company's non-current asbestos- related insurance receivables were US$725 million, compared with US$818 million in the 2005-4th quarter. The Company's non-current asbestos-related insurance receivables, in the 2006-3rd quarter, were US$750 million. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006) In December 2006, Union Carbide Corp., a Company subsidiary, reduced its asbestos-related liability by US$177 million based on a new study completed in the 2006-4th quarter by Analysis, Research & Planning Corp. Based in Midland, Mich., The Dow Chemical Co. offers products and services to customers in more than 175 countries, helping them to provide everything from fresh water, food and pharmaceuticals to paints, packaging and personal care products. The Company has annual sales of US$49 billion and employs 43,000 people worldwide. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Saint-Gobain Notes 7T Claims v. CertainTeed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Compagnie de Saint-Gobain said that about 7,000 asbestos-related claims were filed against its subsidiary CertainTeed Corp. in 2006, up from 2,800 claims in 2005, AFX News reports. The Company in 2006 recorded US$95 million in additional provision, compared with US$100 million in 2005. The average cost per claim was US$3,000. Based in Courbevoie, France, Compagnie de Saint-Gobain produces glass and controls more than 1,000 firms in five sectors: Building Distribution, Construction products, Flat Glass, Packaging, and High-Production Materials. The Company makes 30 billion glass containers annually and provides insulation for 20 percent of U.S. homes. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Locals of Malvern Hills Exposed to Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- A fly-tipper, on Jan. 22, 2007, dumped asbestos on Link Common in Malvern Hills in the United Kingdom, Malvern Gazette reports. Malvern Hills Conservators, who had to employ a specialist firm to collect it, said it looked like the asbestos had come from a garage, which had been disturbed by strong gales. To dispose of the asbestos properly would cost money, so it was dumped when no one was around. Val Moore, of the Conservators, said, "It's a problem we get a lot on the Hills, with people dumping rubbish that they would otherwise have to pay to dump." Although the asbestos was not considered dangerous to people or surrounding wildlife, the Conservators said there was always a risk. The Conservators urge people to be vigilant and to keep an eye out for fly-tippers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEQ to Impose Higher Penalty on Contractor --------------------------------------------------------------- The Montana Department of Environmental Quality had agreed to settle an asbestos-related case against Paul Siewert, the owner of Siewert Construction in Billings, Mont., for a lower sum but he was late with payments and had missed a final deadline, prompting the higher penalty, Billings Gazette reports. The Billings Outpost reported that the Montana 13th Judicial District Court in Yellowstone County ordered Mr. Siewert to pay US$105,575 in civil penalties and interest for violating the Montana Asbestos Control Act. (Class Action Reporter, May 26, 2006) With interest, the penalty has risen to US$109,312. In Billings about four years ago, Mr. Siewert's demolition of five buildings affected more than 5,000 square feet of asbestos material, the DEQ said. The DEQ said Mr. Siewert did not obtain an asbestos-abatement permit, use an accredited contractor for asbestos work or use proper methods for removing asbestos-laced material, like attic insulation. As a result, the DEQ said, people in the area may have been exposed to dispersed asbestos. After evaluating Mr. Siewert's assets, the DEQ agreed to a smaller settlement. The DEQ said that Mr. Siewert did pay US$6,500. He did not come through with the additional US$500 necessary to end the matter, and enforcement specialist Chad Anderson said that Mr. Siewert did not respond to the DEQ's communication about the unpaid sum. DEQ asbestos specialist Pierre Amicucci estimated that compliance with asbestos-control requirements in Montana demolition and renovation projects is less than 10 percent. Mr. Amicucci said that the DEQ lacks the staff for comprehensive enforcement. The trigger for investigations sometimes comes when the unsuccessful bidder for a project checks on work by the winning bidder, observes violations and contacts the DEQ, he said. Over the years, the Montana Contractors' Association has collaborated with the DEQ in providing programs to inform contractors about asbestos removal and abatement, said Cary Hegreberg, executive director of the association. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. AG Sues Chippewa Loft LLC for Release --------------------------------------------------------------- Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, on Jan. 25, 2007, said that her office has filed a complaint with the Illinois Pollution Control Board alleging that Chippewa Loft LLC may have allowed dangerous asbestos fibers to be released into the air during renovation of a downtown building, the Illinois Attorney General's office reports. Filed on Jan. 22, 2007, Ms. Madigan's complaint seeks an order prohibiting Chippewa from further violations of the law, a civil penalty of US$50,000 for each violation and an additional penalty of US$10,000 for each day the violations continued. In March 2005, Chippewa began renovating its building at 113 East Clay Street. About 3,700 square feet of asbestos-containing floor tiles were removed. However, Chippewa failed to file the required 10-day written notification with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency prior to beginning work. Soon after renovation began, an IEPA inspection revealed debris within and on the ground around two open dumpsters at the rear of the building. The inspection showed that machines had been used to chip and crush the debris, which allegedly had not been wetted. An IEPA analysis of five samples revealed asbestos in the range of six to 12 percent. Regulated asbestos containing material (RACM) contains more than one percent asbestos and is generally friable, or, when dry, can be crumbled and reduced to powder. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) require that RACM must be adequately wetted during removal and collected in leak-tight wrapping for disposal. Ms. Madigan's complaint alleges that Chippewa violated these regulations as well as air pollution laws. Her complaint also alleges that Chippewa failed to pay the required NESHAP fee prior to beginning renovation. Assistant AG Jennifer Bonkowski is handling the case for Ms. Madigan's Environmental Bureau. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Seoul Metro to Remove Hazard on 17 Subways --------------------------------------------------------------- Seoul Metro, the subway operator owned by the City of Seoul, South Korea, said, on Jan. 22, 2007, that it will remove all asbestos-containing materials in subway stations after the walls and ceilings of many subway stations were coated with asbestos, The Hankyoreh reports. The Korea Times reported that inspections conducted by Seoul Metro on 30 Korean subway stations, in November 2006, revealed that 17 stations had asbestos in the ceilings and platforms. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 26, 2007) However, experts said that it is almost impossible for South Korean officials to safely remove all asbestos materials in subway stations due to a lack of specialists trained to do so. Moreover, no official license exists in South Korea certifying that a company is trained to remove asbestos materials. Since 2003, the Ministry of Labor has passed legislation that would require a company or workers to receive the government's official permission in order to remove asbestos materials, in the form of a special license denoting they had received proper training to perform the task. Seok Mi-hi, CEO of ETS Consulting said, "No South Korean company exists right now to remove asbestos on the walls and ceilings of a subway station with the guarantee of safety." Mr. Seok said foreign companies with such expertise should help Seoul Metro remove the asbestos. Moreover, there is no South Korean workforce to remove asbestos. Therefore, workers' expertise is critical to removing the asbestos with safety. However, no training program exists in South Korea to teach such skills. According to Choi Sang-jun, a researcher at the Wonjin Institute for Occupational and Environmental Health, "There are only three to five institutions in South Korea that can appropriately assess the content of asbestos." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Records $459.5M Liability in 4Q06 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co.'s long-term asbestos-related liability, as of Dec. 31, 2006, was US$459,567,000, compared with US$536,830,000 as of Dec. 31, 2005, according to a Company report, on Form 10-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 29, 2007. As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$486,899,000. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 15, 2006) As of Dec. 31, 2005, the Company's current asbestos-related liability was US$70 million, compared with US$55 million as of Dec. 31, 2005. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance receivable was US$170,400,000, compared with US$224,600,000 as of Dec. 31, 2005. As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's asbestos-related insurance receivable was US$214,626,000. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 15, 2006) As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's current asbestos-related insurance receivable is US$52,500,000, compared with US$10 million as of Dec. 31, 2005. Asbestos-related payments, net of insurance recoveries, for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2006 was US$10,606,000, compared with US$20,782,000 as of Dec. 31, 2005. Asbestos-related payments, net of insurance recoveries, for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006 was US$40,563,000, compared with US$45,338,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005. Based in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. makes various 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 Records 85,941 Pending Claims in 4Q06 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded 85,941 claims filed against it, compared with 89,017 claims as of Dec. 31, 2005, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 29, 2007. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 4,853 new claims, 1,043 settlements, and 6,886 dismissals. As of Dec. 31, 2005, the Company noted 7,986 new claims, 1,829 settlements, and 2,117 dismissals. Of the 85,941 pending claims as of Dec. 31, 2006, about 25,000 claims were pending in New York, about 28,000 claims were pending in Mississippi, about 9,000 claims were pending in Texas, and about 4,000 claims were pending in Ohio. Since the termination of the comprehensive master settlement agreement on Jan. 24, 2005, the Company has been resolving claims filed against it in the tort system. Substantially all of the claims the Company resolved are through settlements. The gross settlement and defense costs incurred, before insurance and tax effects, for the Company in the year ended Dec. 31, 2006 was US$69.1 million, US$45.1 million in the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, and US$40.9 million in the year ended Dec. 31, 2004. The Company's total pre-tax cash payments for settlement and defense costs, net of payments from insurers and including certain legal fees and expenses relating to the terminated MSA in the year ended Dec. 31, 2006 was US$40.6 million, US$45.3 million in the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, and US$28.1 million in the year ended Dec. 31, 2004. 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 US$33 million. Under the agreement, US$1.5 million was paid to the Company in 2005-3rd quarter. The balance was placed into escrow for the payment of future asbestos claims and funds remaining in escrow were paid to the Company on Jan. 4, 2007. 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 were also to establish 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 under which Everest's insurance coverage obligations for asbestos claims under 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 this 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. Effective Sept. 7, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in- place agreement with Sentry Insurance, regarding an excess policy issued by Sentry's predecessor, Dairyland Insurance Co. Effective Dec. 20, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in- place agreement with Employers Insurance of Wausau and Nationwide Indemnity Co. in its capacity as claims administrator for Wausau, establishing an arrangement for asbestos claims under the Company's excess policies with Wausau, and providing for initial payments totaling US$2.6 million for claims billed to Wausau through Nov. 30, 2006. The Company has received US$1.5 million of that amount, with the balance to be paid in February 2007. Effective Dec. 22, 2006, the Company and Century Indemnity Co. and ACE Property and Casualty Co. entered into an agreement, which established a coverage-in-place arrangement for asbestos claims under the Company's excess policies with Century Indemnity and ACE. Based in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. makes various 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's Appeal in Norris Litigation Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co.'s appeal to a judgment in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Joseph Norris against it remains pending, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 29, 2007. Attorneys for the family of Mr. Norris said the former U.S. Navy gunner's mate died in August 2006 of mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos in the gaskets and packing materials while aboard the U.S.S. Bremerton in the 1950s. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 22, 2006) The Company tried the Norris claim to verdict in the Los Angeles Superior Court, however, and received an adverse jury verdict on Sept. 15, 2006. On Oct. 10, 2006 the Court entered judgment on this verdict against the Company in the amount of US$2.15 million, together with interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum until paid. The Company's post-trial motions were denied by order dated Dec. 15, 2006. On Jan. 3, 2007, the Company appealed the judgment. The appeal is pending. Based in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. makes various 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: Conn. Insurance Suit v. Crane Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. continues to face an asbestos-related insurance suit, filed on Jan. 21, 2005, by five of its 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. The Amended Complaint sought: (i) Declaratory relief regarding the Company's rights to coverage 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, ruling that the injunctive claims were not unripe. Nonetheless, 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 and Everest reached a settlement agreement pursuant to which Everest's insurance coverage obligations for asbestos claims under the three historical Everest policies issued to Crane Co. were released in exchange for a US$3.8 million cash payment, which was received by the Company on April 21, 2006. Effective Dec. 22, 2006, the Company and two of the other plaintiffs in the action, Century Indemnity Co. and ACE Property and Casualty Co., reached an agreement pursuant to which they established a coverage-in-place arrangement for asbestos claims under the Company's excess policies with Century Indemnity and ACE. Based in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. makes various 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: Open Claims v. BNS Holding Inc. Drop to 196 ---------------------------------------------------------------- BNS Holding Inc., as of Jan. 26, 2007, recorded 196 known open and active asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-QSB, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 29, 2007. As of Oct. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 234 known open and active asbestos-related claims. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2006. As of Jan. 26, 2007, the Company's BNS Co. subsidiary has been notified that it has been named a defendant in 669 known asbestos-related toxic-tort claims since 1994. In many cases, these claims involve more than 100 other defendants, in which 54 claims were filed before Dec. 31, 2001. In 2006, 64 claims were filed. As of Jan. 26, 2007, five more claims were filed. As of Dec. 31, 2006, six more claims were granted summary judgment and were closed, five claims were settled for an aggregate of US$2,600 and 119 more claims have been dismissed. The Company receives claims from time to time for toxic-tort injuries related to the alleged use of asbestos in pumps sold by its former pump division, which was sold in 1992. Most of these suits are toxic-tort claims from the use of small internal seals that allegedly had asbestos and were used in small fluid pumps made by the Company's former pump division. BNS Co. annually receives retroactive billings or credits from its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims reserves as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate settlement and defense costs for the then-existing claims are revised. Moreover, the Company has recorded a liability of US$569,000 on the consolidated balance sheet relating to the open and active claims against BNS Co. as of Oct. 31, 2006. Based in Middletown, R.I., BNS Holding Inc. became a holding company for BNS Co. in December 2004. BNS Co. was engaged in the metrology business and the design, manufacture, and sale of precision measuring tools and instruments, and manual and computer controlled measuring machines. BNS Co. sold its remaining assets in June 2004. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allis-Chalmers Still Faces Liability Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc. continues to face product liability lawsuits alleging personal injuries, involving asbestos, from its activities before its reorganization, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 29, 2007. These claims are referred to and handled by a special products liability trust formed to be responsible for those claims in connection with the Company's reorganization. Based in Houston, Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc. provides services and equipment to oil and natural gas exploration and production companies. The Company operates in six sectors: rental tools, directional drilling services, casing and tubing services, compressed air drilling services, international drilling, and production services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Graham Corp. Continues to Face Injury Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Graham Corp. continues to defend against certain lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos in its products, according to the Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 30, 2007. The Company is a co-defendant with other defendants in these suits. The claims are similar to previous asbestos suits that named the Company as a defendant. Those previous suits either were dismissed when it was shown that the Company had not supplied products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were settled by the Company for minimal amounts below expected defense costs. Based in Batavia, N.Y., Graham Corp. makes vacuum systems, pumps, compressors, and heat exchangers designed to create vacuums, condense steam, or produce heat. The Company sells its equipment to manufacturers in the petroleum, plastics, chemicals, food processing, and other industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Liability Stays at $512.5M in 4Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, recorded an asbestos-related liability of US$512.5 million, according to a Company press release, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 31, 2007. As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded a US$512.5 million asbestos settlement liability, unchanged from Sept. 30, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 3, 2006) For the quarters and the years ended Dec. 31, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, the Company's effect of assumed issuance of asbestos settlement shares was US$9 million. Based in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corp.'s Food Packaging segment produces Cryovac shrink films, absorbent pads, and foam trays. The Company's Protective Packaging segment produces Bubble Wrap, Instapak foam, Jiffy envelopes, and Rapid Fill inflatable packaging systems. ********* 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, Ma. Cristina Canson, Janice Mendoza, and Guada Fe Fernandez, Editors. Copyright 2007. 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 * * *