/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070302.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 2, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 44 Headlines ALLSTATE INSURANCE: El Pasoans to Get Refunds in "DeHoyos" Deal AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Pa. Court Transfers Securities Suit to Ariz. ARKANSAS: Lawsuit to Restore $4M Fort Smith Funds Continues ARKANSAS: Split Verdict Reached in Suit Against Van Buren School CANADA: Caledonia Land Row Suit Certification Hearing Set June CANADA: Montreal Airport Continues to Face Noise Pollution Suit CASH AMERICA: Insists on Arbitration in Ga. Payday Loans Suit CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Lawsuit for Alleged Illegal VAT Charges CERUS CORP: Calif. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement FORD MOTOR: Proceedings Schedule in Mich. ERISA Suit in Place FORD MOTOR: Settles S.C. Lawsuit Over 6.0-Liter Diesel Engine FUJITEC CANADA: People Injured in Elevator Crash File Lawsuit GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Lawsuit in Wash. Over Faulty Speedometers GENERAL MOTORS: Several Dex-Cool Lawsuits Denied Certification HOME DEPOT: Venue for Missouri Shopper's Lawsuit in Contention ILLINOIS: Settles Nursing Home Residents' Discrimination Lawsuit INSURERS: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Reimbursement Rates LEAR CORP: Faces Lawsuits Over Planned $2.31B Sale to Mr. Icahn MCDONALD'S CORP: Dismissal of Ill. Securities Suit Under Appeal MCDONALD'S CORP: Suit Claiming Products Cause Obesity Continues MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Seeks U.S. Supreme Court Review of "Williams" PELAGIC PRESSURE: Recalls Dive Computers to Upgrade Software QUIZNOS FRANCHISE: Accused of Misrepresenting Mich. Contracts SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGY: Focus Cases Decertification Under Appeal SOUTH CAROLINA: Class Status Possible in Suit Against Georgetown ST PAUL: Motion to Dismiss Brokerage Antitrust Suit Pending TELLABS INC: Renews Bid to Dismiss Suit by Savings Plan Members TELLABS INC: High Court to Hear Securities Suit Appeal March 28 THAILAND: Investors Group Pushes for Reforms to Protect Rights UNITED STATES: CAFA's Effectiveness Still Vague, Experts Say * Lakin Firm Partner Sues for Breach of Business Agreement * Lord, Bissell Names Partner-in-Charge for Los Angeles Office Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aqua-Chem's $10M Claim v. Coca-Cola Pending ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Con Edison Records $10M Accrued Liabilities ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Ind. Records 31.3T Abex Claims in 4Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Records $21M Claims Provision ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. PPG Industries Drop to 114T in 4Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Reserves $1.38B for Claims in 4Q06 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Face Cases With 6T Plaintiffs ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Energy Has $4.1M Cleanup Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ENSCO Still Has Multi-Party Suits in Miss. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Faces 31,417 Claims in 4Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mittal Steel Co. to Spend $108M for Removal ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Orchard Ind. Faces 10T Suits from Vapor ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Temple-Inland Inc.'s Settlements Total $1M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Face 647 Pending Cases in 4Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Suit in Miss. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Has $1.452B for Claims in 4Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Mulls Guarding CNA from Future Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Deals with Keasbey Action in N.Y. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Still Faces Burns & Roe Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Units Still Face Actions in Tex. Courts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Claims v. Continental Casualty ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Has Suit Filed by 8 Grace Workers ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $1.391B Liability in 4Q06 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Still Faces Claims v. Fel-Pro ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $699M Recoverable for T&N ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abex & Wagner Have $213.6M Liability in 4Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Still Faces BCT Action in Conn. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Reserves $2.25B for Claims in 4Q06 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Reserves $37.13M for Liabilities ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Group in Arbitration v. Equitas ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Group Inc. in Arbitration v. Ace ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Premises, Product Claims v. FMC Drop to 32T ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wis. Woman Sues 79 Defendants in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New Caledonia Gov't to Ban Use of Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Sues 46 Companies for Husband's Death ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Salvation Army to Pay $77T for CAA Breaches ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Records $181M for Liabilities in 4Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Has Respirator Coverage Action in Minn. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SDG&E, Workers Charged for Breaching Safety ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Units Continue to Face Exposure Claims New Securities Fraud Cases CELESTICA INC: Goldman Scarlato Announces Securities Suit Filing NEW CENTURY: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suits Filing NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Charles Johnson Announces Securities Suit OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Ademi Announces Securities Suit Filing in N.Y. OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Federman Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Roy Jacobs Announces Securities Suit Filing OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing ********* ALLSTATE INSURANCE: El Pasoans to Get Refunds in "DeHoyos" Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- African American and Hispanic customers of Allstate Insurance Co. in El Paso could qualify for refunds of $50 to $150 as part of a settlement in the insurance scoring lawsuit filed against the insurer, the El Paso Times (Texas) reports. Judge Fred Biery of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas recently granted final approval to the settlement (Class Action Report, Feb. 19, 2007). The American Community Survey shows El Paso County is 84.2 percent Hispanic and/or black and the company carries about 80,000 policies here, according to Joseph McCormick, senior corporate relations manager of Allstate's Texas region. Mr. McCormick also emphasized that not all black and Hispanic policyholders will qualify for the refund. The case, filed in 2001 in U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas San Antonio division, was brought by seven individual Allstate customers seeking to represent a nationwide class of African-American and Hispanic individuals who were issued automobile and/or homeowners insurance policies by Allstate- affiliated companies. The plaintiffs claim that they were discriminated against in violation of federal civil rights laws, including the Fair Housing Act, by allegedly being charged higher premiums based on Allstate's use of information from their credit reports. In June 2006, Judge Biery preliminarily approved a settlement agreement (Class Action Reporter, June 5, 2006). Under the terms of the settlement, Allstate will take these actions: -- Allstate will roll out a new insurance scoring algorithm; -- in states where Allstate uses information from credit reports to rate policies, Allstate will provide its customers with the opportunity to have an insurance policy priced using its new insurance scoring algorithm; -- Allstate will make its new insurance scoring algorithm publicly available; -- Allstate will deliver a comprehensive credit education program to class members, which provides valuable information, including the many different types of business transactions where information from credit reports is used today and how class members can improve their credit position; -- Allstate will adopt an appeals program under which all customers who experience extraordinary events that negatively impact their credit history information can potentially obtain premium reductions; -- Allstate will increase the substantial percentage of its national media spend devoted to targeted multicultural marketing in its continued efforts to make the widest range of consumers aware of its insurance products; and -- Class members will be entitled to apply for a one-time monetary payment. Eligibility for this payment will be determined based on a comparison of the insurance scoring group assigned to his or her Allstate policy and the insurance scoring group assigned under the insurance scoring algorithm that will be implemented pursuant to this Settlement. Judge Biery said that settlement was "powerful" and cited that it allowed "individuals as private litigants to challenge and ultimately change corporate practices they regard as discriminatory and as a result to bring about important social change." Judge Biery also approved fees and expenses of $11.72 million for plaintiffs' lawyers. The company denied that it discriminates against the groups, but agreed to refund customers and modify its pricing model. "The scoring model does not know the race or ethnicity of the policyholder," said Allstate spokesman Michael Trevino. "It's not relevant to us." He said Allstate settled the lawsuit to put the litigation to rest and move forward. In addition to refunding customers, Allstate will launch an advertising campaign aimed at people of color and make its pricing model public, Corinna Spencer-Scheurich, a consumer rights lawyer with the Civil Rights Project in McAllen, said. The company will also create a process by which customers can appeal rate increases when changes in their lives could cause financial strain, she said. Such changes would include but are not limited to divorce, domestic violence and unemployment. The suit is "Jose DeHoyos, et al. v. Allstate Corp., et al., Case No. 5:01-cv-01010-FB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas under Judge Fred Biery. Representing the defendants are: (1) Richard Fenton and Jeffrey Lennard of Sonnenshein, Nath & Rosenthal, 8000 Sears Tower, 233 South Wacker, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000, Fax: (312) 876-7934; (2) Richard C. Godfrey of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 6048, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861-2391, Fax: 312/660-0194; (3) Roger D. Higgins of Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, 700 N. Pearl Street, 25th Floor Dallas, TX 75201-2832, Phone: (214) 871-8200, Fax: 214/871-8209; (4) Maryanne Lyons of Baker & Botts, LLP, 3000 One Shell Plaza 910 Louisiana, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: (713) 229-1255, Fax: 713/229-1522; (5) Rod Phelan of Baker & Botts, 800 Trammell Crow Center, 2001 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX 75201-8001, Fax: 214/661- 4609, E-mail: rod.phelan@bakerbotts.com; (6) Tony P. Rosenstein of Baker & Botts, 3000 One Shell Plaza 910 Louisiana, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: (713) 229-1582, Fax: 713/229-7782, E-mail: tony.rosenstein@bakerbotts.com; and (7) Kevin M. Sadler of Baker Botts, LLP, 98 San Jacinto Blvd. Suite 1500, Austin, TX 78701-4039, Phone:(512) 322-2500, Fax: 512/322-2501, E-mail: kevin.sadler@bakerbotts.com. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Douglas Bowdoin of Beusse, Brownlee, Bowdoin & Wolter, 390 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 2500, Orlando, FL 32801, \ Phone: (407) 926-7713, Fax: 407/926-7720; (2) Andrew S. Friedman of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C., 4041 N. Central, Suite 1100, Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311, Phone: (602)274-1100, Fax: 602/274-1199, E- mail: afriedman@bffb.com; (3) W. Christian Hoyer of James, Hoyer, Newcomer, & Smiljanich, P.A., One Urban Centre, Suite 550, 4830 West Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, FL 33609, Fax: 813/286-4174; (4) Robert Q. Keith of Keith & Weber, P.C., 1450 Cypress Valley Ranch, Cypress Mill, TX 78663-8619, Fax: 830/825-3457; (5) John J. Stoia, Jr. 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; (6) Ron Parry of Parry Deering Futscher & Sparks, PSC, 441 Garrard Street, Covington, KY 41011, Phone: (859)291- 9000, Fax: (859)291-9300; (7) Daniel J.T. Sciano of Tinsman & Houser, 700 N. St. Mary's St., 1400 One Riverwalk Place, San Antonio, TX 78205, Phone: (210) 225-3121, Fax: 210/225-6235, E- mail: dsciano@tsslawyers.com; and (8) Joe R. Whatley of Whatley Drake LLC, 2323 2nd Avene North Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: (205)328-9576, Fax: 205/328-9669. AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Pa. Court Transfers Securities Suit to Ariz. -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania transferred a securities fraud class action filed against Amkor Technology, Inc. to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, according to the company's Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006. On Jan. 23, 2006, a purported securities class action, "Nathan Weiss et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc. et al.," was filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers. Subsequently, other law firms have filed related cases, which will likely be consolidated with the initial complaint. In August 2006 and again in November 2006, the plaintiffs amended the complaint. Plaintiffs added additional officer, director and former director defendants and allege improprieties in certain option grants. The amended complaint further alleges that defendants improperly recorded and accounted for the options in violation of generally accepted accounting principles and made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in its disclosures in violation of the federal securities laws, during the period from July 2001 to July 2006. The amended complaint seeks certification as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23, compensatory damages, costs and expenses, and such other further relief as the court deems just and proper. On Dec. 28, 2006, pursuant to motion by defendants, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania transferred this action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The suit is "In Re: Amkor Technology Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-00610-LP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Louis H. Pollak with referral to Judge M. Faith Angell. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Jacob A. Goldberg of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, P.O. Box 30132, Elkins Park, PA 19027, Phone: 215-782-8235, E- mail: jgoldberg@faruqilaw.com; and (2) Evan J. Smith of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-6200, E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Patrick Loftus of Duane Morris, LLP, 30 South 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396, Phone: 215-979- 1367, E-mail: loftus@duanemorris.com; and (ii) Karen T. Stefano of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, US, Phone: 650-849-3405, E-mail: kstefano@wsgr.com. ARKANSAS: Lawsuit to Restore $4M Fort Smith Funds Continues ----------------------------------------------------------- The state Supreme Court heard arguments by plaintiffs' lawyer in a suit against the city of Fort Smith over alleged illegal transfer of funds, the Arkansas News Bureau reports. The suit originally accuses the city of improperly using its share of countywide sales tax. The suit was dismissed in circuit court in October, but was revived by the high court. The portion of the suit alleging illegal fund transfers was remanded to the circuit court. Judge James Marschewski dismissed that claim in December 2005. The plaintiffs are appealing that ruling and are seeking an order for the city to restore $4 million to utility funds. The suit accuses the city of violating state law in 1996 when it took $2 million from both the sanitation department and the water and sewer department and put the money into the general fund to help pay for a new police station. Fayetteville lawyer Marshall Dale Evans, who represents the plaintiffs, told the court the city did not have a surplus in its utility funds to allow it to transfer money for other purposes. As a result, he said, Fort Smith residents' utility rates were raised to pay for a police station, not utilities. The court has not made any ruling. Fort Smith board member Bill Maddox is the first of several named plaintiffs in the suit. He was not on the board when the suit was filed in 2000. ARKANSAS: Split Verdict Reached in Suit Against Van Buren School ---------------------------------------------------------------- A split verdict on six issues was handed down in a jury trial of a 2003 breach of contract suit filed by a former teacher against the Van Buren School District. The six questions that Crawford County Circuit Circuit Judge Mike Medlock posed before the jurors in the case were: -- whether the district's school day was 7:45 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.; -- whether teachers were denied the 30-minute, duty-free lunch period that state law mandates for three separate time periods: * 1998-2001, * 2001-05, and * 2005-07 -- whether teachers at Butterfield School are limited to a 25-minute lunch period; and -- whether the passing period -- the five minutes between classes during a school day -- should be considered noninstructional duty time. The jury sided with the plaintiff in answering no on the question of whether the district's school day was 7:45 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. It agreed that teachers were denied the 30-minute, duty-free lunch period that state law mandates for 1998-2001 and 2001-05. But the jurors said the teachers were not denied the 30-minute, duty-free lunch period that state law mandates for 2005-07. They affirmed that teachers at Butterfield School are limited to a 25-minute lunch period and should be compensated for the five minutes lost rather than the entire 30-minute period. They also said that the passing period is not considered noninstructional duty time. The split verdict left both sides claiming victory in the case, according to The Springdale Morning News. Former Coleman Junior High civics teacher Steve Jones filed the case against the school district on Aug. 22, 2003. He filed it along with another teacher, Allen Wolfe, asking for payment to teachers who had worked uncompensated duty time. Mr. Wolfe settled his claim and was dismissed from the lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 9, 2006). The lawsuit covers any certified teacher working for the school district between August 1998 and present who has performed "uncompensated non-instructional duties." Judge Mike Medlock granted class-action status to that case back in 2005, allowing about 500 Van Buren teachers to join the lawsuit. Attorneys Brian Meadors and Mark Burnette, who both represent Mr. Jones, claim that Mr. Jones was unfairly dismissed from his position for making critical statements about the school district in violation of his civil rights. In April 2006, two claims were added to the lawsuit: -- an appeal of Mr. Jones' termination under the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act; and -- an allegation of a violation of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. Attempts at negotiating a settlement for the case ended in Feb. 13, when the school board voted 6-0 against accepting an offer that would have involved a $400,000 payment by the district. Thus, the case was tried on Feb. 22 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 16, 2006). Mr. Meadors said the value of the judgment secured by his clients would exceed that of the proposed $400,000 settlement that was rejected by the Van Buren School Board. Mr. Jones is asking for compensation for the duty time, pre- and post-judgment interest and reasonable attorney's fees, costs and other relief to which he and the class are entitled. He is also asking for compensatory and punitive damages. For more details, contact: (1) C. Brian Meadors of Pryor, Robertson & Barry, PLLC, 315 North 7th Street, P.O. Drawer 848, Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0848, Phone: 479-782-8813 and 479-782-7911, Fax: 479-785-0254, Web Site: http://www.prblaw.com;and (2) Mark T. Burnette of Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers & Sneddon, PLLC, 1010 West Third Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-1510, (Pulaski Co.), Phone: 501-378-7870, Fax: 501-375-1940, Web site: http://www.mbbwi.com. CANADA: Caledonia Land Row Suit Certification Hearing Set June -------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing on the certification of a suit over the occupation of the Douglas Creek Estates in Caledonia is set for June before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, it emerged in a letter by John Findlay, Findlay McCarthy LLP, to The Hamilton Spectator. The letter clarified that Caledonia resident David Hartless is not a plaintiff in the suit as stated in an article, and that Mr. Hartless is not a member of the Caledonia Class Action Committee. According to the letter, he was only mentioned in the claim as a victim of an assault by occupants. In June, Mr. Findlay represented two unnamed businesses in Caledonia that filed a class action complaining of financial losses arising from a road closure after native protesters barricaded roads to the Douglas Creek Estates property in 2006 (Class Action Reporter, July 20, 2006). The suit was filed on June 12 against the Corporation of Haldimand County, the Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Gwen Boniface and the Cayuga Detachment Commander of the OPP. The Government of Ontario was put on notice as additional defendant. The suit is based on the alleged failure of the parties to keep roads open and follow court injunctions issued in March to remove the protesters from Douglas Creek Estates. CANADA: Montreal Airport Continues to Face Noise Pollution Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Non-profit group Citizens for a Quality of Life is waiting for a ruling in an appeal concerning a class action they filed in 2001 against Aeroports de Montreal for excessive noise and nuisance, The Suburban reports. The suit was denied certification in 2004. The group filed an appeal in 2005. Aeroports de Montreal last fall modified flight plans to improve noise for people living in St. Laurent, according to the report. CASH AMERICA: Insists on Arbitration in Ga. Payday Loans Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Cash America International Inc. filed a motion to stay and compel arbitration in a class action over payday loans that was filed against the company in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia. On Aug. 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action against Georgia Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc., Daniel R. Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders" of Cash America. The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the most significant of which is that Cash America has been making illegal payday loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Community State Bank for some time made loans to Georgia residents through Cash America's Georgia operating locations. The complaint in this lawsuit claims that Community State Bank is not the true lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers and that its involvement in the process is "a mere subterfuge." Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America is the "de facto" lender and is illegally operating in Georgia. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages. The parties are currently in dispute over the scope of the discovery requests made by the plaintiffs, and Cash America has appealed a recent State Court discovery ruling on this issue. Cash America is also seeking enforcement of the arbitration provisions and has filed a motion to stay and compel arbitration with the state court, according to its Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006. Cash America International, Inc., on the Net: http://www.cashamerica.com. CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Lawsuit for Alleged Illegal VAT Charges ------------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. was served with a lawsuit filed in the District Court of Tel-Aviv by a plaintiff who claims to be a subscriber of the company. The plaintiff requests certification of the lawsuit as a class action. The plaintiff claims that the company unlawfully collected Value Added Tax from its subscribers who are residents of the city of Eilat in Israel and that the company misled and failed to disclose the same. If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the amount claimed is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately $7.8 million, calculated by multiplying an alleged damage of about $1,566 per subscriber by the number of the subscribers allegedly damaged, estimated by the plaintiff to be at least 5,000. The plaintiff is maintaining the right to increase the sum after receiving further information. At this preliminary stage, the company is unable to assess the lawsuit's chances of success. It is noted that on May 2001 a lawsuit and a request for certification of the lawsuit as a class action, alleging, inter alia, that the company unlawfully collected Value Added Taxes from its subscribers who were residents of or while staying at the city of Eilat in Israel, were denied with the consent of the plaintiffs therein. For more information, contact Shiri Israeli, Cellcom Israel Ltd Investor Relations Coordinator, Phone: +972-52-998-9755, E-mail: investors@cellcom.co.il; or Ehud Helft and Ed Job, CCGK Investor Relations Investor Relations Contacts, Phone: (US)+1-866-704- 6710/1 or +1-646-213-1914, E-mail: ehud@gkir.com or ed.job@ccgir.com, Website: http://www.cellcom.co.il/Cultures/en- US/InvestorRelations. CERUS CORP: Calif. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval to a settlement of a securities fraud class action filed against Cerus Corp. and its current and former directors and officers. On Aug. 31, 2006, the company announced that it had reached an agreement to settle the class action, pending since 2003. The amended and consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants had violated the federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading predictions regarding the initiation and completion of clinical trials, submission of regulatory filings, receipt of regulatory approval and other milestones in the development of the platelet, plasma and red blood cell systems. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's securities during the period from Dec. 9, 2000, through Jan. 30, 2003. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the plaintiffs in the class action will release defendants from all known and unknown claims related to such litigation, without any admission of wrongdoing or liability by any party. Under the settlement agreement, the total cash settlements will be funded entirely by insurance carriers under the company's directors' and officers' liability insurance policy and will have no financial impact on the company itself. On Feb. 16, the court granted final approval to the class action settlement, according to the company's Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006. The suit is "In re Cerus Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:03-cv-05517-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel. Representing the plaintiffs are Patrick J. Coughlin and William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288- 4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, E-mail: patc@mwbhl.com or billl@lerachlaw.com. Representing the defendants are Terri Garland and Raymond M. Hasu of Morrison & Foerster, 425 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-2482, Phone: 415-268-7000, E-mail: rhasu@mofo.com or tgarland@mofo.com. FORD MOTOR: Proceedings Schedule in Mich. ERISA Suit in Place ------------------------------------------------------------- Parties to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action filed against Ford Motor Co. submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan a status report for the case "Nowak et al. v. Ford Motor Co. et al, Case No. 4:06-cv-11718-PVG-SDP." Pursuant to Magistrate Judge Steven D. Pepe's Dec. 22, 2006 order appointing interim lead plaintiffs and co-lead and liaison counsel, the parties have met and conferred on numerous occasions regarding a proposed schedule of pretrial proceedings. Agreement among the parties has been reached on most issues, including a schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint and any opposition thereto. The parties are still negotiating the production of certain information and documentation related to the pension plans at issue in order to focus properly plaintiffs' claims in any consolidated complaint. It is the intention of the parties to complete discussions/negotiations in the very near future and present a proposed schedule to the court for consideration and entry. On April 7, 2006, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan naming as defendants Ford Motor and several of the company's current or former employees and officers. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated ERISA by failing to prudently and loyally manage funds held in employee savings plans sponsored by Ford. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege among other claims that the defendants violated fiduciary duties owed to plan participants by continuing to offer Ford Common Stock as an investment option in the savings plans. On Dec. 22, 2006, Judge Pepe appointed Keller Rohrback L.L.P. interim co-lead counsel for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action brought on behalf of the participants and beneficiaries in the Ford Salaried Plan and the Ford Hourly Plan who held and/or purchased Ford Motor Co. stock in their Plan accounts between April 15, 2000 to the present (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2007). Magistrate Judge Pepe appointed Keller Rohrback L.L.P., together with the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, as Interim Co- Lead Counsel. The firm of Stephen F. Wasinger, PLC was appointed as Interim Liaison Counsel. The defendants deny the plaintiffs' allegations, and intend to defend this matter vigorously. The suit is "Nowak et al. v. Ford Motor Co. et al., Case No. 4:06-cv-11718-PVG-SDP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Paul V. Gadola with referral to Judge Steven D. Pepe. Representing plaintiffs are: (1) Elizabeth A. Leland, Derek W. Loeser and Lynn L. Sarko, all of Keller Rohrback (Seattle), 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-1900, Fax: 206-623-3384, E-mail: bleland@kellerrohrback.com or dloeser@kellerrohrback.com or lsarko@kellerrohrback.com; and (2) Joseph H. Meltzer and Gerald D. Wells, III, both of Schiffrin, Barroway, (Radnor), 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087-5108, Phone: 610-667-7056. Representing defendants are Michelle Thurber Czapski of Dickinson Wright (Detroit), 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000, Detroit, MI 48226-3425, Phone: 313-223-3500, E-mail: mczapski@dickinsonwright.com; and Gary S. Tell of O'Melveny & Myers (Washington), 1625 Eye St., NW, Washington, DC 20006-4001, Phone: 202-383-5315, Fax: 202-383-5414. FORD MOTOR: Settles S.C. Lawsuit Over 6.0-Liter Diesel Engine ------------------------------------------------------------- Ford Motor Co. reached a settlement with Cox House Moving Inc. of Spartanburg, South Carolina, regarding a complaint that Ford sold a potentially defective heavy-duty, 6.0-liter diesel engine installed in more than 350,000 trucks across the country, Upstate.com reports. U.S. District Judge Henry M. Herlong has dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice on the condition that the settlement is executed. The settlement is confidential, said attorney Pat Knie, who represented Cox House Moving. The suit alleges claims for breach of express warranty and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. It was filed last year. The plaintiff had purchased a 2004 Ford F-550 Super Duty Truck equipped with a 6.0-liter Power Stroke diesel engine. Soon after the plaintiff purchased the truck, it began to experience problems with engine performance, including rough running, vehicle shuddering, reduction and loss of power, engine shut- down, leaking oil, and smoking. Ford rebuilt the engine in the truck and ultimately replaced the engine in January 2006. However, the plaintiff alleges that the engine continues to have problems. Due to the engine problems, the plaintiff has been unable to use the truck for a total of four months. The plaintiff alleges that the engine is defective. An express warranty was provided with the purchase of the truck "which warranted that Ford would repair, replace or adjust all parts on vehicles that are defective in factory-supplied materials or workmanship." However, the plaintiff alleges that the problems associated with the engine "are of an inherent and permanent nature" and "cannot be satisfactorily corrected by repairs or replacement of parts to the engine." The plaintiff argues that these engine problems are not unique to the plaintiff. In addition to the problems with the plaintiff's engine, the plaintiff submits that other individuals have experienced problems with the engine including problems with "the fuel system, fuel injectors, oil leaks, broken turbochargers, wiring harness troubles, faulty sensors, defective exhaust gas recirculation valves, and faulty computers." Moreover, the plaintiff asserts that the engine problems will require the plaintiff and other putative class members to incur substantial repair costs in the future and will significantly lower the vehicle's resale value. The plaintiff alleges that this "proposed class action seeks damages against Defendant, Ford, for breach of express and implied warranty arising from the production of a defective 6.0 liter PowerStroke diesel engine." On Nov. 6, 2006, the court denied certification to the suit. The court said the plaintiff has failed to allege a specific, common defect in the engine that causes the problems that allegedly plague the engine. The court dismissed the plaintiff's negligence and injunctive relief claims in a written order dated August 8, 2006. The suit, C.A. No. 7:06-1218-HMH, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Spartanburg Division. FUJITEC CANADA: People Injured in Elevator Crash File Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- People who suffered injuries when an elevator made by Fujitec Canada Inc. fell five floors in the Canada Life Tower in January have launched a class action to seek damages for their pain, CityNews reports in January. Five people were in the elevator when it fell due to a major loss of its hydraulic fluid after its single bulkhead failed, preventing its safety mechanism from working. The Technical Standards and Safety Authority, which looks after the regulation of elevators, claims the machine didn't meet safety requirements. It has charged the company with five counts of violating safety requirements, including failing to replace worn or defective parts. It allegedly failed to inspect and examine the elevator at regular intervals, failing to repair or replace worn or defective components and failing to maintain a proper logbook. Fujitec Canada on the Net: http://ww.fujiteccanada.com/home.htm. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Lawsuit in Wash. Over Faulty Speedometers --------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Corp. was named as a defendant in a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington over faulty speedometers in some of its vehicles. Kevin Zwicker filed the suit on Feb. 27 on behalf of all persons who purchased or leased defective trucks or sport utility vehicles designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, warranted, distributed, sold or leased by General Motors. Generally, the complaint states that at the time of sale or lease, the vehicles contained a defect that causes the speedometers to register and display inaccurate speeds both when the vehicles are at a standstill or are on the move. It adds that many of the speedometers fail to register the vehicles speed at all. The suit contends that the defect is unreasonable dangerous, as it can lead to accidents and cause drivers of Trucks to unwittingly exceed posted speed limits. In addition, Mr. Zwicker, represented by attorney Kim Stephens, states in his complaint that the company actively has concealed and has failed to disclose the existence and nature of the speedometer problem. The vehicles -- model years 2003-2007 -- that are involved in the suit include: -- Chevy Avalanche, -- Silverado, -- Suburban, -- Tahoe, -- Trailblazer, -- GMC Denali, -- Envoy, -- Sierra, -- Trailblazer, and, -- Cadillac Escalade. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1aa5 The suit is "Zwicker v. General Motors Corp.," Case No. 2:07-cv- 00291-JCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge John C. Coughenour. Representing the plaintiff is Kim D. Stephens of Tousley Brain Stephens, 1700 Seventh Ave., Ste. 2200, Seattle, WA 98101-1332, Phone: 206-682-5600, E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com. GENERAL MOTORS: Several Dex-Cool Lawsuits Denied Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Court Judge G. Patrick Murphy denied certification to a national class action filed against General Motors Corp. over a variety of engine problems linked to Dex-Cool, the Detroit Free Press reports. In his ruling, Judge Murphy said the sheer breadth of a possible class action, combined with the passel of state laws that would control each individual claim, made it impossible to tie all the claims into one lawsuit, according to the report. While the judge's ruling can be appealed, GM vehicle owners unsatisfied with GM's response to the problems may be forced to pursue cases in each state, and perhaps file individual claims. The suits stem from General Motor's use of Dex-Cool, a coolant it first introduced in its vehicles in 1995 and sold in more than 35 million cars and trucks between 1995 and 2004 (Class Action Reporter, May 25, 2006). Customers have complained of problems ranging from small coolant leaks to complete radiator and engine failure. The suit sought to represent owners of more than 35 million cars and trucks built by GM between 1995 and 2004 in 47 states. Those vehicles use orange-colored Dex-Cool coolant, which the plaintiffs said was responsible for numerous engine problems, especially radiator sludge and failed head gaskets. When General Motors introduced the orange-colored Dex-Cool, it said in owners' manuals that Dex-Cool could last up to five years or 100,000 miles without being replaced, and later extended Dex-Cool's life to 150,000 miles. Dex-Cool uses a different set of chemicals to protect engine parts than traditional green-colored coolant, which requires more frequent replacement, and General Motors was the first U.S. automaker to use it. Attorneys for the owners say that clause means General Motors should repair any Dex-Cool-related problems, even if they crop up outside the engine's typical 3-year or 36,000-mile engine warranty. For its part, the automaker insists that the recommend service interval in the owner's manual is a recommendation, and not a warranty guarantee. Court documents showed that General Motors has received tens of thousands of repair requests related to Dex-Cool and engine gaskets in the affected models and considered recalls for some models. GM has faced 14 federal and state lawsuits seeking class-action status over Dex-Cool complaints, with one scheduled for trial in Missouri in November. State courts in Michigan and California already have rejected statewide class actions. The suit is "In Re: GM Corp Dex-Cool Litigation, Case No. 3:03- cv-01562-GPM-CJP" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois under Judge G. Patrick Murphy, with referral to Judge Clifford J. Proud. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Matthew H. Armstrong of Schlichter, Bogard et al., 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 900, St. Louis, MO 63102, Phone: 314-621-6115, Fax: 314-621-7151, E-mail: marmstrong@uselaws.com; (2) Eric H. Gibbs of Girard Gibbs LLP, 601 California Street, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA 94108, Phone: 415-981-4800, Fax: 415-981-4846, E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com; (3) Richard M. Paul of Shughart, Thomson et al., 120 West 12th Street, Twelve Wyandotte Plaza, Kansas City, MO 64105-1929, Phone: 816-421-3355, E-mail: rpaul@stklaw.com; (4) Norman E. Siegel of Stueve, Siegel et al., 330 West 47th Street, Suite #250, Kansas City, MO 64112, Phone: 816-714-7100, Fax: 816-714-7101, E-mail: siegel@sshwlaw.com; (5) James B. Brown of Herum, Crabtree et al., 2291 West March Lane, Suite B100, Modesto, CA 95354, Phone: 209- 472-7700 127, Fax: 209-472-7986; (6) Elizabeth J. Cabraser of Lieff, Cabraser et al., 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-956-1000, Fax: 415-956-1008, E-mail: klaw@lchb.com; and (7) Richard T. Dorman of Cunningham, Bounds et al., 1601 Dauphin Street, Mobile, AL 36604, Phone: 251-471-6191, Fax: 251-479-1031, E-mail: rtd@cbcbb.com. Representing the defendants are: (1) Peter H. Burke of Whatley Drake, LLC, 2323 Second Avenue North, P.O. Box 10647, Birmingham, AL 35202- 0647, Phone: 205-328-9576, E-mail: pburke@whatleydrake.com; (2) Richard M. Paul of Shughart, Thomson et al., 120 West 12th Street, Twelve Wyandotte Plaza, Kansas City, MO 64105-1929, Phone: 816-421-3355, E-mail: rpaul@stklaw.com; (3) Joe R. Whatley, Jr. of Whatley Drake, 2323 Second Avenue North, P.O. Box 10647, Birmingham, AL 35202- 0647, Phone: 205-328-9576, E-mail: jwhatley@whatleydrake.com; (4) Lawrence S. Buonomo of General Motors Corporation, 400 Renaissance Center, P.O. Box 400, MC 482-026-601, Detroit, MI 48265-4000 (5) Robert B. Ellis, Scott F. Hessell and Brandi L. Chudoba of Kirkland & Ellis, 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 5800, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-861-2000 and 312- 861-3284, Fax: 312-861-2200, E-mail: rellis@kirkland.com, shessell@kirkland.com and bchudoba@kirkland.com; (6) Martin K. Morrissey of Reed, Armstrong et al., 115 North Buchanan, P.O. Box 368 Edwardsville, IL 62025, Phone: 618-656-0257, E-mail: mmorrissey@reedarmstrong.com; and (7) John J. O'Donnell of Lavin, O'Neil et al., 190 North Independence Mall West, 6th & Race Streets, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106, Phone: 215-627-0303. HOME DEPOT: Venue for Missouri Shopper's Lawsuit in Contention -------------------------------------------------------------- Home Depot Inc. attorney Dwight Davis of Atlanta argued before the 5th District appellate court that a suit by a customer who shopped in Missouri belonged in Missouri court, according to the Madison County Record. The Lakin firm filed the suit in 2002 for Madison County (Illinois) resident Janet Chochorowski, who rented a tiller for $25 at Home Depot in Brentwood, Missouri. She claimed the store improperly charged a 10 percent damage waiver fee of $2.50, and proposed a class action under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and similar laws of other states. In light of a 2005 Illinois Supreme Court decision that threw out a Williamson County verdict in "Avery v. State Farm," and declared that the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act applied only to transactions in Illinois, the Lakin firm amended Ms. Chochorowski's complaint. It dropped her claim under Illinois law and initiated a claim under Missouri law. Home Depot moved to dismiss on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, arguing that Ms. Chochorowski should sue in Missouri. Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack denied Home Depot's motion. Michael Nester of Belleville appealed for Home Depot in June. Phillip Bock of Chicago, an associate in many Lakin suits, answered in October that Illinois venue rules applied. At a Feb. 8 oral argument before the appellate court, Mr. Davis said the Missouri Merchandising Act specifies that consumers with fraud claims can sue in Missouri circuit courts. The plaintiff's attorney is Gail Renshaw, associate at The Lakin Law Firm, P.C., 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood River, Illinois 62095-0229 (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-254-1127, Telecopier: 618-254-0193. ILLINOIS: Settles Nursing Home Residents' Discrimination Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered a consent decree resolving a discrimination class action brought by four individuals with disabilities against the Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. The decree, "Jackson v. Maram No. 04-C-0174," mandates that all Medicaid-eligible nursing facility residents in Illinois be provided with, when medically appropriate, a motorized wheelchair. The named plaintiffs, who all live in Medicaid-funded nursing homes, filed the original complaint for themselves and other nursing home residents who were denied or not provided medically necessary motorized wheelchairs. Without power wheelchairs, they were not able to get around independently or access the services they would need to leave the nursing home and live in the community. Unable to use public transportation, go to a movie, or visit friends and family, these residents spent many days confined to their beds. Roel Villareal, one of the original plaintiffs, who, since the complaint was filed in 2004, has been approved for a power wheelchair, said, "Everyone who needs a wheelchair should have one. Without a wheelchair, I spent most of my days in bed, unable to do anything on my own. The motorized wheelchair gives me the choice to visit family and friends as I please and live more independently." Mr. Villareal's situation is similar to thousands of other nursing home residents in Illinois. The complaint alleged that denying the applications for power wheelchairs was in violation of the Social Security Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. "The Department of Healthcare and Family Services has responsibility to assure that nursing homes [that] participate in Medicaid help people with disabilities become as independent as possible," said Max Lapertosa, an attorney from Access Living who represented the plaintiffs. "We are pleased that the State settled with the plaintiffs on this important issue," Mr. Lapertosa added. "We look forward to working with the Department of Healthcare and Family Services to implement the consent decree." Terms of the Decree Under terms of the decree, among other actions, the Department is required to: notify nursing home residents of their right to a motorized wheelchair when medically necessary; notify nursing facilities of their responsibility to assess residents for motorized wheelchairs, using qualified and trained professionals; and, ensure that residents receive motorized wheelchairs if recommended as medically necessary. In addition, the Department of Healthcare and Family Services is required to take disciplinary action against nursing homes that fail to ensure that eligible recipients receive power wheelchairs. One of Access Living's core goals is to end the unnecessary segregation of people with disabilities in nursing homes and institutions. In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court made this goal the law of the land in its landmark decision, "Olmstead v. L.C.," which declared that unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities violates their civil rights. "Access Living and the disability community have been working hard to encourage Illinois to fulfill its responsibility under Olmstead," said Marca Bristo, Access Living's president and chief executive. "Without the ability to move around, it is impossible for thousands of people with disabilities to live outside of nursing homes. [The] decision will give people with disabilities the ability to move around independently, which will empower them to make their own choices about where to live. Power wheelchairs for people who need them are like freedom machines." According to Stephen Gold, a Philadelphia civil rights attorney who co-represented the plaintiffs, "When a person cannot leave his or her bed due to his or her inability to secure a motorized wheelchair, it encourages unnecessary segregation in nursing homes. [The] settlement will give thousands of people living in nursing homes the ability to secure a motorized wheelchair and empower them to live independently." Governed and staffed by a majority of people with disabilities, Access Living is Chicago's only center for independent living and works toward the full equality, inclusion and empowerment of all people with disabilities. For more information, contact Gary Arnold, Access Living, at 312.640.2199 (voice) or 312.640.2102 (tty). INSURERS: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Reimbursement Rates ------------------------------------------------------------- Allstate Corp., United Services Automobile Association, Progressive Auto Insurance, and the California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau are each facing a class action over the survey methods they employ to determine prevailing rates for collision repairs. The class actions are being pursued by policyholders in California. At press time, the four legal challenges against the companies have reached the courts, while four more were reportedly in the preparatory stages, according to a report by The Automotive Body Repair Network. According to plaintiff lawyer John N. Quisenberry, certain insurer surveys -- apparently designed to determine how much body shops are paid for collision repairs -- are either non- existent or rife with faulty methodologies. Mr. Quisenberry, who is seeking class-action status for each case, alleges that the methodologies and oversight by the state's Department of Insurance regarding the prevailing-rate surveys is seriously flawed and prone to insurer abuse. He alleges further that some insurers have included direct repair program participants in the data or otherwise fudged the numbers to obtain artificially low body shop reimbursement rates. With regards to the other four purported class actions that targeted other insurers, Mr. Quisenberry declined to discuss the matter, pointing out that those actions remain in the due diligence stage of the legal proceedings, according to the report. Sam Sorich, president of the Association of California Insurance Companies said that the lawsuits are totally without merit and expects the insurers to prevail. He said that the contract does not require the insurance company to pay whatever a body shop might charge. Body shops are not an official party to the filings. Each lawsuit consists of complainants who were policyholders with the particular company being sued. They were involved in a crash and then told that the full amount of their claim would not be paid, according to Mr. Quisenberry. Vehicle owners had to pay the difference between a repairer's stated fees and the settlement amounts paid by insurers. Currently, the four lawsuits are pending in state court as lawyers for the defendants argue that the cases should be heard in federal court. The suit is John N. Quisenberry of The Quisenberry Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite #2200, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: (310) 785-7966, Fax: (310) 785-0254, Web site: http://www.quislaw.com. LEAR CORP: Faces Lawsuits Over Planned $2.31B Sale to Mr. Icahn --------------------------------------------------------------- Southfield, Michigan-based Lear Corp. is facing six purported class actions filed by certain shareholders seeking to block the automotive parts supplier's acquisition by billionaire investor Carl Icahn, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006. Earlier this month, the company agreed to a $2.31 billion buyout offer from Icahn-controlled American Real Estate Partners LP. The transaction involves Mr. Icahn paying $36 per share for the shares he does not already own, according to reports. Under the terms of the agreement, Lear was allowed to solicit alternate proposals for 45 days. Between Feb. 9, 2007 and Feb. 21, 2007, certain stockholders filed six purported class actions against the company, certain members of the board of directors and American Real Estate Partners, L.P. and certain of its affiliates (AREP). Three of the lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and have since been consolidated into a single action. Another three were filed in Michigan Circuit Court. The class action complaints, which are substantially similar, generally allege that the Agreement and Plan of Merger unfairly limits the process of selling Lear and that certain members of the company's board of directors have breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger Agreement and have acted with conflicts of interest in approving the Merger Agreement. The lawsuits seek to enjoin the merger, to invalidate the Merger Agreement and to enjoin the operation of certain provisions of the Merger Agreement, a declaration that certain members of the company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement and an award of unspecified damages or rescission in the event that the proposed merger with AREP is completed. On February 23, 2007, the plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware action filed a consolidated amended complaint, a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion to preliminarily enjoin the merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement. The company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. MCDONALD'S CORP: Dismissal of Ill. Securities Suit Under Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against McDonald's Corp. and certain of its officers and directors are appealing the dismissal of a third amended complaint. The suit is "Allan Selbst v. McDonald's Corp., Jack M. Greenberg, Matthew H. Paull and Michael J. Roberts." It was filed on April 2, 2004. Two nearly identical actions were subsequently filed in the same court. On Oct. 19, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed its amended and consolidated class action complaint, alleging, among other things, that the company and individual defendants misled investors by issuing false and misleading financial reports and earnings projections in a series of press releases and other public statements between Dec. 14, 2001 and Jan. 22, 2003, thereby overstating the company's current and anticipated earnings. The amended complaint seeks class action certification, unspecified compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On Jan. 18, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On Sept. 21, 2005, the court denied this motion. The lead plaintiff then filed its First Amended Complaint on Oct. 7, 2005 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2005). On May 17, 2006, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice, giving the plaintiffs another chance to state a claim. On June 16, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint. On July 17, 2006, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint. On Dec. 15, 2006, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. On Jan. 16, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal from the court's order of dismissal, according to the company's Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006. The suit is "Selbst v. McDonald's Corp., et al., Case No. 1:04- cv-02422," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Blanche M. Manning. Representing the plaintiffs is Samuel H. Rudman, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, #406 Melville, NY 11747, Phone: (631) 367-7100. Representing the company is Robert J. Kopecky of Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Chicago), 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 6100, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861-2000, E-mail: rkopecky@kirkland.com. MCDONALD'S CORP: Suit Claiming Products Cause Obesity Continues --------------------------------------------------------------- McDonald's Corp. remains a defendant in a suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by minors who became obese or developed other adverse health conditions allegedly from eating the company's products, according to the company's Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006. The suit was filed in behalf of Ashley Pelman, a child under the age of 18 years, by her mother and natural guardian, Roberta Pelman and in behalf of Jazlen Bradley, a child under the age of 18 years, by her father and natural guardian, Israel Bradley. On or about Feb. 17, 2003, two minors, by their parents and guardians, filed an amended complaint against the company. The suit is seeking class-action status on behalf of individuals in New York under the age of 18 (and their parents and/or guardians), who became obese or developed other adverse health conditions allegedly from eating the company's products. On Sept. 3, 2003, the court dismissed all counts of the complaint with prejudice. On Jan. 25, 2005, following an appeal by the plaintiffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit Court vacated the court's decision to dismiss alleged violations of Section 349 of the New York Consumer Protection Act as set forth in Counts I-III of the amended complaint. On Dec. 12, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint. In this complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the company: -- engaged in a deceptive advertising campaign to be perceived to be less nutritionally detrimental-than-in- fact; -- failed adequately to disclose its use of certain additives and ingredients; and -- failed to provide nutritional information about its products. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages; an order directing defendants to label their individual products specifying the fat, salt, sugar, cholesterol and dietary content, an order prohibiting marketing to certain individuals' funding of an educational program to inform children and adults of the dangers of eating certain foods' sold by defendants; and attorneys' fees and costs. The suit is "Ashley Pelman, et al., v. McDonald's Corp., et al., 02 Civ. 7821," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Robert W. Sweet. Representing the plaintiffs is Samuel Hirsch, 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2418 New York, NY 10118, Phone: (212) 947-3800. Representing the company are: (1) Bruce Roger Braun, Bradley E. Lerman, Thomas E. Quigley, Winston & Strawn LLP (IL), 35 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 558-5600, Fax: (312)-558-5700, E-mail: bbraun@winston.com, blerman@winston.com, tquigley@winston.com; and (2) Anne Kimball, 225 West Wacker Drive #2800, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 201-2000. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Seeks U.S. Supreme Court Review of "Williams" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mohawk Industries Inc. has filed a motion requesting review by the U.S. Supreme Court of a decision in the purported class action, "Shirley Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Inc." The suit was filed by four plaintiffs in January 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. It purports that plaintiffs are former and current employees of the company and that the actions and conduct of the company, including the employment of persons who are not permitted to work in the U.S., have damaged them and the other members of the purported class by suppressing the wages of the company's hourly employees in Georgia. Plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including: -- treble damages; -- return of any allegedly unlawful profits; and -- attorney's fees and costs of litigation. According to the original complaint, the company sent its employees "to the U.S. border, including areas near Brownsville, Texas, to recruit undocumented aliens that recently entered the U.S. in violation of federal law" and transport them to North Georgia. The suit also alleges that Mohawk employees and other recruiters provided these illegal immigrants with housing and found them jobs with the company. It even charges that although some of the illegal workers were arrested, Mohawk's supervisors helped others evade detection. Additionally, the suit claims that even though the company fired several illegal immigrants after discovering them among its work force during internal audits, it soon rehired them under different names. It claims that the company destroyed documents in an effort to conceal the fact that it employed illegal workers. One of the company's objectives, the suit alleges, was to inflate the size of the pool from which it hires hourly workers, thereby depressing wages. Another was to reduce the number and expense of workers' compensation claims, since "illegal employees are unlikely to file," the suit states. In February 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was denied by the court in April 2004. The company then sought and obtained permission to file an immediate appeal of the court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. In June 2005, the 11th Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part the lower court's decision (Williams v. Mohawk Industries, Inc., 411 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2005)). In June 2005, the company filed a motion requesting review by the full 11th Circuit, which was denied in August 2005. In October 2005, the company filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which petition was granted in December of 2005. The case was argued before the Supreme Court on April 26, 2006. The case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court is titled, "Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, No. 05-465." Previously pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, the suit was titled, "Williams v. Mohawk, No. 04-13740," (Class Action Reporter, April 25, 2006). On June 5, 2006, the Supreme Court vacated the 11th Circuit ruling and ordered the 11th Circuit to reconsider its vacated ruling. On Sept. 27, 2006, the 11th Circuit issued a second decision reversing in part and affirming in part the lower court's decision. On Oct. 18, 2006, the company filed a motion requesting review of the decision by the full 11th Circuit, which was denied in November 2006. In December 2006, the company filed a second petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, according to the company's Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006. The original suit is "Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Case No. 4:04-cv-00003-HLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Georgia under Judge Harold L. Murphy. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Bobby Lee Cook of Cook & Connelly, P.O. Box 370, Summerville, GA 30747-0370, Phone: 706-857-3421, E- mail: LisaDodd@alltel.net; (2) Ronan P. Doherty, John Earl Floyd, Nicole G. Iannarone and Joshua F. Thorpe of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, 1201 West Peachtree St., N.W., 3900 One Atlantic Center, Atlanta, GA 30309-3417, Phone: 404-881-4100, E-mail: doherty@bmelaw.com, floyd@bmelaw.com, iannarone@bmelaw.com and thorpe@bmelaw.com; (3) Howard Foster of Johnson & Bell, 55 East Monroe St., Suite 4100, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-372-0770, E- mail: fosterh@jbltd.com; and (4) Matthew Daniel Thames of Goddard Thames Hammontree & Bolding, Suite 209, P.O. Box 399, 101 N. Thornton Ave., Dalton, GA 30722-0399, Phone: 706-278-0464, E-mail: mattatty@alltel.net. Representing the defendants are: (i) Steven Thomas Cottreau, Juan P. Morillo and Virginia A. Seitz of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, 1501 K. St., NW Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-736-8000, E-mail: scottreau@sidley.com; and (ii) R. Carl Cannon and Rosemary C. Lumpkins of Constangy Brooks & Smith, 230 Peachtree St., N.W., 2400 Peachtree Center Tower, Atlanta, GA 30303-1557, Phone: 404-525- 8622, E-mail: ccannon@constangy.com. PELAGIC PRESSURE: Recalls Dive Computers to Upgrade Software ------------------------------------------------------------ Pelagic Pressure Systems, of San Leandro, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 2,800 Oceanic and AERIS digital dive computers. The company said when performing a switch from one gas to another during a dive, the dive computer's display will lock up and not return to the main dive screen that displays dive times. This can cause divers to enter decompression unknowingly or the diver could ascend prematurely, resulting in decompression sickness. Pelagic has received a report of two dive computers malfunctioning. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves Oceanic-brand ATOM 2.0 dive computers with serial numbers 1 through 2,079 (Revisions 2E, 3A, and 3B) and AERIS-brand EPIC dive computers with serial numbers 1 through 712 (Revision 1A), which can be accessed and viewed on the computer's display. Also, the serial number and date of manufacture are printed on the bottom of the unit (Oceanic ATOM 2.0 from August 23 to November 23, 2006, and AERIS EPIC from October 18 to November 14, 2006). This recall does not include any other Oceanic or AERIS brand dive computers. These recalled digital dive computers were manufactured in the U.S. and are being sold at authorized Oceanic and AERIS dealers. Authorized Oceanic dealers sold ATOM 2.0 dive computers nationwide from August 2006 through February 2007, while authorized AERIS dealers sold EPIC dive computers nationwide from October 2006 through February 2007. Both computers sold for between $670 and $950. Pictures of recalled digital dive computers: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07117a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07117b.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled dive computers and take them to an authorized Oceanic or AERIS dealer to get a free software upgrade. For more information contact, Pelagic toll-free at (888) 854- 4960 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, send an E:mail: service@oceanicusa.com, or write to: Pelagic Pressure Systems, 2002 Davis Street, San Leandro, CA 94577. Information is also posted on the Oceanic and AERIS Web sites: http://www.OceanicWorldwide.comand http://www.diveaeris.com. QUIZNOS FRANCHISE: Accused of Misrepresenting Mich. Contracts ------------------------------------------------------------- A group of Quiznos Franchise Co., LLC franchisees in Michigan has filed a proposed class action against the Denver-based sandwich chain, the Denver Post reports. The group claims the chain oversaturates the market with franchises and requires owners to pay excessive prices for food and supplies. It alleges that the company misrepresents the nature of its contractual relationship with franchisees as well as the prospects for franchisee success. The suit is similar to a case filed on Nov. 20, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin by Quiznos franchisees in the state. Together with the Toasted Subs Franchisees Association, Inc., the plaintiffs allege that the company systematically defrauded its franchisees in a scheme designed to build the brand at the expense of its operators in the field. It generally contends that the company forces franchisees to buy food and supplies from Quiznos or its affiliates at inflated prices while concurrently setting artificially low retail prices for its products, making the stores unprofitable for the franchisees (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 22, 2006). In addition, franchisees allege that Quiznos unlawfully participates in a scheme to sell the franchises by omitting or otherwise misrepresenting key facts about Quiznos' business operations in an effort to induce potential franchisees to buy a franchise. Specifically, the suit, which is seeking damages for lost investments as well as injunctive relief, alleges: -- statutory and common law fraud, -- violations of federal and state antitrust laws, -- violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, -- breach of contract, and -- violations of the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law. Quiznos declined to comment on the lawsuit, adding that it would be "inappropriate" to comment on pending litigation. SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGY: Focus Cases Decertification Under Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs are appealing the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit to deny class-action status to certain IPO "Focus Cases" that names SoundView Technology Group, Inc. as a defendant, according to the The Charles Schwab Corp.'s Feb. 26 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006. SoundView and certain of its subsidiaries are among the numerous financial institutions named as defendants in multiple purported securities class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (IPO Allocation Litigation) between June and December 2001. The IPO Allocation Litigation was brought on behalf of persons who either directly or in the aftermarket purchased IPO securities between March 1997 and December 2000. Plaintiffs allege that SoundView entities and the other underwriters named as defendants required customers receiving allocations of IPO shares to pay excessive and undisclosed commissions on unrelated trades and to purchase shares in the aftermarket at prices higher than the IPO price, in violation of the federal securities laws. SoundView entities have been named in 31 of the actions, each involving a different company's IPO, and had underwriting commitments in approximately 90 other IPOs that are the subject of lawsuits. SoundView entities have not been named as defendants in these cases, although the lead underwriters in those IPOs have asserted that depending on the outcome of the cases, SoundView entities may have indemnification or contribution obligations based on underwriting commitments in the IPOs. The parties, with the assent of the court, selected 17 cases as focus cases for the purpose of case-specific discovery, and in October 2004, the court allowed 6 of the focus cases to proceed as class actions. Defendants appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which issued an order on Dec. 5, 2006 reversing the court and rejecting the consideration of these cases as class actions. Plaintiffs are now appealing that decision. As part of the sale of SoundView to UBS Securities LLC and UBS Americas Inc., The Charles Schwab Corp. agreed to indemnify UBS for certain litigation, including the claims described below. SOUTH CAROLINA: Class Status Possible in Suit Against Georgetown ---------------------------------------------------------------- The South Carolina Supreme Court determined that the Georgetown County taxpayers should be allowed to file for class-action status in a suit challenging the legality of the taxes the county collected to operate district schools, the Georgetown Times reports. The ruling came in a Supreme Court decision to send a lawsuit filed by Georgetown County property owners against the school district to the Administrative Law Court. It said under the S.C. Revenue Procedures Act, the Administrative Law Court in Columbia was a more appropriate venue for the case. The property owners allege that the Georgetown County School District overcharged taxpayers by more than $28 million over a ten-year period. The lawsuit was originally filed in circuit court in Georgetown in November 2001. Attorney Gene Connell, who filed the original lawsuit, is representing the property owners, who are county residents and business owners. The plaintiffs believe the district and Georgetown County unlawfully imposed excessive taxes. The plaintiffs contend that the county levied a higher millage rate than was needed to operate district schools, creating a more than $28 million surplus between 1991 and 2001, according to the Supreme Court opinion. Thus, the lawsuit could be refiled on behalf of any residents who were Georgetown County taxpayers at the time in question. Mr. Connell told The Times on Tuesday that he plans to file for class-action status. ST PAUL: Motion to Dismiss Brokerage Antitrust Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- A renewed motion to dismiss and a motion for class certification remain pending in an insurance brokerage antitrust litigation filed against St. Paul Travelers Cos., Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Four putative class actions are pending against a number of insurance brokers and insurers, including the company and/or certain of its affiliates, by plaintiffs who allegedly purchased insurance products through one or more of the defendant brokers. Plaintiffs allege that various insurance brokers conspired with each other and with various insurers, including the company and/or certain of its affiliates, to artificially inflate premiums, allocate brokerage customers and rig bids for insurance products offered to those customers. The complaints are captioned: -- "Redwood Oil Company v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2005)," -- "Boros v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2005)," -- "Mulcahy v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., et al. (D.N.J. Feb. 23, 2005), and -- "Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al. (D.N.J. Feb. 23, 2005)." To the extent they were not originally filed there, the federal class actions were transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and have been consolidated with other class actions under the caption, "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation," a multidistrict litigation proceeding in that court. On Aug. 1, 2005, various plaintiffs, including the four named plaintiffs in the above-referenced class actions, filed an amended consolidated class action complaint naming various brokers and insurers, including the company and certain of its affiliates, on behalf of a putative nationwide class of policyholders. The complaint includes causes of action under the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), state common law and the laws of the various states prohibiting antitrust violations. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive damages and trebled damages, permanent injunctive relief, restitution, including disgorgement of profits, interest and costs, including attorneys' fees. On Nov. 29, 2005, all defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On Feb. 13, 2006, the named plaintiffs moved to certify a nationwide class consisting of all persons who between Aug. 26, 1994 and the date of class certification engaged the services of a broker defendant (or related entity) in connection with the procurement or renewal of insurance and who entered into or renewed a contract of insurance with one or more of the insurer defendants, including the company. Oral arguments on the defendants' motion to dismiss were heard on July 26, 2006. On Oct. 3, 2006, the court ruled that the complaint failed to plead actionable claims under the Sherman Act or RICO, provided plaintiffs an opportunity to replead those claims and reserved decision with respect to remaining state law claims. On Nov. 30, 2006, defendants renewed their motions to dismiss. The renewed motion to dismiss and class certification motion remains pending. The suit is "In Re: Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663, Civil No. 04-5184 (FSH)," filed in the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg. TELLABS INC: Renews Bid to Dismiss Suit by Savings Plan Members --------------------------------------------------------------- Tellabs Inc. is asking permission to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the 7th Circuit the denial of its motion to dismiss a purported class action filed by members of its savings plan. On April 5, 2006, a class action complaint was filed in the court against: -- Tellabs; -- Michael Birck, Richard Notebaert, the company's former chief executive, president and director; and -- current or former Tellabs employees who, during the alleged class period of Dec. 11, 2000 to July 1, 2003, participated on the Tellabs Investment and Administrative Committees of the Tellabs, Inc. Profit Sharing and Savings Plan. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Thereafter, two similar complaints were filed in the same court. The complaints allege that during the alleged class period, the defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by, among other things, continuing to offer Tellabs common stock as a Plan investment option when it was imprudent to do so and allegedly misrepresenting and failing to disclose material information necessary for Plan participants to make informed decisions concerning the Plan. Further, certain of the defendants allegedly failed to monitor the fiduciary activities of the fiduciaries they appointed and certain of the defendants allegedly breached their duty of loyalty by trading Tellabs stock, while taking no protective action on behalf of Plan participants. The complaints seek restitution, damages and other relief. On June 28, 2006, the court consolidated all three actions and on Aug. 14, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. On Sept. 15, 2006, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all claims in the consolidated amended class action complaint. On Feb. 13, 2007, the court denied defendants' motion. Based on the court's decision, the defendants have requested that the court certify an issue for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the 7th Circuit. The suit is "Brieger v. Tellabs, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv- 01882," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Matthew F. Kennelly. Representing defendant Tellabs Operations, Inc. is Charles Clark Jackson at Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 77 West Wacker Drive 5th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 324- 1000, E-mail: charles.jackson@morganlewis.com. Representing plaintiff Don Brieger is Norman Rifkind at Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., 350 N LaSalle Street, Suite 1320, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: (312) 634-0057, Fax: (312) 634-0059, E-mail: rifkind@laskyrifkind.com. TELLABS INC: High Court to Hear Securities Suit Appeal March 28 --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear on March 28 an appeal by Tellabs, Inc., regarding a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in a class action against the company. On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against Tellabs Inc., Michael Birck, and Richard Notebaert, the company's former chief executive, president and director. Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. All nine of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on Dec. 3, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain other of the company's current or former officers and/or directors. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class period -- Dec. 11, 2000 to June 19, 2001 -- the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements, including, among other things, allegedly providing revenue forecasts that were false and misleading, misrepresenting demand for the company's products, and reporting overstated revenues for the fourth quarter 2000 in the company's financial statements. Further, certain of the individual defendants were alleged to have violated the federal securities laws by trading the company's securities while allegedly in possession of material, non-public information about the company pertaining to these matters. On Jan. 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint in its entirety. On May 19, 2003, the court granted the company's motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated amended complaint, while affording plaintiffs an opportunity to replead. On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other previously named individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class action complaint. The company filed a second motion to dismiss on Aug. 22, 2003, seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all claims alleged in the second consolidated amended class action complaint. On Feb. 19, 2004, the court issued an order granting that motion and dismissed the action with prejudice. On March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Federal Court of Appeal for the 7th Circuit. The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument was heard on Jan. 21, 2005. On Jan. 25, 2006, the 7th Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the district court, and remanding for further proceedings. On Feb. 8, 2006, defendants filed with the 7th Circuit a petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2006, the 7th Circuit ordered plaintiffs to file an answer to the petition for rehearing, which was filed by the plaintiffs on May 3, 2006. On July 10, 2006, the 7th Circuit denied the petition for rehearing with a minor modification to its opinion. On Sept. 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the district court to dismiss some (but not all) of the remaining claims. On Oct. 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the U.S. Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to appeal the 7th Circuit's decision. On January 5, 2007, the defendants' petition was granted. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on March 28. The suit is "Johnson, et al. v. Tellabs Inc, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-04356," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Amy J. St. Eve. Representing defendant Tellabs, Inc. is David F. Graham at Sidley Austin LLP, One South Dearborn Street. Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 853-7000, E-mail: dgraham@sidley.com. Representing plaintiff Thomas Johnson is Steven G. Schulman at Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (212)594-5300. THAILAND: Investors Group Pushes for Reforms to Protect Rights -------------------------------------------------------------- The Thai Investors Association is urging the government to step up efforts to pass a new class action law to help strengthen the rights of retail investors, according to Bangkok Post. "Right now, investors have only partial protection for their rights. We hope that the government will pay greater attention to this issue to help rebuild long-term confidence in the markets," said Wichai Poolworaluk, the TIA president. Mr. Wichai said that few retail investors pursue legal action against corporate executives due to high cost of litigations. In addition, the legal system often fails to impose penalties on guilty parties despite clear evidence of losses. A class action on behalf of an entire class of investors will help reduce expenses, he said. He mentioned the case of Picnic Corp. whose top executives had been accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission of embezzlement and accounting fraud. He also suggested an amended to the Public Companies Act, which applies to companies listed on the local exchange. He wants it changed to help increase the rights of shareholders. "At the very least, our laws should offer similar protection as given to investors abroad," Mr. Wichai said, according to the report. UNITED STATES: CAFA's Effectiveness Still Vague, Experts Say ------------------------------------------------------------ Though new class actions are no longer clogging state courts to the extent they once did due to the Class Action Fairness Act, it is still hard to know if the law has been effective, according to a report by The Madison County Record. On a Feb. 15 Forbes Magazine article, attorney Ted Frank, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., cautions against judging the effectiveness of CAFA purely by the numbers. Mr. Frank's comments came two years after the passage of CAFA, which was designed to end forum shopping in plaintiff-friendly venues. With CAFA, which was signed into law by President George Bush back in February 2005, most new class actions, especially those seeking more than $5 million, are now concentrated in federal courts. Specifically, Mr. Franks explains that its hard to know whether the level of class actions has gone up or down, since different kinds of class actions are being filed right. He did point out though, "I think you're seeing fewer attempts to get a nationwide class." According to the Forbes article, legal experts who gathered for a forum sponsored by the Federalist Society say the shift of class actions to federal courts has placed "unforeseen strains on the federal court system because the law was drafted so poorly." The article pointed out that more class actions have been filed in federal courts in the last two years, while the number of federal judges has not risen in proportion. Forbes quoted John Stoia, a member of the panel, and insurance policyholder attorney, as saying, "This is taxing the federal courts, as we predicted." Mr. Stoia said that in some cases decisions could get backed up as much as four or five years. In addition, the Forbes article stated that the most obvious effect of the law, all sides agree almost unanimously, is the diminishing importance of so-called "magnet jurisdictions" such as Madison County, Illinois, which became famous in the legal community for granting class-action certifications. It also states that there has been a dramatic decline in the number of 'coupon settlements,' where the defendant individually awards plaintiffs with payment coupons. The panel also tackled the issue of whether it costs more for plaintiffs to litigate class action claims in federal court, "and on this issue, the jury still seems to be out," according to the article. They explained that since "parallel claims can now be consolidated into one case at the federal level, there is an argument that the cases should be less expensive for plaintiffs. However, if litigation gets backed up at the federal level, plaintiffs could incur legal fees that wouldn't otherwise have burdened them." Background on CAFA The U.S. Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1453, and 1711-1715, expanded federal jurisdiction over many large class actions and mass actions. The bill was the first major legislation in the second term for the Bush Administration. Business groups and [tort reform] supporters had lobbied for the legislation, arguing that it was needed to prevent class action abuse. President George W. Bush had vowed to support this legislation. The Act accomplished two key goals of tort reform advocates: -- Reduce "forum-shopping" by plaintiffs in friendly state courts by expanding federal diversity jurisdiction to class actions where there is not "complete diversity" giving federal jurisdiction over class actions against out-of-state defendants. Proponents argued that "magnet jurisdictions" such as Madison County, Illinois were rife with abuse of the class action procedure. -- Requires greater federal scrutiny procedures for the review of class action settlements and changes the rules for evaluating coupon settlements, often reducing attorney's fees that are deemed excessive relative to the benefits actually afforded class members. For example, in an infamous Alabama class action involving Bank of Boston, the attorneys' fees exceeded the relief to the class members, and class members lost money, paying attorneys for the "victory." The Act gives federal courts jurisdiction to certain class actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and in which any of the members of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, unless at least two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate and the primary defendants are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed. * Lakin Firm Partner Sues for Breach of Business Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------- Chicago firm Freed & Weiss LLC filed a complaint against the Lakin law firm and some other attorneys claiming breach of partnership agreement, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports. Karen Levine of the Chicago firm Novack and Macey, which represents Freed & Weiss, said she believed the partnership was a contractual agreement. Freed & Weiss claims that Brad Lakin, son of the Lakin law firm founder, along with a few former Freed & Weiss attorneys, tried to secretly steer transactions toward the Lakin firm in an effort to secure its business after controversies involving Mr. Lakin's father emerged. Freid and Weiss attorneys say that after allegations of drugs and child sex abuse involving Tom Lakin came to light in the spring of 2006, they raised concerns that negative publicity could hurt ongoing class actions in Madison and St. Clair counties, according to the report. The Lakins are strongly denying the allegations. Specifically, the suit claims that Lakin made clients choose between the two firms. It also said the company used state Rep. Jay Hoffman, D-Collinsville, who works for the firm in an "of counsel" status, to help persuade some plaintiffs to avoid Freed & Weiss. Mr. Hoffnam is not a defendant in the case. He said the allegations were not true. In addition, it said that Lakin has collected fees and settled cases without alerting Freed & Weiss, and tried to secretly take documents vital to ongoing litigation. Freed & Weiss claim they are owed money but was refused access to the Lakin firm's financial records. The action was allegedly spurred by the younger Lakin's fear that Freed & Weiss would dissolve the partnership between the two firms. According to the lawsuit, Lakin formally claimed to have dissolved the two firms' agreement in early January. The partners have more than 50 uncertified class actions pending. The new lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of money that Freed & Weiss claims it is owed, along with attorneys fees and punitive damages. * Lord, Bissell Names Partner-in-Charge for Los Angeles Office -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lord, Bissell & Brook LLP named Mitchell J. Popham partner-in-charge of the firm's Los Angeles office. A partner with Lord, Bissell & Brook since 1996, Mr. Popham joined the firm directly out of law school in 1986. Over the past 20 years, Mr. Popham has been lead counsel to clients from large corporations to smaller business entities and individuals. He focuses his practice on complex business litigation, unfair business practices and competition, class action defense, aviation, insurance coverage and bad faith, commercial disputes, products liability, marine and admiralty, energy and toxic torts. Mr. Popham's professional memberships include the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Los Angeles County Bar Association, State Bar of California, and State Bar of California Litigation Section. "Mitch's successful career at Lord, Bissell & Brook and his knowledge of the California legal community makes him an excellent choice for this position. Our Los Angeles office has experienced significant growth in the last few years and we expect that to continue under Mitch's leadership," stated Thomas W. Jenkins, partner and chairman of Lord, Bissell & Brook's Executive Committee. Founded in 1914, Lord, Bissell & Brook -- http://www.lordbissell.com/-- is a full service law firm serving national and international clients from offices in Atlanta, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New York, Sacramento and Washington, D.C. For additional information about Lord, Bissell & Brook please contact the firm at 312.443.0700. Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aqua-Chem's $10M Claim v. Coca-Cola Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Aqua-Chem Inc., a former subsidiary of The Coca-Cola Co., is still pursuing its demand from the Company for about US$10 million for out-of-pocket asbestos litigation-related expenses. From 1970 to 1981, the Company owned Aqua-Chem, n/k/a Cleaver- Brooks Inc. A division of Aqua-Chem made certain boilers that had gaskets that Aqua-Chem bought from outside suppliers. After the Company sold this entity, Aqua-Chem received its first suit relating to asbestos, a component of some of the gaskets. In September 2002, Aqua-Chem notified the Company that it was obligated for certain costs and expenses associated with its asbestos litigation. Aside from the US$10 million demand, Aqua-Chem also demanded that the Company acknowledge a continuing obligation to Aqua- Chem for future liabilities and expenses that are excluded from coverage under the applicable insurance or for which there is no insurance. The parties entered into litigation to resolve this dispute, which was stayed by agreement of the parties pending the outcome of litigation filed in Wisconsin by certain insurers of Aqua- Chem. In that case, five plaintiff insurance firms filed a declaratory judgment action against Aqua-Chem, the Company and 16 defendant insurance companies seeking a determination of the parties' rights and liabilities under policies issued by the insurers and reimbursement for amounts paid by plaintiffs in excess of their obligations. That litigation remains pending. Aqua-Chem and the Company subsequently reached a settlement agreement with six of the insurers in the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation, and those insurers will pay funds into an escrow account for payment of costs arising from the asbestos claims against Aqua-Chem. Aqua-Chem has also reached a settlement agreement with another insurer regarding payment of that insurer's policy proceeds for Aqua-Chem's asbestos claims. Aqua-Chem and the Company would still negotiate with the remaining insurers that are parties to the Wisconsin insurance coverage case and will contest their claims against those insurers to the extent negotiations do not result in settlements. The Company said that it believes Aqua-Chem has substantial insurance coverage to pay Aqua-Chem's asbestos claimants. Based in Atlanta, The Coca-Cola Co. makes, distributes, and markets non-alcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups worldwide. Along with Coca-Cola, the Company markets other sparkling brands, including Diet Coke, Fanta and Sprite. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Con Edison Records $10M Accrued Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison Inc.'s accrued liability for asbestos lawsuits, at Dec. 31, 2006, totaled US$10 million, compared with US$25 million at Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 21, 2007. At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's regulatory assets for asbestos suits were US$10 million, compared with US$25 million at Dec. 31, 2005. Suits have been filed in New York State and federal courts against Company utilities Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities Inc., and many other defendants. In these suits, plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the utilities. Resolved suits have been resolved without any payment by the utilities, or for amounts that were not material to them. The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars. In 2006, Con Edison of New York estimated that its aggregate undiscounted potential liability for these suits and more suits that may be brought over the next 15 years is US$10 million. In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. Under its current rate agreements, Con Edison of New York is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos suits and workers' compensation claims. The accrued liability for asbestos suits and workers' compensation proceedings (including those related to asbestos exposure) and the amounts deferred as regulatory assets for the Companies at December 31, 2006 and 2005 were as follows: At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded US$117 million accrued liability for workers' compensation, compared with US$118 million at Dec. 31, 2005. At Dec. 31, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, the Company's regulatory assets for workers' claims were US$42 million. At Dec. 31, 2006, Con Edison of New York recorded US$112 million accrued liability for workers' compensation, compared with US$113 million at Dec. 31, 2005. At Dec. 31, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, Con Edison of New York's regulatory assets for workers' claims were US$42 million. Based in New York, Consolidated Edison Inc.'s main subsidiary, Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc., distributes electricity to more than 3.1 million residential and business customers in New York City; it also delivers natural gas to more than one million customers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Ind. Records 31.3T Abex Claims in 4Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Industries Ltd., at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded 31,300 Pneumo Abex Corp. asbestos-related claims that are the responsibility of Federal-Mogul Corp., according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 21, 2007. From Aug. 28, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2006, a total of 141,529 Abex Claims were filed, of which 110,229 claims have been resolved. At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded 31,488 Abex asbestos- related claims that are the responsibility of Federal-Mogul. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2006) In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products business to Federal-Mogul. These discontinued businesses, including the Abex product line obtained from Pneumo-Abex Corp. in 1994, were operated through subsidiary companies, and the stock of those subsidiaries was sold to Federal-Mogul under a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated Aug. 17, 1998. Federal-Mogul indemnified Cooper for certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies, including liabilities related to the Abex product line and any potential liability that the Company may have to Pneumo under a 1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between the Company and Pneumo. On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition and indicated that Federal-Mogul may not honor the indemnification obligations to Cooper. As of Feb. 21, 2007, Federal-Mogul had not rejected the 1998 Agreement, which includes the indemnification to the Company. If Federal-Mogul rejects the 1998 Agreement, the Company will be relieved of its future obligations under the 1998 Agreement, including specific indemnities relating to payment of taxes and certain obligations regarding insurance for its former Automotive Products businesses. In the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, 3,806 claims were filed and 10,941 claims were resolved. Since Aug. 28, 1998, the average indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was US$1,960 before insurance. A total of US$107.4 million was spent on defense costs for the period Aug. 28, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2006. On Feb. 2, 2007, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware approved the adequacy of Federal-Mogul's Supplemental Disclosure Statement describing the Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization. The Court also approved the Voting Procedures and ordered that the voting period shall expire on April 6, 2007. In addition, any objections to the Fourth Amended Plan must be filed with the Court by April 6, 2007 and the Court set the dates for a hearing on confirmation of the Plan on May 8, 2007 and May 9, 2007. If the Plan is confirmed, Federal-Mogul could emerge from bankruptcy by mid-2007. The accrual for potential liabilities related to the Automotive Products sale and the Federal-Mogul bankruptcy was US$529.6 million at Dec. 31, 2006 and US$526.3 million at Dec. 31, 2005. Based in Houston, Cooper Industries Ltd. makes electrical products, tools, hardware, and metal support products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Records $21M Claims Provision ---------------------------------------------------------------- Owens Corning, for the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2006, recorded US$21 million as provision for asbestos litigation claims, according to a Company press release filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 21, 2007. For the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2006 and the 10 months ended Oct. 31, 2006, the Company paid US$1.250 billion to its asbestos trust. For the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded a US$13 million credit for asbestos litigation claims. Dave Brown, president and CEO said, "2006 was a year of accomplishments. Owens Corning emerged from asbestos-related Chapter 11 with a strong balance sheet that positions the company to succeed through a challenging cyclical downturn of housing starts." Based in Toledo, Ohio, Owens Corning provides building materials systems and composite solutions. Products and services include insulation, roofing, siding and stone, glass composite materials used in transportation, electronics, telecommunications and other high-performance applications. The Company has sales of US$6.5 billion in 2006 and 19,000 employees in 26 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. PPG Industries Drop to 114T in 4Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006, faced asbestos-related lawsuits involving about 114,000 open claims served on it, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 21, 2007. As of Sept. 30, 2006 and June 30, 2006, the Company faced 116,000 asbestos-related claims. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006) For over 30 years, the Company has faced suits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. Most of the Company's potential exposure relates to allegations by plaintiffs that it should be liable for injuries involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products made and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corp. The Company and Corning Inc. are each 50 percent shareholders of PC. The Company has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all claims for any injuries caused by PC products. On Apr. 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh. On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued a ruling denying confirmation of PC's second amended plan of reorganization. Several parties in interest, including the Company, filed motions for reconsideration or to alter or amend the Dec. 21, 2006 ruling. Final written submissions were due on Jan. 26, 2007. Oral argument on the motions is scheduled for March 5, 2007. Upon reconsideration, the Bankruptcy Court may adhere to its Dec. 21, 2006 decision, may alter that decision and confirm the plan or may amend the decision in a manner that may provide further guidance on how the plan could be modified and become confirmable in the Bankruptcy Court's view. In addition, and in response to additional motions to lift the stay filed on behalf of other premises claimants, the Bankruptcy Court issued a series of orders in December 2006 lifting the stay, effective Jan. 31, 2007, with respect to 496 premises claims. Because the filing of asbestos claims against the Company has been enjoined since April 2000, a significant number of additional claims may be filed against the Company if the Bankruptcy Court stay were to expire. Before 2000, the Company had never been found liable for any of those claims, in numerous cases the Company had been dismissed on motions before trial, and aggregate settlements by the Company to date have been immaterial. In January 2000, in a trial in a state court in Texas involving six plaintiffs, the jury found the Company not liable. However, a week later in a separate trial also in Texas state court, another jury found the Company partly responsible for injuries to five plaintiffs alleged to be caused by PC products. Based in Pittsburgh, PPG Industries Inc. is comprised of five business segments: Industrial Coatings, Performance and Applied Coatings, Optical and Specialty Materials, Commodity Chemicals and Glass. The Company operates nearly 110 manufacturing facilities in more than 20 countries worldwide. It also operates more than 350 paint retail centers in the United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Reserves $1.38B for Claims in 4Q06 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corp.'s reserves for asbestos-related claims, at Dec. 31, 2006, totaled US$1.38 billion, net of reinsurance recoverables of US$823 million, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2007. At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company's reserves for asbestos claims were US$1.37 billion, net of reinsurance recoverables of US$831 million. About 67 percent of the total net asbestos and environmental reserves at Dec. 31, 2006 were for incurred but not reported estimated losses, compared with 68 percent at Dec. 31, 2005. The total commutations, policy buy-backs, and settlement agreements for A&E claims in 2006 were US$61 million gross or US$30 million net, compared with US$322 million gross or US$176 million net in 2005. In 2006, the US$139 million underwriting loss primarily related to a US$86 million re-estimated of asbestos reserves. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 1,220 new claims for A&E exposures, 851 total closed claims, 9,175 pending at the end of the year, and 596 closed without payment. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded 1,635 new claims for A&E exposures, 1,459 total closed claims, 8,806 pending at the end of the year, and 829 closed without payment. The Company recorded 387 active policyholders at Dec. 31, 2006, compared with 379 active policyholders at Dec. 31, 2005. In the last three years, 132 direct primary and excess policyholders reported new claims, and 83 policyholders were closed, increasing the number of active policyholders by 49 during the period. The 49 increase comprised 8 from 2006, 5 from 2005 and 36 from 2004. The increase of 8 from 2006 included 31 new policyholders reporting new claims and the closing of 23 policyholders' claims. Reinsurance recoverables included US$271 million from Lloyd's of London at Dec. 31, 2006, compared with US$247 million at Dec. 31, 2005. Based in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corp. provides insurance products to more than 17 million households through a distribution network that utilizes a total of about 14,800 agencies and financial specialists in the U.S. and Canada. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Face Cases With 6T Plaintiffs --------------------------------------------------------------- CIRCOR International Inc.'s subsidiaries, Leslie, Spence, and Hoke, collectively have been named as defendants or third-party defendants in open asbestos-related cases filed on behalf of about 6,000 claimants, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2007. In some instances, the Company has also been named individually or as successor-in-interest to one or more of these subsidiaries. Leslie, Spence, and Hoke, faced, as defendants or third-party defendants, pending asbestos-related cases filed on behalf of about 7,000 claimants. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006) The Company continues to face product liability actions brought on behalf of individuals who seek compensation for their alleged exposure to airborne asbestos fibers. These cases have from 25 to 400 defendants and generally seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages against all defendants in the aggregate. However, the complaints filed on behalf of claimants who do seek specified compensatory and punitive damages seek millions or tens of millions of dollars in damages against the aggregate of defendants. Of about 6,000 plaintiffs whose claims remain open, all but about 750 have brought their claims in Mississippi. Over the past two years, the Mississippi courts have rendered decisions and the state legislature has passed legislation aimed at curbing certain abusive practices by plaintiff attorneys under which large numbers of unrelated plaintiffs would be grouped in the same case against hundreds of defendants. As a result of these changes, many of these "mass filings" have been dismissed and the number of Mississippi claimants against the Company's subsidiaries is now about 5,200 from as high as 21,000. The remaining claims have been brought in the state courts of about 25 different states with California, Texas, New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut having the most significant percentage of the claims. To date, the Company's insurers have been paying most of the costs associated with the defense and settlement of these actions, particular with respect to Spence and Hoke for which insurance has paid all defense and settlement costs to date. With regard to Leslie, the Company's current cost sharing understanding with Leslie's insurers results in Leslie being responsible for 29 percent of its defense and settlement costs. Based in Burlington, Mass., CIRCOR International Inc. designs, manufactures and distributes valves and related fluid control products and services to end-markets for use in applications to optimize the efficiency and ensure the safety of fluid-control systems. The Company operates 18 significant manufacturing facilities in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, and the People's Republic of China. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Energy Has $4.1M Cleanup Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Enbridge Energy Partners LP, as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded US$4.1 million in current liabilities to address remediation of asbestos containing materials, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2007. The US$4.1 million was also to address management of hazardous waste material disposal and outstanding air quality measures for some of the Company's liquids and natural gas assets. As of Dec. 31, 2005, the Company had recorded US$4 million in current liabilities for remediation. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had recorded US$3.3 million in long-term liabilities for remediation, compared with US$4.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2005. As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$3 million in current liabilities and US$4.2 million in long-term liabilities for remediation. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006) Based in Houston, Enbridge Energy Partners LP, f/k/a Lakehead Pipe Line Partners, owns the 1,900-mile portion of the world's longest liquid petroleum pipeline. Enbridge Energy Management LLC owns an 18 percent stake in the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ENSCO Still Has Multi-Party Suits in Miss. --------------------------------------------------------------- ENSCO International Inc. and certain current and former subsidiaries continue to face three multi-party asbestos-related lawsuits in Mississippi, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2007. In August 2004, the Company and its subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with numerous other third party companies as co-defendants, in the suits filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones County (Second Judicial District) and Jasper County (First Judicial District), Miss. The suits seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities from 1965 through 1986. At present, none of the pending Mississippi asbestos suits have been set for trial. Based in Dallas, ENSCO International Inc. is an offshore contract drilling company. As of Feb. 15, 2007, the Company's offshore rig fleet included 43 jackup rigs, one ultra-deepwater semisubmersible rig and one barge rig. The Company's operations are concentrated in the Asia Pacific region, Europe/Africa, and North and South America. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Faces 31,417 Claims in 4Q --------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc., at Dec. 31, 2006, was a co- defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by about 31,417 plaintiffs, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2007. At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by about 33,591 plaintiffs, down from 33,604 plaintiffs at June 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 3, 2006) In the asbestos cases, the claimants allege that exposure to asbestos in welding consumables caused the plaintiffs to develop adverse pulmonary diseases, including mesothelioma and other lung cancers. Since Jan. 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in asbestos cases that have been resolved as follows: 23,635 of those claims were dismissed, 10 were tried to defense verdicts, four were tried to plaintiff verdicts, and 391 were decided in favor of the Company after summary judgment motions. Asbestos use in welding consumables in the United States ceased in 1981. Based in Cleveland, Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc. is a full- line manufacturer and reseller of welding and cutting products. Welding products include arc welding power sources, wire feeding systems, robotic welding packages, fume extraction equipment, consumable electrodes and fluxes. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mittal Steel Co. to Spend $108M for Removal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mittal Steel Co. N.V. anticipates spending about US$108 million over the next 40 years to address removal and disposal of asbestos material and Printed Circuit Board equipment encountered during the operation of its facilities. The US$108 million included US$9 million over the next 12 months, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2007. COMPANY PROFILE: Mittal Steel Co. N.V. Hofplein 20, 15th Fl. 3032 Rotterdam The Netherlands Description: Mittal Steel Co. N.V. manufactures flat rolled and long steel products using direct-reduced iron, which is cheaper than using iron ore or scrap iron. Customers include Ford Motor, General Motors, and Whirlpool. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Orchard Ind. Faces 10T Suits from Vapor ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brunswick Corp.'s subsidiary, Old Orchard Industrial Corp., faces more than 10,000 lawsuits involving claims of asbestos exposure from products manufactured by Vapor Corp., a former subsidiary that the Company divested in 1990. Virtually all of the asbestos suits involve numerous other defendants. The claims generally allege that the Company sold products that had components, like gaskets, which included asbestos, and seek monetary damages. Neither Brunswick nor Vapor is alleged to have manufactured asbestos. The Company's insurers have settled seven of these asbestos claims in the past eight years for nominal amounts. Several thousand claims have been dismissed with no payment. No claim has gone to jury verdict. In a few cases, claims have been filed against other Company entities, with most of these suits being either dismissed or settled for nominal amounts. Based in Lake Forest, Ill., Brunswick Corp. is a global maker and marketer of boats, boating accessories, and bowling products. The Company also owns and operates Brunswick bowling centers in the U.S. and other countries, and retail billiards stores in the U.S. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Temple-Inland Inc.'s Settlements Total $1M --------------------------------------------------------------- Temple-Inland Inc.'s aggregate annual settlements related to asbestos claims have been about US$1 million, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007. The Company faces lawsuits involving alleged workplace exposure to asbestos. These cases involve exposure to asbestos in premises owned or operated by the Company. The Company does not manufacture any products that contain asbestos and all its cases in this area are limited to workplace exposure claims. The Company has experienced an increase in the number of asbestos claims asserted against the Company, and these claims are on the rise in the United States against owners or operators of premises allegedly containing asbestos. Based in Austin, Tex., Temple-Inland Inc. is a packaging, banking, and forest products company with three business segments. The United States accounts for almost all of the Company's sales. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Face 647 Pending Cases in 4Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- Celanese Holdings LLC's U.S. subsidiaries, Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006, face about 647 asbestos- related cases, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007. The Company is a subsidiary of Celanese Corp. As of Sept. 30, 2006, Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings faced about 640 asbestos-related cases. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006) During the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, 90 new cases were filed against the Company and 79 cases were resolved. Since many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the number of actual cases. The Company has reserves for defense costs related to claims arising from these matters. Based in Dallas, Celanese Holdings LLC is an integrated global hybrid producer of value-added industrial chemicals. The Company produces acetyl products, including acetic acid and vinyl acetate monomer, polyacetal products. The Company also produces high-performance engineered polymers used in consumer and industrial products and designed to meet highly technical customer requirements. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Suit in Miss. --------------------------------------------------------------- Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. continues to face an asbestos- related lawsuit filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007. The suit alleged that defendants made, distributed or utilized drilling mud with asbestos and, in the Company's case, allowed the mud to have been utilized aboard Company offshore rigs. The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The Company expects to receive complete defense and indemnity from Murphy Exploration & Production Co. under the terms of the Company's 1992 asset purchase agreement with them. To date, the Company is unable to estimate its potential exposure to these suits. Headquartered in Houston, Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. is an offshore drilling contractor capable of descending depths of 7,500 feet. Loews Corp. owns about 54 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Has $1.452B for Claims in 4Q --------------------------------------------------------------- CNA Financial Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2006, carried about US$1.452 billion of claim and claim adjustment expense reserves, net of reinsurance recoverables, for reported and unreported asbestos- related claims, compared with US$1.554 billion as of Dec. 31, 2005. As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company carried about US$1.480 billion of claim and claim adjustment expense reserves, net of reinsurance recoverables, for reported and unreported asbestos- related claims. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2006) As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded US$102 million as net paid (recovered) losses. For the same period, the Company recorded 1,356 policyholders. As of Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded US$142 million as net paid (recovered) losses. For the same period, the Company recorded 1,324 policyholders. Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corp. provides commercial coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation, general and professional liability, and other products for businesses and institutions. The Company also sells specialty insurance for doctors, lawyers, architects, and other professionals. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Mulls Guarding CNA from Future Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- A U.S. Bankruptcy Court has held a confirmation hearing on a bankruptcy plan with an injunction to protect CNA Financial Corp. from any future asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007. The parties are awaiting a ruling on confirmation. On Feb. 13, 2003, the Company said it had resolved asbestos related coverage litigation and claims involving A.P. Green Industries, A.P. Green Services and Bigelow - Liptak Corp. Under the agreement, the Company is required to pay US$74 million, net of reinsurance recoveries, over a 10-year period commencing after the final approval of a bankruptcy plan of reorganization. The settlement resolves the Company's liabilities for all pending and future asbestos and silica claims involving A.P. Green Industries, Bigelow - Liptak Corp. and related subsidiaries, including alleged "non-products" exposures. The settlement received initial bankruptcy court approval on Aug. 18, 2003. Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corp. provides commercial coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation, general and professional liability, and other products for businesses and institutions. The Company also sells specialty insurance for doctors, lawyers, architects, and other professionals. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Deals with Keasbey Action in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- CNA Financial Corp., since 2003, is engaged in insurance coverage litigation in New York State Court with a defendant class of underlying plaintiffs who have asbestos bodily injury claims against the former Robert A. Keasbey Co. The suit, pending in N.Y. County, is styled Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wassau et al., No. 601037/03. Keasbey, a currently dissolved corporation, sold and installed asbestos-containing insulation products in New York and New Jersey. Thousands of plaintiffs have filed bodily injury claims against Keasbey. However, Keasbey's involvement at a number of work sites is a highly contested issue. Therefore, the defense disputes the percentage of valid claims against Keasbey. The Company issued Keasbey primary policies for 1970-1987 and excess policies for 1972-1978. The Company has paid an amount substantially equal to the policies' aggregate limits for products and completed operations claims in the confirmed CNA policies. Claimants against Keasbey allege that the Company owes coverage under sections of the policies not subject to the aggregate limits, an allegation the Company contests in the suit. In the litigation, the Company and the claimants seek declaratory relief as to the interpretation of various policy provisions. On March 21, 2004, the Court dismissed a claim alleging bad faith and seeking unspecified damages. On March 31, 2005, the Appellate Division, 1st Department, affirmed that ruling. The trial in the Keasbey coverage action commenced on July 13, 2005. Closing arguments concluded on Oct. 28, 2005. The Court reopened the record in January 2006 for additional evidentiary submissions and briefing, and additional closing arguments were held March 27, 2006. Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corp. provides commercial coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation, general and professional liability, and other products for businesses and institutions. The Company also sells specialty insurance for doctors, lawyers, architects, and other professionals. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Still Faces Burns & Roe Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- CNA Financial Corp. is still involved in insurance coverage disputes on asbestos bodily injury claims against a bankrupt insured, Burns & Roe Enterprises Inc., according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007. These disputes are currently part of coverage litigation, stayed in view of the bankruptcy, and an adversary proceeding In re: Burns & Roe Enterprises Inc., pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 00-41610. Burns & Roe provided engineering and related services in connection with construction projects. At the time of its bankruptcy filing, on Dec. 4, 2000, Burns & Roe asserted that it faced about 11,000 claims alleging bodily injury from exposure to asbestos as a result of construction projects in which Burns & Roe was involved. CNA allegedly provided primary liability coverage to Burns & Roe from 1956-1969 and 1971-1974, along with certain project- specific policies from 1964-1970. The litigation involves disputes over the confirmation of the Plan of Reorganization in bankruptcy, the scope and extent of coverage, if any, afforded to Burns & Roe for its asbestos liabilities. On Dec. 5, 2005, Burns & Roe filed its Third Amended Plan of Reorganization. A confirmation hearing relating to that Plan is anticipated in 2007. Coverage issues will be determined in a later proceeding. Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corp. provides commercial coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation, general and professional liability, and other products for businesses and institutions. The Company also sells specialty insurance for doctors, lawyers, architects, and other professionals. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Units Still Face Actions in Tex. Courts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Two CNA Financial Corp. subsidiaries, since 2002, have been facing asbestos-related lawsuits with other insurers and non- insurer corporate defendants, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007. The suits asserted liability for failing to warn of the dangers of asbestos e.g. Boson v. Union Carbide Corp., pending in Nueces County, Tex. In 2003, many of the Texas suits were dismissed as time-barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. In other suits, the carriers argued that they did not owe any duty to the plaintiffs or the general public to advise the world generally or the plaintiffs particularly of the effects of asbestos and that Texas statutes precluded liability for those claims. Two Texas courts dismissed these suits. Certain of the Texas courts' rulings were appealed, but plaintiffs later dismissed their appeals. A different Texas court denied similar motions seeking dismissal at the pleading stage, allowing limited discovery to proceed. After that court denied a related challenge to jurisdiction, the insurers transferred those cases to a state multi-district litigation court in Harris County charged with handling asbestos cases, and the cases remain in that court. The insurers have petitioned the appellate court in Houston for an order of mandamus, requiring the multi-district litigation court to dismiss the cases on jurisdictional and substantive grounds. Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corp. provides commercial coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation, general and professional liability, and other products for businesses and institutions. The Company also sells specialty insurance for doctors, lawyers, architects, and other professionals. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Claims v. Continental Casualty --------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Kanawha County, W.Va., on Nov. 15, 2006, has dismissed claims against CNA Financial Corp. subsidiary, Continental Casualty Corp., in a case styled Adams v. Aetna Inc. et al., according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007. CCC was named in Case Nos. 0-2C-1708 to -1719, filed on June 28, 2002, a purported class action against CCC and other insurers, alleging that the defendants violated West Virginia's Unfair Trade Practices Act in handling and resolving asbestos claims against their insureds. In September 2006, CCC entered into a settlement with plaintiffs. While no party filed an opposition to the settlement, the time for seeking leave to appeal that dismissal order to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has not yet expired. Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corp. provides commercial coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation, general and professional liability, and other products for businesses and institutions. The Company also sells specialty insurance for doctors, lawyers, architects, and other professionals. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Has Suit Filed by 8 Grace Workers ---------------------------------------------------------------- CNA Financial Corp. continues to face an asbestos-related action filed on March 22, 2002 by 8 individual plaintiffs, who are employees of W.R. Grace & Co., according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007. The suit, styled Pennock, et al. v. Maryland Casualty, et al., was filed in the 1st Judicial District Court of Lewis & Clark County, Mont. The plaintiffs filed the suit against the Company, the State of Montana, and Maryland Casualty. This action alleges that the carriers failed to warn of or otherwise protect Grace employees from the dangers of asbestos at a Grace vermiculite mining facility in Libby, Mont. The Montana direct action is currently stayed because of Grace's pending bankruptcy. Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corp. provides commercial coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation, general and professional liability, and other products for businesses and institutions. The Company also sells specialty insurance for doctors, lawyers, architects, and other professionals. Loews Corp. owns 91 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $1.391B Liability in 4Q06 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federal-Mogul Corp.'s asbestos-related liabilities, as of Dec. 31, 2006, totaled US$1.3917 billion, compared with US$1.532 billion as of Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007. Of the US$1.391 billion liability, US$1.175 billion related to claims of subsidiary T&N Ltd. and two other subsidiaries, US$129.5 million related to Abex claims, US$84.1 million related to Wagner claims, and US$2.7 million related to other claims. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's asbestos-related assets were US$859 million. Of this amount, US$698.8 million related to claims of the T&N companies, US$112.6 million related to Abex claims, and US$47.6 million related to Wagner claims. Based in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. supplies vehicular parts, components, modules and systems to customers in the automotive, small engine, heavy-duty, marine, railroad, aerospace and industrial markets. The Company has operations in 34 countries and all of the Company's reporting segments derive sales from both domestic and international markets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Still Faces Claims v. Fel-Pro ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federal-Mogul Corp. continues to face asbestos-related claims regarding its Fel-Pro subsidiary, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007. Before Restructuring Proceedings, the Company was sued in its own name as a defendant in multiple lawsuits filed by claimants alleging injury from exposure to asbestos due to its ownership of certain assets involved in gasket making. As of its Oct. 1, 2001 Petition Date, the Company faced about 61,500 pre-petition pending claims. Over 40,000 of these claims were transferred to a federal court, where, before the Restructuring Proceedings, they were pending. Before the Restructuring Proceedings, the Company's Fel-Pro subsidiary also was named as a defendant in product liability cases involving asbestos, primarily involving gasket or packing products. Fel-Pro faced about 34,000 pending claims as of the Petition Date. Over 32,000 of these claims were transferred to a federal court, where, before the Restructuring Proceedings, they were pending. All claims alleging exposure to the products of the Company and of Fel-Pro have been stayed as a result of the Restructuring Proceedings. Based in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. supplies vehicular parts, components, modules and systems to customers in the automotive, small engine, heavy-duty, marine, railroad, aerospace and industrial markets. The Company has operations in 34 countries and all of the Company's reporting segments derive sales from both domestic and international markets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $699M Recoverable for T&N ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federal-Mogul Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded a US$699 million asbestos-related insurance recoverable for its U.K. subsidiary T&N Ltd. and two U.S. subsidiaries (T&N Companies), according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007. T&N faces court actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. T&N Ltd. is also subject to asbestos-disease litigation in the U.K. and France. As of the Company's Oct. 1, 2001 Petition Date, T&N Ltd. faced about 115,000 pending personal injury claims. The two U.S. subsidiaries faced about 199,000 pending personal injury claims. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2000, the Company increased its estimate of asbestos-related liability for the T&N Companies by US$751 million and recorded a related insurance recoverable asset of US$577 million. T&N Ltd., f/k/a T&N plc, during the year ended Dec. 31, 1996, bought for itself and its then defined global subsidiaries a GBP500 million layer of insurance which will be triggered should the aggregate costs of claims made or brought after June 30, 1996, where the exposure occurred before that date, exceed GBP690 million. The Company, during the year ended Dec. 31, 2000, concluded that the aggregate cost of the claims filed after June 30, 1996 would exceed the trigger point and recorded an insurance recoverable asset under the T&N policy of US$577 million. One of the three reinsurers, European International Reinsurance Company Ltd., in December 2001, filed suit in a London, England court to challenge the validity of its insurance contract with the T&N Companies. As a result of this suit, a claim was made against the broker (Sedgwick) that assisted in procuring this policy for breach of its duties as a broker. This trial commenced in October 2003. The parties were able to reach a settlement before the conclusion of the trial. Under the terms of the settlement, EIR would be liable for 65.5 percent of its one-third share of the reinsurance policy. By separate agreement, Sedgwick agreed to be liable for an extra 17.25 percent of the EIR share of the reinsurance policy. T&N Ltd. has also agreed to indemnify the insurer for sums paid under the policy for which the insurer is liable to T&N Ltd. for which the insurer has no recovery from the reinsurers or Sedgwick. The settlement agreements are held in escrow pending approval by the Bankruptcy Court and the Administrators of T&N Ltd. of those portions of the above-described settlement agreements that affect the Debtors. A motion seeking the Bankruptcy Court's approval of the settlement was filed on March 1, 2004. After the motion, the other two reinsurers, Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG and Centre Reinsurance International Co., a subsidiary of the Zurich Financial Services Group, notified the Company of their belief that the settlements with EIR and Sedgwick may breach one or more provisions of the reinsurance agreement. The parties were unable to resolve the issues raised by the two reinsurers and this prompted the U.K. Administrators to file an action in the High Court seeking a declaration that the settlements with EIR and Sedgwick do not breach provisions of the reinsurance agreement. A hearing was conducted during July 2005 and judgment was handed down on Dec. 21, 2005. The High Court held that the settlements did not breach the reinsurance agreement. Munich Re and CRIC have not appealed the judgment. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the US$699 million insurance recoverable asset includes an exchange rate premium of about US$85 million. Based in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. supplies vehicular parts, components, modules and systems to customers in the automotive, small engine, heavy-duty, marine, railroad, aerospace and industrial markets. The Company has operations in 34 countries and all of the Company's reporting segments derive sales from both domestic and international markets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abex & Wagner Have $213.6M Liability in 4Q --------------------------------------------------------------- Federal-Mogul Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded an asbestos- related liability of US$213.6 million, of which US$129.5 related to Abex liabilities and US$84.1 million related to Wagner liabilities, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007. The US$213.6 million liability represented the Company's estimate before Restructuring Proceedings for claims currently pending and those, which were estimated to be asserted and paid through 2012. Two Company businesses formerly owned by Cooper Industries LLC, historically known as Abex and Wagner, face court actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. These claims mainly involve vehicle safety and performance products. For the periods ending Sept. 30, 2006 and June 30, 2006, the Company recorded a combined US$213.6 million asbestos liability for Abex and Wagner, of which US$129.5 million related to Abex and US$84.1 million related to Wagner. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 3, 2006) As of the Company's Oct. 1, 2001 Petition Date, Abex faced about 66,000 claims and Wagner faced 33,000 claims. The liability of the Company with respect to claims alleging exposure to Wagner products arises from the 1998 stock purchase from Cooper of the corporate successor by merger to Wagner Electric Co. The purchased entity is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company and one of the Debtors in the Restructuring Proceedings. The liability of the Company with respect to claims alleging exposure to Abex products arises from a contractual liability entered into in 1994 by the predecessor to the Company whose stock the Company purchased in 1998. Under that contract and before the Restructuring Proceedings, the Company, through the relevant subsidiary, was liable for certain indemnity and defense payments incurred on behalf of an entity known as Pneumo Abex Corp., the successor in interest to Abex Corp. Effective as of the Petition Date, the Company has ceased making such payments and is currently considering whether to accept or reject the 1994 contractual liability. As of the Petition Date, pending asbestos litigation of Abex and Wagner is stayed, and no party may take action to pursue or collect on such asbestos claims absent specific authorization of the Bankruptcy Court. Based in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. supplies vehicular parts, components, modules and systems to customers in the automotive, small engine, heavy-duty, marine, railroad, aerospace and industrial markets. The Company has operations in 34 countries and all of the Company's reporting segments derive sales from both domestic and international markets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Still Faces BCT Action in Conn. ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. continues to be engaged in pending litigation in Connecticut Superior Court against certain of its upper-layer reinsurer under its Blanket Casualty Treaty, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007. The BCT is a multi-layered reinsurance program providing excess- of-loss coverage from the 1930s through the 1980s. The upper layers were first placed in 1950, with London Market reinsurers, including Lloyd's syndicates reinsured by Equitas. The action seeks damages for the reinsurer defendants' failure to pay certain billings for asbestos and pollution claims. In December 2003, the Company entered into a global settlement with MacArthur Co., an asbestos insulation distributor and installer then in bankruptcy, for US$1.15 billion. The Company then billed the reinsurer defendants under the BCT for US$117 million of the settlement amount. After the reinsurers refused to pay the MacArthur billing, the Company amended its complaint to add claims related to that billing. Most of the reinsurer defendants counterclaimed, seeking a declaration that they did not owe reinsurance for the MacArthur settlement. In April 2005, the Superior Court phased the proceedings, providing for a trial of the MacArthur billing first, in April 2006, with other billings to follow in subsequent trial settings. In September 2005, the London Market reinsurer defendants moved for summary judgment on the MacArthur-related claims. After briefing and oral argument, the Superior Court issued a decision on Dec. 13, 2005, granting the defendants' motion. The Company noticed an appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court. The appeal has since been transferred to the Connecticut Supreme Court. On June 15, 2006, the Company announced an agreement with Equitas and all Lloyd's syndicates reinsured by Equitas (collectively, Equitas) that resolved all of the Company's ceded and assumed domestic reinsurance exposures with Equitas, including the Company's reinsurance recoveries from Equitas under the BCT. Those recoveries consist predominantly of asbestos and pollution losses, including the billing for the MacArthur settlement. The pending litigation and appeal continue with other upper-layer reinsurers under the BCT. Based in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Services Group Inc. provides investment products, individual life, group life and group disability insurance products, and property and casualty insurance products in the U.S. At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's total assets were US$326.7 billion and its total stockholders' equity was US$18.9 billion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Reserves $2.25B for Claims in 4Q06 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded asbestos-related net reserves of US$2.25 billion, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's asbestos-related gross reserves were US$3.242 billion. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company paid a total of US$5.401 billion for claims. Based in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Services Group Inc. provides investment products, individual life, group life and group disability insurance products, and property and casualty insurance products in the U.S. At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's total assets were US$326.7 billion and its total stockholders' equity was US$18.9 billion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Reserves $37.13M for Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Navigators Group Inc., for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, reserved US$37,131,000, gross of reinsurance, for asbestos- related liability, compared with US$56,838,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company reserved US$21,381,000, net of reinsurance, for asbestos liability, compared with US$30,372,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005. In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company reserved US$37,179,000, gross of reinsurance, for asbestos liability. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006) In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company reserved US$21,387,000, net of reinsurance, for asbestos liability. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10, 2006) The Company's exposure to asbestos liability stems from marine liability insurance written on an occurrence basis in the mid- 1980s. The Company's participation on those risks is in the excess layers, which requires the underlying coverage to be exhausted prior to coverage being triggered in the Company's layer. The reserves for asbestos exposures at Dec. 31, 2006 are for: -- The 2005-4th quarter settlements of two large claims aggregating about US$28 million for excess insurance policy limits exposed to class action suits against two insureds involved in the manufacturing or distribution of asbestos products, each settlement is being paid over two years starting in 2006; -- The 2004 settlement of a large claim about US$25 million exposed to a class action suit which settlement is being paid over seven years starting in June 2005; -- Other insureds not directly involved in the manufacturing or distribution of asbestos products, but that have more than incidental asbestos exposure for their purchase or use of products that contained asbestos; and -- Attritional asbestos claims that could be expected to occur over time. Substantially all of the Company's asbestos liability reserves are included in its marine loss reserves. Based in New York City, The Navigators Group Inc.'s main insurance units, Navigators Insurance and NIC Insurance, write ocean and marine insurance including hull, energy, liability, and cargo insurance, as well as property insurance for onshore energy concerns. The Company also offers specialty liability and professional liability insurance. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Group in Arbitration v. Equitas --------------------------------------------------------------- The Navigators Group Inc., on Nov. 22, 2006, filed a demand for arbitration against Equitas with respect to unsatisfied loss payment recovery demands that the Company has previously presented to Equitas. Equitas is a reinsurer participating in excess of loss reinsurance agreements. The recovery demands are for the 2005 settlement of two class action lawsuits involving large asbestos claims (together, the 2005 Settled Claims), which 2005 Settled Claims are being paid through 2007. Equitas has not indicated any dispute with respect to recoveries on related pro rata reinsurance agreements for those 2005 Settled Claims or with respect to excess of loss or pro rata reinsurance for a 2004 Settled Claim. The aggregate amount of excess of loss recoveries due from Equitas for ceded paid and unpaid losses on the 2005 Settled Claims is about US$2.7 million. Based in New York City, The Navigators Group Inc.'s main insurance units, Navigators Insurance and NIC Insurance, write ocean and marine insurance including hull, energy, liability, and cargo insurance, as well as property insurance for onshore energy concerns. The Company also offers specialty liability and professional liability insurance. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Group Inc. in Arbitration v. Ace ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Navigators Group Inc., on Nov. 20, 2006, filed a demand for arbitration in New York against INA International Insurance Co., n/k/a Ace International, with respect to unsatisfied loss payment recovery demands that the Company has previously presented to Ace International. Ace International is a reinsurer participating in pro rata reinsurance agreements. The recovery demands are for the 2005 Settled Claims and for the 2004 settlement of another class action lawsuit involving a large asbestos claim (the 2004 Settled Claim and, together with the 2005 Settled Claims, the Settled Claims), which 2004 Settled Claim is being paid over seven years beginning in 2005. The aggregate amount of pro rata recoveries due from Ace International for ceded paid and unpaid losses on the Settled Claims is about US$1.6 million. Based in New York City, The Navigators Group Inc.'s main insurance units, Navigators Insurance and NIC Insurance, write ocean and marine insurance including hull, energy, liability, and cargo insurance, as well as property insurance for onshore energy concerns. The Company also offers specialty liability and professional liability insurance. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Premises, Product Claims v. FMC Drop to 32T ---------------------------------------------------------------- FMC Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded about 32,000 premises and product asbestos claims pending against it in several jurisdictions, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 26, 2007. As of Dec. 31, 2005, the Company faced about 34,000 premises and product asbestos claims in several U.S. jurisdictions. (Class Action Reporter, March 17, 2006) To date, the Company has discharged about 71,000 asbestos claims filed against it, most of which have been dismissed without any payment to the plaintiff. Settlements by the Company with claimants to date have totaled about US$12 million. The Company has been named as a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury litigation. These cases (most cases involve between 25 and 200 defendants) allege personal injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos in Company premises or to asbestos-containing components installed in machinery or equipment made or sold by discontinued operations. The machinery and equipment businesses the Company owned or operated did not fabricate the asbestos-containing component parts at issue in the litigation, and to this day, neither the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration nor the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of these components. Further, the asbestos-containing materials were housed inside machinery and equipment and accessible only at the time of infrequent repair and maintenance. To date, the bulk of the claims against the Company have been dismissed without payment. Based in Philadelphia, FMC Corp. focuses on industrial, specialty, and agricultural chemicals. The Company's industrial chemicals include soda ash, hydrogen peroxide, and phosphorus chemicals. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wis. Woman Sues 79 Defendants in Ill. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Diane Jost of Wisconsin, on Feb. 21, 2007, sued 79 defendants in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., alleging that she was exposed to airborne asbestos fibers from her and her former husband's clothing, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. The suit claimed that Ms. Jost was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Sept. 11, 2006, and subsequently became aware that her illness was wrongfully caused. Ms. Jost seeks compensatory damages in excess of US$400,000, plus punitive damages. Ms. Jost claims she was employed from 1969-1991 as a laborer, machine operator and assembly line worker at various locations across the country. Her former husband was employed as a mechanic. Ms. Jost claims her former husband would carry the asbestos dust on his clothing home with him where it would again become airborne. She also claims she was exposed to asbestos during non-occupational work projects including home and automotive repairs, maintenance and remodeling. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to require and advise their employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home. As a result of the alleged negligence, Ms. Jost claims she was exposed to fibers with asbestos, and developed a disease caused only by asbestos which has disabled and disfigured her. Ms. Jost also claims that she has sought, but has been unable to obtain full disclosure of relevant documents and information from the defendants leading her to believe the defendants destroyed documents related to asbestos. The suit claims that as a result of each defendant breaching its duty to preserve material evidence by destroying documents and information, Ms. Jost has been prejudiced and impaired in proving claims against all potential parties. Nicholas Angelides, John Barnerd, Perry Browder, Tim Thompson and Richard Saville of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Ms. Jost. The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Dan Stack. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New Caledonia Gov't to Ban Use of Asbestos --------------------------------------------------------------- The New Caledonia Government would ban the production, import, and sale of asbestos starting April 1, 2007, Radio New Zealand International reports. A Govt. statement said that there will be exemptions until the end of 2011 for asbestos still to be found in cars and machinery. A company dealing with the removal of asbestos said regulation is about 10 years behind that in place in France. The statement said the problems are substantial as huge quantities have been used in the territory in construction and industry. New Caledonia also has naturally found asbestos, with studies trying to identify the areas where it is found. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Sues 46 Companies for Husband's Death ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joyce M. Tolman, whose husband died of a disease caused by asbestos exposure, on Feb. 9, 2007, sued 46 companies, including 16 in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., claiming that they were responsible for his death, The West Virginia Record reports. Mrs. Tolman filed the suit on behalf of her late husband, Terry Warren Tolman. The West Virginia companies named as defendants are: Allied Chemical Corp., American Optical Corp., Chevron U.S.A., Durametallic Corp., Foseco Inc., General Electric Co., Industrial Holdings LLC f/k/a Carborundum Co., Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., Union Carbide Chemical and Plastics Co. Inc., Vimasco Corp., Honeywell International, Graybar Electric Co., McJunkin Corp., Nitro Industrial Coverings Inc., Ohio Valley Insulating Co., and Union Boiler Co. The suit claims Mr. Tolman worked around asbestos and asbestos containing-products, like insulation, and as a result developed a severe asbestos-related disease. The suit claims the defendants were negligent because they knew the products and materials contained asbestos, which would cause serious lung diseases and cancer, yet did not warn Mr. Tolman of the safety precautions he should have taken. Because of the negligence, Mr. Tolman developed a severe asbestos-related disease and suffered great medical and pharmaceutical expenses, pain and loss of enjoyment of life. In the 12-count suit, Mrs. Tolman claims wrongful death and deliberate intent. Cindy Kiblinger represents Mrs. Tolman, who seeks compensation for the damages her husband suffered, as well as punitive damages. A visiting judge has been assigned Case No. 07-C-277. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Salvation Army to Pay $77T for CAA Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- An Anchorage, Alaska Salvation Army thrift store has agreed to pay a US$76,906 penalty to settle with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for alleged violations of the asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants under the Clean Air Act, according to an EPA release dated Feb. 21, 2007. In response to customer complaints, EPA inspected a thrift store operated by the Salvation Army in Anchorage in September 2005, and found untrained workers removing over 7,500 square feet of asbestos-containing floor tile during business hours. EPA's inspector determined the floor tile was in a deteriorated state and easily crumbled with hand pressure. The store had already disposed of much of the broken floor tile before the inspection. Samples collected by EPA's inspector showed the floor tile had asbestos. Upon learning of the asbestos concern, the Salvation Army immediately closed the store, located on Northern Lights Boulevard, and kept it closed until an abatement company was able to clean up the remaining asbestos waste materials and dispose of them properly. The Salvation Army also disposed of its inventory rather than risk exposing the public further to asbestos fibers. Marcia Combes, EPA's Director of Alaska Operations, said, "Exposure to asbestos dust can have serious health consequences. In this case, the Salvation Army was very responsive upon learning of the problem. This dangerous situation could have been avoided if the store had followed the Salvation Army's established asbestos management program." EPA regulations require building owners and contractors to survey buildings prior to renovation or demolition projects and to submit advance notice to EPA. To protect public health and the environment, trained workers may handle asbestos materials and must be supervised by a person familiar with the regulations. Workers must keep asbestos wet to prevent dust from leaving the work area and dispose of asbestos waste in designated landfills. EPA has regulated asbestos under the CAA since the early 1970s. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Records $181M for Liabilities in 4Q --------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Co., at Dec. 31, 2006, recorded US$181 million for asbestos or respirator mask liabilities, compared with US$210 million at Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007. At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$194 million for asbestos or respirator mask liabilities. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 3, 2006) For more than 25 years the Company has defended and resolved the claims of hundreds of thousands of individual claimants alleging injuries from occupational dust exposures. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company faced suits in various courts that purport to represent about 17,700 individual claimants, a decrease from the about 48,600 individual claimants with actions pending at Dec. 31, 2005. Most of the suits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts found in products made by other defendants or generally in the workplace. The remaining claimants allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously made by the Company and by other defendants or occasionally at Company premises. In many of these suits and claims, the Company is named as a defendant with multiple co-defendants where no product the Company manufactured is identified or where the Company is ultimately determined not to have made the products identified by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have asserted specific dollar claims for damages in about 64 percent of the 6,108 suits that were pending against the Company at the end of 2006 in all jurisdictions. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was US$380 million. The Company collected US$17 million in the 2006-4th quarter and US$75 million in 2006 from several of its insurers, reducing this receivable by that amount. Based in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Co. has six operating segments: display and graphics; health care; safety, security, and protection; electro and communications; transportation and industrial; and consumer and office. Well-known brands include Scotchgard fabric protectors, Post-it Notes, Scotch-Brite scouring products, and Scotch tapes. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Has Respirator Coverage Action in Minn. --------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Co., on Jan. 5, 2007, was served with a declaratory judgment action filed on behalf of two of its insurers disclaiming coverage for respirator/mask asbestos claims, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007. Two of the Company's insurers are Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. The action was filed in Hennepin County, Minn. and names, in addition to the Company, more than 60 of its insurers. This action is similar in nature to an action filed in 1994 with respect to breast implant coverage, which ultimately resulted in the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling of 2003 that was largely in the Company's favor. Based in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Co. has six operating segments: display and graphics; health care; safety, security, and protection; electro and communications; transportation and industrial; and consumer and office. Well-known brands include Scotchgard fabric protectors, Post-it Notes, Scotch-Brite scouring products, and Scotch tapes. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SDG&E, Workers Charged for Breaching Safety ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sempra Energy's subsidiary, San Diego Gas & Electric Co., and three workers have been indicted again on charges of violating safety standards while removing asbestos from pipes at a Lemon Grove site, City Wire reports. The new indictment, handed down on Feb. 27, 2007, essentially mirrors a previous one. It charges SDG&E, along with employees Jacquelyn McHugh, a supervisor in the environmental department, and David Williamson, an environmental specialist. The indictment also charged Kyle Rhuebottom, the project superintendent for contractor IT Corp. The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that SDG&E faces up to a US$2.5 million fine if found guilty. The workers face a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a US$250,000 fine for each charge. The paper added that the utility and workers are expected to be arraigned March 9, 2007. The County of San Diego filed and then withdrew litigation against the Company and SDG&E that sought unspecified civil penalties for alleged violations of environmental standards applicable to the abatement, handling and disposal of asbestos- containing materials during the 2001 demolition of a natural gas storage facility in Lemon Grove. In November 2006, a federal court dismissed all charges against SDG&E, Ms. McHugh, and Mr. Williamson in a federal criminal indictment charging them with having violated these standards and for related charges of conspiracy and having made false statements to governmental authorities. On Feb. 12, 2007, the court granted the federal government's motion for reconsideration with respect to the false statement count. Based in San Diego, Sempra Energy distributes natural gas to about 6.2 million customers and electricity to 1.3 million customers through its Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) utilities. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Units Continue to Face Exposure Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Certain TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. subsidiaries continue to face asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 23, 2007. These claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to have resulted from exposure to asbestos used in certain components sold by the Company's subsidiaries. The Company said it believes that most of the claimants were assembly workers at the major U.S. automobile manufacturers. Most of these claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of products allegedly containing asbestos. According to the Company, to the extent any of the products sold by its subsidiaries and at issue in these cases contained asbestos, the asbestos was encapsulated. Neither settlement costs in connection with asbestos claims nor annual legal fees to defend these claims have been material in the past. Many of these cases have been dismissed without any payment whatsoever. Moreover, there is significant insurance coverage with solvent carriers with respect to these claims. Based in Livonia, Mich., TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. supplied automotive systems, modules and components to global automotive original equipment manufacturers and related aftermarkets. The Company operates its business along three segments: Chassis Systems, Occupant Safety Systems, and Automotive Components. New Securities Fraud Cases CELESTICA INC: Goldman Scarlato Announces Securities Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Celestica, Inc. between July 27, 2006 and December 12, 2006, inclusive. The complaint alleges Celestica and certain officers and directors violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose and misrepresented that: (1) demand for products produced by its Information Technology and Communications Divisions was declining due to a drop off in orders placed by its key customers; (2) inventory at the company's Monterrey, Mexico facility built up to the level where much of it had to be written off; (3) that the company lacked adequate internal controls; and (4) as a result, the company's statements about its financial health and future business prospects were lacking any reasonable basis. On December 12, 2006, in contrast to its prior statements, the company announced that it was drastically lowering its financial guidance for the fourth quarter of 2006. In reaction to this news, Celestica shares fell $1.14 per share, or 12% to close on December 12, 2006 at $8.23 per share. Interested parties may move the court no later than March 13, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact Mark S. Goldman, Esq. of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: (888) 753-2796, E-mail: info@gsk-law.com. NEW CENTURY: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suits Filing ----------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven announces that class actions have been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of New Century Financial Corp. (NYSE: NEW) between April 7, 2006 and February 7, 2007, inclusive. The complaints allege that New Century and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities law. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and financial results and concealed the following material adverse facts from the investing public: (a) the company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as a result, the company's projections and reported results issued during the Class Period were based upon defective assumptions and/or manipulated facts; (b) the company's financial statements were materially misstated due to its failure to properly account for its allowance for loan repurchase losses; (c) the company's financial statements were materially misstated due to its failure to properly account for its residual interests in securitizations by failing to timely write down the impaired asset; (d) given the deterioration and the increased volatility in the sub-prime market, the company would be forced to tighten its underwriting guidelines which would have a direct material negative impact on its loan productions going forward; and (e) given the increased volatility in the sub-prime market, the company had no reasonable basis to make projections about its ability to maintain its current mortgage loan production levels for 2007. The complaint further alleges that as a result of these false statements, New Century stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $51.22 per share on April 28, 2006 and that Defendants took advantage of this inflation, selling 665,334 shares of their New Century stock for proceeds of over $26.6 million. On February 7, 2007, after the market closed, New Century announced that it will have to restate its consolidated financial results for the first three quarters of 2006 to correct errors the company discovered in its application of generally accepted accounting principles regarding the company's allowance for loan repurchase losses. On this news, New Century's stock fell $10.92 per share to close at $19.24 per share on February 8, 2007, a one-day decline of approximately 36%. Interested parties may move the court no later than April 10, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. New Century is a real estate investment trust that through its subsidiaries operates mortgage finance companies. For more information, contact Charles Piven and David Brower both of Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone: 410- 332-0030, E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com. NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Charles Johnson Announces Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Charles H. Johnson & Associates announces that a class action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on behalf of purchasers of NovaStar Financial, Inc. publicly traded securities during the period May 4, 2006 through February 20, 2007. The Complaint alleges that NovaStar and certain of its officers and directors violated Federal Securities laws. Specifically, defendants concealed the following facts from the investing public: (i) NovaStar lacked requisite internal controls, and therefore its projections and reported results were based upon defective assumptions about loan delinquencies; (ii) NovaStar's financial statements were materially misstated as the company failed to properly account for its allowance for loan losses; (iii) due to the increased volatility in the sub prime market, NovaStar would be forced to tighten its underwriting guidelines which would have a material impact on its loan production going forward; and (iv) given the increased volatility in the lending market, NovaStar had no reasonable basis to make projections about its ability to maintain its Real Estate Investment Trust ("REIT") taxable income. As a result, the projections NovaStar issued during the Class Period about its REIT taxable income and dividends were at a minimum reckless. On February 20, 2007, after the market closed, NovaStar announced disappointing fourth quarter and year-end 2006 results and warned that it expected to earn little, if any, taxable income in the next five years. On this news, NovaStar's sock fell 42% to close at $10.10 per share on February 21, 2007. Interested parties may move the court no later than April 24, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact Neil Eisenbraun, Esq. of Charles H. Johnson & Associates, 2599 Mississippi Street, New Brighton, MN 55112, Phone: (651) 633-5685, E-mail: cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com. OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Ademi Announces Securities Suit Filing in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP announces that a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock and other securities of Openwave Systems Inc. from September 30, 2002 to October 26, 2006, inclusive. Openwave has admitted that certain of its option grants were improperly backdated, and, as a result, it is required to correct its previously reported finances by taking additional charges of $182 million. For more information, contact Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, Phone: 866/264-3995 (toll-free), E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com. OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Federman Announces N.Y. Securities Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood announces that a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased Openwave Systems, Inc. securities from September 30, 2002 through October 26, 2006. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. Interested parties may move the court no later than April 27, 2007, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK 73120, Email: wfederman@aol.com, Website: http://www.federmanlaw.com. OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Roy Jacobs Announces Securities Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- Roy Jacobs & Associates announces that a class action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or acquired the common stock of Openwave Systems Inc. during the period between September 30, 2002 to October 26, 2006. The Complaint charges Openwave and several of its officers and directors as defendants with violations of the federal securities laws that during the Class Period, the defendants violated the federal securities laws by publicly issuing false and misleading statements. The Complaint alleges that the company improperly accounted for grants of stock options which were backdated to provide the company's executives with unreported benefits. Openwave has admitted that certain of its option grants were improperly backdated, and, as a result, it is required to correct its previously reported finances by taking additional charges of $182 million. Interested parties may move the court no later than April 27, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs & Associates, Phone: 1-888-884-4490, E-mail: jacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com, Website: http://www.jacobsclasslaw.com. OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C. announces that a lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Openwave Systems, Inc. between September 30, 2002 and October 26, 2006, inclusive. Also included are those who purchased Openwave in a Secondary Offering on December 7, 2005 and those who received Openwave shares in the acquisitions of Magic4, Ellipsus, Musicwave and Cilys. The Complaint alleges that Openwave and certain of its officers and directors violated Federal Securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements. The Complaint alleges that the company improperly accounted for grants of stock options which were backdated to provide the company's executives with unreported benefits. Openwave has admitted that certain of its option grants were improperly backdated, and, as a result, it is required to correct its previously reported finances by taking additional charges of $182 million. Interested parties may move the court no later than April 27, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa, both of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail: firm@snlaw.net, Website: http://www.snlaw.net. ********* 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, and Janice Mendoza, 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 * * *