/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070525.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 25, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 103 Headlines 40/40 CLUB: Former Waitress Files Suit to Claim Unpaid Overtime AAFES: Recalls Toys Due to Paint Peeling, High Lead Content ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Sued by OrthoClear Settlement Class Members ALLTEL CORP: Ark. Lawsuit Challenges $27.5BB TPG Merger Deal AMERICAN EXPRESS: June Hearing Set in $100M Securities Suit Deal BASF CORP: Fairness Hearing for $62.5M POAST Suit Deal Set June CANADA: Saskatoon Condo Buyers Sue Developer for Failed Project CATHOLIC CHURCH: Suit Against Archdiocese of Portland Dismissed CROCUS INVESTMENT: Moves to Dismiss Parts of Investors' Suit CVS RX: Fla. Pharmacists Sue to Claim Unpaid Overtime Wages DAIMLERCHRYSLER MOTORS: Tex. Suit Claims Firms Tamper Odometers DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Accused of Charging Illegal Payday Loan Rates FIELDSTONE INVESTMENT: Faces Investor Suit Over Sale to C-BASS GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Court Approves $64M Paxil Suit Settlement HOMEBRIDGE MORTGAGE: Lawsuit Filed in Fla. Aims to Collect Wages KENTUCKY: Work Program for Retired Judges Runs Until 2009 KTM NORTH: Recalls Motorcycles Posing Chemical Burn, Fire Risks LOUISIANA: City Sued for Allegedly Overbilling Utility Customers MASSACHUSETTS: Suit Seeks Better Care for Brain-injured Persons MAURITANIA: Ex-Pres. Sued in N.Y. Over Human Rights Violations MBIA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Lawsuit MEDPLANS PARTNERS: Ky. Suit Claims Overtime Compensation Denial METLIFE LIFE: Court Reverses Class Certification in "Macomber" METROPOLITAN INSURANCE: Still Faces Tenants' Litigation in N.Y. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Faces Suits Over Policies in Canada METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeals Court Sides with Firm in "Brubaker" MICROSOFT CORP: $179M Antitrust Suit Settlement Gets Initial OK NASHUA CORP: Plaintiffs Fail to Refile Claim in Cerion IPO Suit NEW CENTURY: Loan Officers to Pursue Claim for Overtime Pay NEW CENTURY: Chapter 11 Cases Include WARN Act Violation Claim ORACLE CORP: Court to Rule on Letting British Author Testify PETCO ANIMAL: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Greenies Dog Chews PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Faces Ill. Suit Over Mutual Fund Kickbacks REFCO COMMODITY: Moves to Lift Stay to Pursue Dismissal Request REFCO INC: Lift Stay Order in Sunstate Investors' Suit Expanded SIRVA INC: Parties Seek to Settle Ill. Securities Fraud Lawsuit SMART & FINAL: Settles Calif. Suit Over Sharp Merger Agreement TB ISLE: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Denial of Overtime Compensation TIMOTHY J. BROPHY: Wis. Court Okays Settlement with Tenants TRI-STAR INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Rattles with Detachable Parts U.S. ENGINEERING: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Wages U.S. RECOVERY: Student in Bounty Hunter Class Files Fraud Suit W.R. GRACE: Opposes Anderson Memorial's Access to Privilege Log Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has $401.6M Liability in 1Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Ltd. Has 135,260 U.S. Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has 326 U.K. Claims at 1Q07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re Reserves $517.9M for A&E Losses ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Celanese Units Rise to 658 in 1Q07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Records 145T Open Claims in 1Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Faces 19,120 Pending Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Open Claims v. Brandon Drying Drop to 9,089 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Still Faces Mt. Vernon Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Faces Actions from Old Businesses ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. IntriCon Corp. Remain at 122 in 1Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Reserves $7.75M for Liability Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. Entrx Corp. Drop to 375 in 1Q07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Still Faces Suit by ACE, Insurers ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ballantyne Faces Stehman Suit in California ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Records $10.37M Liabilities in 1Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms $9.2M Settlement to Congoleum ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norcross Safety Has 95 Exposure Suits in 1Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reunion Industries Opens 109 Cases in 1Q07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Faces 115 Pending Suits in 1Q07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Ohio Faces Fewer than 10 Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Indiana Faces 120 Pending Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BJ Services Faces Exposure Actions in Miss. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,381 Claims in 1Q07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus Metering Still Faces 3rd Party Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BMCA Continues to Face G-I Holdings Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Building Materials Has 1,900 Injury Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Empire State Still Faces Staniszek Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amerex Accrues $768T for Cleanup Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Commercial Has 101 Hilco Claimants ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Intermountain Recognizes $11T for Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Reached in Phase I of Congoleum Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Firms Fined CDN175T for Removal Breach ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Asks Court to Bar Suits v. BNSF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Worker's Kin Sues 44 Firms in Illinois ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Action Filed v. 43 Companies in Tex. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Files Suit v. 16 Firms in W.Va. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ironworker Sues 55 Companies in W.Va. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Warns of Dangers of Working with Hazard ASBESTOS ALERT: Meruelo Maddux Sued for Illegal Waste Disposal New Securities Fraud Cases XINHUA FINANCE: Bernstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ********* 40/40 CLUB: Former Waitress Files Suit to Claim Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- The 40/40 club owned by rapper Shawn Carter a.k.a. Jay-Z in W. 25th St. in New York is facing a class action filed by a former waitress alleging she wasn't paid for overtime, New York Posts' Daily News reports. Celeste Williams filed the suit in Manhattan Federal court on May 22. She is seeking class-action status for the suit on behalf of bartenders, table clearers and waiters. She claims the club doesn't pay minimum wage and takes a portion of their tips. Named defendants are: Shawn Carter, Twenty Ones dba The 40/40 Club, club co-owner Juan Perez and Desiree Gonzales. Ms. Williams is seeking unspecified damages in her suit on behalf of more than 100 staffers. 40/40 says it hasn't been served with any papers. Ms. Williams allegedly worked at the club for only four days. Ms. Williams' lawyer is: Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Joseph & Herzfeld, LLP 757 Third Avenue 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com AAFES: Recalls Toys Due to Paint Peeling, High Lead Content ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with AAFES (Army & Air Force Exchange Service) of Dallas, Texas, is voluntarily recalling about 3,000 Invincibles Transport Converters Toy Sets. The firm said surface paints on the toy action figures contain high levels of lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects. AAFES has not received any injury or incident reports. This recall involves toy sets with multiple action figures and vehicles. The model number (88931), Universal Product Code (6 98567 88931 4) and Soldier Bear logo are printed on the product's packaging. The backs of the action figures are marked with letters "TC-ST." Toy Century Industrial Ltd. of Hong Kong manufactured these products, which were sold at AAFES stores worldwide from August 2006 through April 2007 for about $20. Click the link to view the photo: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07193.html Consumers should immediately take the toys away from children and return the product to the nearest AAFES store for full refund. For additional information, call AAFES at (800) 866-3605 anytime or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.aafes.com. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Sued by OrthoClear Settlement Class Members ------------------------------------------------------------- Align Technology, Inc. was notified of a purported class-action complaint that was filed against it, OrthoClear Inc., and OrthoClear Holdings, Inc., d/b/a OrthoClear, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on May 18, 2007. The Complaint, filed on behalf of Debra A. Weber and all others similarly situated, alleges that orthodontic treatments of the plaintiff dental patients "were interrupted, unduly prolonged or terminated as a result of defendants' unlawful conduct" relating to the OrthoClear settlement. Following the OrthoClear settlement, Align Technology launched the Patients First Program to provide new Invisalign treatment to former OrthoClear patients at no charge to patients or their doctors. The Complaint alleges two causes of action against the OrthoClear defendants and one cause of action against Align Technology for breach of contract. The cause of action against Align Technology references Align's agreement to make Invisalign treatment available to OrthoClear patients, alleging that Align failed "to provide the promised treatment to Plaintiff or any of the Class Members." As of May 21, 2007, Align had shipped approximately 23,400 of the 24,700 cases submitted under the Patients First Program, including all Invisalign aligners for the named Plaintiff. The remaining in-process cases are expected to ship in the second quarter of 2007, as previously reported by the Company. Align Technology has reviewed the allegations contained in the Complaint and believes they are without merit. It intends to vigorously defend itself against the Complaint. The suit is "Weber v. Align Technology, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:07-cv-00535-NAM-GJD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Norman A. Mordue, with referral to Judge Gustave J. DiBianco. Representing plaintiffs are: Mark J. Schulte, Esq. Daniel B. Berman, Esq. Maureen E. Maney, Esq. Zachary M. Mattison, Esq. Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm P.O. Box 4976 1500 MONY Tower I Syracuse, NY 13221-4976 Phone: 315-471-3151 Fax: 315-471-3167 or 315-233-4312 E-mail: mschulte@hancocklaw.com or dberman@hancocklaw.com or mmaney@hancocklaw.com or zmattison@hancocklaw.com ALLTEL CORP: Ark. Lawsuit Challenges $27.5BB TPG Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ Emerson Poynter LLP, a national law firm with offices in Little Rock, Arkansas and Houston, Texas, filed a class action in the Pulaski County (Ark.) Circuit Court on behalf of holders of Alltel Corp. (AT) Common Stock. The case is CV 2007 006406. The suit, filed against Alltel and its directors, alleges that certain Alltel insiders and directors were provided with preferential treatment in connection with their efforts to complete the sale of Alltel to TPG Capital, formally Texas Pacific Group and GS Capital Partners, a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs in a transaction valued at approximately $27.5 billion. Under the terms of the merger agreement, TPG Capital and GSCP will acquire all of the outstanding common stock of Alltel for $71.50 per share in cash. The purchase price per share represents a 23% premium over Alltel's closing share price prior to media reports of a potential transaction published on Dec. 29, 2006. The Arkansas complaint further alleges that Alltel and its directors breached their fiduciary duties by placing their own interests ahead of the company's public shareholders by agreeing to a merger, which will offer a meager premium to shareholders but will enrich the directors significantly upon consummation of the "change of control" transaction. For further information, contact: Scott E. Poynter, Esq. Emerson Poynter LLP 500 President Clinton Ave, Suite 305 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 501.907.2555 Toll Free: 800.663.9817 Fax: 501.907.2556 E-mail: alltelcase@emersonpoynter.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: June Hearing Set in $100M Securities Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a final fairness hearing on June 4 at 10:00 a.m. for a proposed settlement in the matter, "In re American Express Financial Advisors Securities Litigation, Master File No. 04 Civ. 1773 (DAB)." The hearing will be held before Judge Deborah A. Batts of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Room 24B, New York, NY 10007. The settlement covers all persons and entities who, at any time from and including March 10, 1999 through and including April 1, 2006: -- paid a fee for financial advisory services as described in the American Express or Ameriprise Financial Advisory Services Brochure and the Financial Advisory Service Agreement; -- purchased through American Express Financial Advisors (now Ameriprise) any mutual fund in the American Express or Ameriprise Preferred Provider Program, Select Group Program, or other similar program; -- purchased through American Express Financial Advisors any mutual fund sold under the American Express, AXP, or RiverSource brand; -- paid a fee for financial advice, financial planning, or other financial advisory services rendered in connection with the American Express or Ameriprise Strategic Portfolio Service program, Wealth Management Service program, or Separately Managed Account program. Generally, plaintiffs in the consolidated action, assert claims against Defendants under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933; Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rules 10b-5(a)-(c) and 10b-10 promulgated thereunder; Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. Sections 80b-5, 80b-6; the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act; Minnesota False Advertisement Act; Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act; and for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. In October 2005, a comprehensive settlement was reached regarding the consolidated securities class action filed against the company, its former parent and affiliates in October 2004. The settlement, under which the company denies any liability, includes a one-time payment of $100 million to the class members. On Feb. 14, the court preliminarily approved the settlement and set a final fairness hearing for June 4. Objections or exclusions to and from the settlement were due May 7. Deadline for submission of claim forms is July 10. For more information, contact AEFA Securities Litigation Settlement c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., P.O. Box 9089, Dublin, OH 43017-0989, Phone: 1-888-212-5605, Web site: http://www.financialfeesettlement.com. The suit is "In Re American Express Financial Advisors Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-01773-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Deborah A. Batts. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Jules Brody, Aaron Lee Brody, Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 687-7230, Fax: (212) 490-2022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com; (2) Sharon M. Lee, Andrei V. Rado, Michael Robert Reese, Steven G. Schulman and Peter Edward Seidman, Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, L.L.P., One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 594-5300, E-mail: mreese@milberg.com, sschulman@milbergweiss.com, pseidman@milberg.com; and (3) Jonathan K. Levine, Girard, Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, L.L.P., 601 California Street Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA 94108, Phone: (415) 981-4800, Fax: (415) 981-4846, E-mail: jkl@girardgibbs.com. Representing the company is Peter Kristian Vigeland of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (NYC), 399 Park Avenue, 30th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-8888, E-mail: Peter.Vigeland@wilmer.com. BASF CORP: Fairness Hearing for $62.5M POAST Suit Deal Set June --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota will hold a Final Approval Hearing on June 5, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. for a $62.5 million nationwide settlement of a suit filed by farmers who purchased BASF Corp.'s herbicide POAST(R). The lawsuit was filed in 1997 in Norman County District Court, Ada, Minnesota by 11 farmers who accused New Jersey-based BASF Corp. of fraudulently marketing the same herbicide as different products -- POAST and POAST Plus -- at different prices. The lawsuit claimed that this marketing was intended to obtain inflated prices for the same herbicide from minor crop farmers. Minor crop farmers are growers of sugarbeets, sunflowers, potatoes, field beans, fruits and vegetables, and flowers. After a trial and numerous appeals, the farmers prevailed. On Nov. 17, 2006, BASF paid $62.5 million into the Farmers' Common Fund, an interest-bearing bank account approved by the court, to hold farmers' money until distribution. The jury found that the herbicides were essentially the same, but that BASF charged more for Poast (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 15, 2006). Farmers who bought Poast herbicide from 1992 to 1996 are eligible to share in the judgment. Plaintiffs' attorney Douglas Nill estimated that several thousand farmers are eligible. The distribution will be pro rata. Objections and claim filing were due May 9 and May 16, respectively. The class action on the Net: http://www.poastclassaction.com/. The suit is "Peterson v. BASF Corp., Case No. C2-97-295," filed in Norman County District Court, Ada, Minnesota. Class Counsel is Douglas J. Nill, P.A., 1100 One Financial Plaza, 120 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1801, Phone: 1-866-573-3669 (Toll-free), Website: http://www.FarmLaw.com. CANADA: Saskatoon Condo Buyers Sue Developer for Failed Project --------------------------------------------------------------- A group of angry would-be homeowners in Saskatoon, Canada, have filed a class action against Jastek Master Builder, CBC News reports. Jastek Master Builder, a home developer, signed contracts for condominium development with about 50 individuals sometime in January. Some months later, these people received letters saying Jastek was canceling the development because it was unable to secure a development permit. The lawsuit alleges the company breached the contract. It seeks to have the company either honor the agreement or compensate the people involved for the deposits they made. One of the plaintiffs, Gina Smith, found the whole situation devastating and said she can no longer afford a house in Saskatoon because the housing prices have increased considerably. Jastek has 20 days to file its defense argument. George Green of Sakskatoon, Saskatchewan is representing the plaintiffs. CATHOLIC CHURCH: Suit Against Archdiocese of Portland Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in a class action against the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon agreed to dismiss the suit after the Honorable Elizabeth L. Perris approved a settlement under the archdiocese's Chapter 11 case. Judge Perris overruled all objections to the Class Action Settlement. Subsequently, the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon, the Official Committee of Tort Claimants, and other parties, in an approved stipulated order, agree to dismiss the case with prejudice and without costs to any party (Catholic Church Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 92). Several parties tried to block approval of the Settlement, specifically (i) AbiJah Shachag (ii) the Class Counsel and the Committee of Catholic Parishes, Parishioners and Other Interested Parties, (iii)) Ray Jordan, a certified public accountant, and (iv) Charles E. Wagner of Hillsboro, Oregon. The parties argued, among other things, that the restructuring of the Archdiocese should be agreed to in all respects before the Settlement is approved. The Class Action Settlement relates to a defendant class action (Adversary Proceeding No. 04-03292-elp filed in the Bankruptcy Case). Under the Class Action Settlement, in consideration for the Debtor's payment in full of the allowed amount of all claims under the Second Amended and Restated Joint Plan of Reorganization: (1) the lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice on the Effective Date of the Plan; (2) if the court approves the plan, the Debtor, the Parishes and Schools will receive a discharge from liability for all claims that arose prior to the Effective Date of the Plan. Thereafter, those with claims that arose prior to the Effective Date may seek recovery only under the terms of the Plan; (3) the Parishes, Schools and the Debtor will be restructured under civil law in the 12 months following the Effective Date of the Plan, among other things, to make clear under civil law the ownership interests effective under ecclesiastical law; and (4) the Disclosure Statement states: "It is anticipated that no Parish or School property will be used to pay Claims or serve as collateral for any loans, and that the Reorganized Debtor will be able to provide the necessary funding to pay Claims without increasing the Parish assessments." The Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon filed for chapter 11 protection (Bankr. Ore. Case No. 04-37154) on July 6, 2004. On July 22, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order in a lawsuit certifying parishes and parishioners as a class of defendants. At issue in the lawsuit is whether Catholic parishes, schools and certain funds are available to the Archdiocese to pay settlements of tort claims and to other creditors. The main issues in the Lawsuit are whether Parishes, Schools and certain funds are unrestricted assets belonging to the Debtor and available to creditors of the Debtor. The Debtor, the Parishes and Schools contend, among other things, that such assets are restricted and are not available to pay creditors of the Debtor. The Tort Claimants Committee contends that such property is the unrestricted property of the Debtor and is available to pay creditors of the Debtor. The Committee of Parishioners - Western Oregon on the Net: http://www.parishionerscommittee.org/ The suit is "In Re: Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, and successors, a corporation sole, dba the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon, Debtor, Case No. 04-37154-elp11." Class Counsel is Douglas R. Pahl of Perkins Coie LLP, 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor, Portland, OR 97209-4128, Phone: (503) 727-2121, Fax: (503) 727-2222, E-mail: parishclass@perkinscoie.com. CROCUS INVESTMENT: Moves to Dismiss Parts of Investors' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Crocus Investment lawyers presented to a Winnipeg court motions to dismiss portions of a suit filed by fund investors, CJOB reports. Investors filed the CAN$200M suit in 2005 after the labor- sponsored fund failed. The suit alleges, among others, that the province "did not properly enforce the Crocus Act," and that provincial officials "deliberately ignored multiple warning signs regarding the management of the Crocus Fund" (Class Action Reporter, Nov 22, 2006). Lead plaintiffs, GrowthWorks Canadian Fund Ltd. and Bernie Bellan, have proposed a $1 million settlement for the suit. Defendants in the suit are: - Crocus Investment; - Manitoba Securities Commission; - 17 individuals that include past senior officers and members of the fund's board of directors; and - Manitoba province. Hearing for class certification is set on September. Lead attorney for the investors is: David Klein, Esq. David Klein, Klein Lyons Suite 1100 - 1333 West Broadway Vancouver, B.C. V6H 4C1 Phone: (604) 874-7171 CVS RX: Fla. Pharmacists Sue to Claim Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- CVS RX Services, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed May 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging Labor Code violations. Named plaintiff Jeffrey Charron brings this action for unpaid overtime compensation, declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Mr. Charron files this complaint on behalf of all pharmacists who worked for CVS Rx at any time within the past three years and who performed services for defendants for which no provisions were made to properly pay them for those hours worked in excess of 40 within a work week. The complaint claims that during plaintiffs' employment, they were not paid time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per work week during one or more work weeks. Instead, plaintiffs were paid "straight time" for their hours in excess of 40 within the work week. According to the complaint, as a result of defendants' intentional, willful, and unlawful acts in refusing to pay plaintiff time and one-half his regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 per work week in one or more work weeks, plaintiff has suffered damages plus incurring reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants for the payment of all overtime hours at one and one-half the regular rate of pay for the hours worked by them for which defendant did not properly compensate them, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action, declaratory relief and for such other and further relief the court deems just and proper. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2017 The suit is "Charron v. CVS RX Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00327-JES-DNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge John E. Steele with referral to Judge Douglas N. Frazier. Representing plaintiffs is: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. Morgan & Morgan, PA 20 N Orange Ave - Ste 1600 PO Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: 407/420-1414 Fax: 407/423-7928 E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com DAIMLERCHRYSLER MOTORS: Tex. Suit Claims Firms Tamper Odometers --------------------------------------------------------------- DaimlerChrysler Motors Co., LLC and DaimlerChrylser Corp. are facing a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas accusing it of tampering with odometers. Named plaintiff Kimberlee Jarrell claims that on or about May 27, 2005, she purchased a 2005 Dodge Durango, designed, manufactured and marketed by DaimlerChrysler Corp. and/or DaimlerChrysler Motors. She further purchased a basic warranty against all manufacturing defects for a period of three years or 36,000 miles. She had also purchased warranties of varying duration on a number of components of the Durango. The suit claims that in connection with the sale of the vehicle and these warranties, DaimlerChrysler impliedly represented to Ms. Jarrell that the vehicle's odometer would accurately record the miles actually driven by the vehicle. Allegedly, however, DaimlerChrysler had purposefully designed the vehicle's odometer to inflate the mileage driven by the vehicle by a factor not less than 3% under nominal conditions, Ms. Jarrell's suit claims. The complaint alleges DaimlerChrysler achieved this over- registration by installing a computer software device in the vehicle that altered the odometer's performance by an amount that exceeds the odometer manufacturer's design tolerance. Plaintiff alleges that DaimlerChrysler adopted a uniform, biased odometer performance standard that purposefully accelerated the odometers of all DaimlerChrysler vehicles in the U.S. Ms. Jarrell specifically alleges that DaimlerChrysler altered the odometer of her vehicle with the intent to defraud. Ms. Jarrell seeks to represent all persons and entities who/which purchased, leased or otherwise acquired an automobile designed or manufactured by Daimlerchrysler anywhere in the U.S. since May 22, 2005. She brings this action as a Plaintiff Class Action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3), asking: (a) if DaimlerChrysler adopted a uniform odometer performance standard for all its vehicles; (b) if DaimlerChrysler installed a computer device to alter the performance of the odometer in violation of federal law; (c) if the odometer performance standard adopted by DaimlerChrysler causes errors of odometer over- registration; (d) if the installation of the computer device causes errors of odometer over-registration; (e) if such odometer over-registration was the result of DaimlerChrysler's intent to defraud; (f) the measure of actual damages; (g) the availabitlity of the statutory penalties; and (h) attorney's fees and costs. Ms. Jarrell prays that upon final trial, she obtain judgment as follows: -- certifying the case as a class action and appointing her and her counsel to represent the interests of the class; -- adjudging that DaimlerChrysler violated the federal prohibition against odometer tampering and that it did so with the intent to defraud American consumers; -- awarding her and the class their actual damages in an amount sufficient to restore to them the benefit of their bargain; -- awarding her and the class treble their actual damages or not less than $1,500 for each class vehicle delivered in the U.S. in the last two years; -- awarding her and the class their reasonable attorneys' fees incurred at trial and, if necessary, on appeal; -- taxing all costs of court and the expenses of maintaining this suit (including class member notification expenses) against DaimlerChrysler; and -- awarding her and the class all pre-judgment and post- judgment interests as may be allowed under law at the highest respective lawful rates. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?200d The suit is "Jarrell v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Co., LLC et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00205-TJW-CE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas under Judge T. John Ward with referral to Judge Charles Everingham. Representing plaintiffs are: James Andrew Holmes, Esq. Attorney at Law 605 South Main, Suite 203 Henderson, TX 75654 Phone: 903/657-2800 Fax: 903/657-2855 E-mail: jh@jamesholmeslaw.com David Brian Miller, Esq. Law Offices of David B Miller 4350 Beltway Dr Addison, TX 75001 Phone: 972/991-2222 E-mail: david@schneidlaw.com - and - Robert Stephen Woodfin, Esq. Law Office of R. Stephen Woodfin PO Box 1638 Kilgore, TX 75663 Phone: 903/984-0518 Fax: 9039842574 E-mail: stephenwoodfin@sydcom.net DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Accused of Charging Illegal Payday Loan Rates --------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Financial Corp. is facing a class-action complaint in Alameda County Court accusing it of charging unconscionable and illegal rates for "payday loans," CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff, Amy Baille, claims she borrowed $300 and paid $977 in interest over five months, and the defendant claims she still owes it $430. According to the complaint, co-defendant Dollar Financial Group, made more than $300 million in fiscal years 2005-2006 from its more than 100 "financial service stores in California." Ms. Baille seeks accounting, restitution for usury and unjust enrichment and an injunction. Representing Ms. Baille is: Harold M. Jaffe, Esq. Stephen H. Cornet A Professional Corporation 3521 Grand Ave Oakland, CA 94610-2011 Phone: (510) 452-2610 Fax: (510) 452-9125 Dollar Financial (NASDAQ (GS): DLLR) -- http://www.dfg.com-- through its subsidiary Dollar Financial Group, operates more than 1,250 check-cashing stores (about 40% are franchises) in the US, Canada, and the UK. In addition to check cashing, the stores offer payday lending, money wires, transfers, electronic tax filing, and reloadable Visa debit cards. FIELDSTONE INVESTMENT: Faces Investor Suit Over Sale to C-BASS -------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action has been filed in Howard County Circuit Court, seeking to block the acquisition of Fieldstone Investment Corp. by Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization LLC, Baltimore Sun reports. The New York firm C-BASS, which collects mortgage payments and buys troubled loans, acquired some of Fieldstone Investment's assets sometime in February to keep it buoyant. The agreement indicates that Fieldstone shareholders would get $4 in cash per share. Most of the shareholders who voted in person or proxy were in favor of the deal held at a recent special shareholders meeting. The suit alleges that mortgage banker Michael J. Sonnenfeld, founder of Fieldstone, and other directors failed to do their fiduciary duty by not lobbying for a higher stock price. C-BASS lawyer Edward J. Fuhr expects that the lawsuit will be dismissed. For him, the transaction was in favor of the shareholder. He added that the suit was chiefly aimed to "enjoin the shareholders from voting on the proposed transaction, and it wholly failed in that effort." In the first quarter, Fieldstone declared it lost $69 million and had $416 million in loans that were more than three months past due. It announced about a month ago that it would close down some of its branches and lay off employees. For more information about the case, contact: Edward J. Fuhr, Esq. Hunton & Williams LLP Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 951 East Byrd Street Richmond, Virginia 23219-4074 Phone: 804-788-8200 Fax: 804-788-8218 or 804-788-8219 Web Site: http://www.hunton.com GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Court Approves $64M Paxil Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Madison County Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn granted final approval to a $64 million settlement of a suit over GlaxoSmithKline plc's anti-depressant drug Paxil, The Associated Press reports. The suit accuses GlaxoSmithKline of promoting the drug for use by children and adolescents while withholding negative information about the medication's safety and effectiveness. The class consists of all U.S. residents who bought Paxil and Paxil CR, a controlled-release version of the drug. Judge Mendelsohn approved on Oct. 6 and unsealed on Oct. 27 the $63.8 million settlement (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 7, 2006). Under the deal, announced in April and granted final approval last week, parents with proof that they bought GlaxoSmithKline Paxil and Paxil CR for their children can recoup out-of-pocket expenses. Under the new settlement, anyone who purchased Paxil for someone under 18 will get 100 percent of their out-of-pocket expenses reimbursed if they have proof and file a claim by Aug. 31. Anyone who does not have proof of purchase is still entitled to receive up to $100 if the claim is supported by an affidavit swearing that Paxil was purchased. Plaintiffs' attorneys can claim more than $16 million in fees, which will be deducted from the settlement fund, with the remaining money available for payments to consumers. Any money left over in the settlement fund is to be returned to GlaxoSmithKline. The Settlement on the Net: http://www.paxilpediatricsettlement.com http://www.paxilprogress.org http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com Contact information for class attorney Stephen Tillery Mr. -- http://www.carrkorein.com/-- Belleville, Illinois (St. Clair Co.). HOMEBRIDGE MORTGAGE: Lawsuit Filed in Fla. Aims to Collect Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Homebridge Mortgage Bankers, Corp. a/k/a Refinance.com is facing a class-action complaint filed May 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging Labor Code violations. Named plaintiffs -- Kenneth Saunders, Craig Feit, Diego Montoya, Bruce Nazzaro, Sheldon Rosenburg, Sean Barnes and Anthony Wong - - bring this action to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties, other damages and attorneys' fees owed to plaintiffs and all other similarly situated persons employed or formerly employed by defendants. Plaintiffs were non-exempt mortgage consultants who were not paid overtime indirect violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. within the past three years. Defendants were obligated to compensate plaintiffs for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at the statutory rate of one and one-half times their regular rate, the suit says. Defendants were also obligated to compensate plaintiffs at least minimum wage for all hours worked. By failing to pay compensation due under the FLSA, defendants willfully and knowingly violated provisions of the FLSA which require overtime compensation be paid to all non-exempt employees. As a result of defendants' willful and unlawful practice of paying less than the required rate and amount, plaintiffs have been damaged. Plaintiffs request that the court award them compensatory damages, including all compensation (minimum wage and overtime) owed, all interest on all compensation accruing from the date such amount were due, liquidated damages in an amount equal to the compensation shown to be owed pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 448.08 against defendants, and such other monetary and equitable relief as the court deems just and proper. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2019 The suit is "Saunders et al v. Homebridge Mortgage Bankers, Corp. et al., Case No. 9:07-cv-80442-KLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp with referral to Judge Ann E. Vitunac. Representing plaintiffs is: Miguel Armenteros, Esq. Damian & Valori LLP 1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1020 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-371-3960 Fax: 371-3965 E-mail: marmenteros@dvllp.com KENTUCKY: Work Program for Retired Judges Runs Until 2009 --------------------------------------------------------- Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate ruled that a senior status program for judges does not expire until Jan. 31, 2009, Brandon Ortiz of Kentucky.com reports. The ruling is made in a class action involving all active judges in Kentucky who were seeking to clarify the terms of the program. Some fear it may expire on June 30. The program allows retired judges to work clearing case backlogs in exchange for a significantly enhanced retirement benefit. It was created in 2000 and amended in 2002. It is clear from statements made surrounding the 2002 passage of the amendment that the General Assembly intended to extend the program to 2009, Judge Wingate said, according to the report. The suit was field by judges Messer, Steve D. Hurt and Doughlas M. George. They were represented by James E. Keller, a retired Supreme Court justice, and Donald Cetrulo, a former director of the Administrative Office of the Courts. The lawsuit names as respondents the Board of Trustees of the Kentucky Judicial Form Retirement System and Chief Justice Joseph Lambert. Representing the plaintiffs were Donald Cetrulo, a former director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and: James E. Keller, Esq. Gess Mattingly & Atchison, P.S.C. 201 West Short Street Lexington, Kentucky 40507-1269 Phone: 859-252-9000 Fax: 859-233-4269 Web Site: http://www.gmalaw.com KTM NORTH: Recalls Motorcycles Posing Chemical Burn, Fire Risks --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with KTM North America Inc., of Amherst, Ohio, is voluntarily recalling about 20,000 Off-Road Motorcycles. According to KTM, the seal around the fuel tank can loosen allowing fuel to leak, posing a fire hazard to consumers. KTM has received 5,114 reports of leaking fuel tanks. CPSC has received one report of a minor chemical burn due to fuel coming into contact with a consumer's skin. This recall involves KTM off-road motorcycles. KTM is printed on the side of the orange and black motorcycles along with the model. Model numbers included in the recall are: Model Year 2005 250SX-F; Model Year 2006 200XC, 200XC-W, 250XC-W, 250SX-F, 250XCF-W, 300XC, 300XC-W, 400EXC-G, 450XC-G, 450EXC-G, and 525EXC-G; Model Year 2007 125SX, 144SX, 250SX, 250SX-F, 450SX-F, 505SX-F, 200XC, 250XC, 300XC, 450XC, 200XCW, 250XCW, 300XCW, 400XCW, 450XCW, 525XCW, 250XC-F, and 250XCF-W. These off-road motorcycles, which were manufactured in Austria, were sold at KTM dealers nationwide from November 2004 through April 2007 for between $5,400 and $7,800. Photo of the motorcycle subject for recall: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07194.html Consumers should stop using these vehicles immediately and contact their local KTM dealer to schedule an appointment for a free repair. Consumers with the recalled vehicles are being sent direct notices from KTM. For more information, contact KTM at (888) 985-6090 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.ktmnorthamerica.com LOUISIANA: City Sued for Allegedly Overbilling Utility Customers ---------------------------------------------------------------- The city of Alexandria in Louisiana has been served with a purported class action that claims it has been overbilling utility customers for a decade, The Associated Press reports. The petition for a class action was filed in state District Court by Shreveport attorney Larry English on behalf of eight people identified as Alexandria ratepayers. It contends that Alexandria has defrauded ratepayers since 1997. Mr. English told The Associated Press that he expects to add more names to the lawsuit this week. City Council President Everett Hobbs told The Associated Press that he would like to research how the city reads fuel adjustment costs for electricity, which Mr. English alleges have been miscalculated. According to the suit, the plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages in addition to a refund of alleged overcharges to all affected ratepayers. For more details, contact: Larry English, Esq. 401 Edwards Street, Suite 826 Shreveport, LA 71101 Phone: (318) 222-1900 Fax: (318) 226-1660 MASSACHUSETTS: Suit Seeks Better Care for Brain-injured Persons --------------------------------------------------------------- Brain-injured people in Worcester, Mass. filed a class action charging the state with denying them access to community settings, Richard Nangle of Telegram & Gazette Staff reports. The suit, similar to "Rosie D. v. Romney," also known as the "stuck kids" case that had the state move institutionalized mentally ill patients into residential facilities, alleges the state violated the Americans With Disabilities Act and some federal laws by institutionalizing brain-injured people. It claims that even some of the institutionalized are not receiving necessary services, including assistance with personal care, speech, occupational and physical therapy; medical and nursing services; vocational training or day rehabilitation programs; medical equipment, transportation; and integrated social and recreational activities. According to the plaintiffs' lawyer, Richard Johnston, there are about 8,200 individuals with brain injuries residing in nursing and rehabilitation facilities in Massachusetts. One of the lead plaintiffs, 57-year old Glen Jones, has spent 21 years in Worcester Skilled Care Center after a motor vehicle accident left him in a coma for weeks. He has not received the services necessary for his release into the general population because efforts to identify existing residential programs were unsuccessful, the suit states. The suit also states that because the Brain Injury Statewide Specialized Community is inadequately funded, applicants are forced to wait for several years without receiving the services they need. In a written statement, lead plaintiff Cathy Hutchinson, indicated she has lived in a nursing home for almost 11 years after a stroke, leaving her a mute quadriplegic. The complaint claims that the state only provides community residential services to people who have suffered a traumatic brain injury, which is not the result of a medical condition such as a stroke. Lawyer for the Center for Public Representation Steven Schwartz said the state has refused to apply for federal funding to help pay for the transitioning of such people from institutions into the community. The suit asks that the state place about 2,000 similarly injured people into a community setting that could help them live better within 5 years. Defendants are: -- Gov. Deval L. Patrick; -- JudyAnn Bigby, secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services; -- Leslie A. Kirwan, secretary of the Executive Office of Administration and Finance; -- Thomas Dehner, acting director of MassHealth; and -- Elmer C. Bartels, commissioner of the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission. The case is "Hutchinson et al. v. Patrick et al., Case No. 3:07- cv-30084-KPN," filed in the U.S. District Court in Springfield with Judge Kenneth P. Neiman presiding. For more information about the case, contact: Richard A. Johnston, Esq. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 60 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Phone: 617-526-6000 Fax: 617-526-5000 E-mail: richard.johnston@wilmerhale.com - and - Steven Schwartz, Esq. Center for Public Representation 22 Green Street Northampton, MA 01060 Phone: 413-586-6024 E-mail: sschwartz@cpr-ma.org Web Site: http://www.centerforpublicrep.org MAURITANIA: Ex-Pres. Sued in N.Y. Over Human Rights Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Former president Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya of Mauritania is facing a class action brought by exiled Mauritanians living in New York, Christine Kearney of Monsters and Critics.com reports. The civil class action was filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. It charges President Taya, now exiled in Qatar, of torture and gross human rights violations committed from 1989 to 1991. It says there were thousands of black Mauritanians under the Taya administration who became subjects to ethnic cleansing, which included cold-blooded torture and killings. The suit further alleges that Mauritania courts denied the plaintiffs' pleas for justice. Complainants in the lawsuit are: -- Abdarahmane Wone, beaten and tortured by the Mauritanian government when he was only 15, leaving him a permanent deaf; -- Mohamed Mansour Kane, former lieutenant in the Mauritanian army, suffered sickening torture and witnessed others being killed mercilessly; and -- family of Ousumane Wele, seized and murdered by Mauritanian military while the family was forced to leave the country. Besides jury trial, the suit also seeks compensatory and punitive damages prescribed in international law. Under U.S. federal laws plus the Torture Victim Protection Act, the case can be heard in the U.S., the suit claims. Plaintiffs' lawyer prays that the court would at least grant legal recognition for the crimes the Taya administration committed. Claims for monetary damages would almost be impossible because Mr. Taya does not reside in the U.S., he said. MBIA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in "In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation," are appealing the dismissal of their case before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Case Background Initially, several class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against MBIA Inc. and certain of its officers and directors (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 20, 2005). The suits were: -- "Anthony Capone v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV 3514) (filed April 4, 2005); -- "Thomas Cassady v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV 3730; S.D.N.Y.) (filed April 7, 2005); -- "Todd Simon v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV 3636; S.D.N.Y.) (filed April 8, 2005); -- "Mariss Partners, LLP v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV 3709; S.D.N.Y) (filed April 11, 2005); and -- "Alan D. Sadowsky and Barbara S. Katvin v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV 4150; S.D.N.Y.) (filed April 26, 2005). The suits named as defendants Joseph W. Brown, the company's chairman and former chief executive officer; Gary C. Dunton, the company's chief executive officer; Nicholas Ferreri, the company's chief financial officer; Neil G. Budnick, a vice president of the company and the company's former chief financial officer; and Douglas C. Hamilton, the company's controller. The plaintiffs in these cases assert claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek to act as representatives for a putative class consisting of purchasers of the company's stock during the period from August 5, 2003 to March 30, 2005. Although the individual lawsuits vary, the allegations include, among other things, violations of the federal securities laws arising out of the company's allegedly false and misleading statements about its financial condition and the defendant's failure "to disclose or indicate" these alleged facts: -- that the company, during the class period, overleveraged itself, deeply under-reserved against possible credit defaults, and overly exposed to guaranteeing risky structured financings; -- that MBIA accelerated its recognition of current income by classifying many of its upfront guarantee fees as advisory fees taken at closing, rather than accounted for over the life of the bonds insured; -- that MBIA improperly booked a $70 million payment received from Converium Re (then called Zurich Reinsurance North America) in 1998, which at the time was depicted as a loss-reducing reinsurance recovery for MBIA, but was, in substance, a loan; -- that as result, MBIA financial statements were materially overstated by $60 million; -- that MBIA artificially inflated premium income and portfolio credit quality by insuring bonds in the secondary market that were attracting prices lower than their stale credit ratings would dictate; -- that MBIA's low loss ratios resulted from the company's practice to defer recognizing problems rather than providing layers of excess collateral, other underwriting protection, and its self-proclaimed prowess at restructurings; -- that MBIA set forth an illegal scheme of covering the loss, from the failed Allegheny Health, Education and Research Foundation (Aherf) bond issuance, with a retroactive reinsurance policy, giving it a reinsurance recovery of $170 million to cover the present value of the future Aherf interest and principal payments, which resulted in MBIA showing a better than 40% jump in pretax income that year - $565 million over what the income figure would have been without resort to the reinsurance; -- that MBIA was dumping on Channel Reinsurance Ltd., a Bermuda reinsurer where MBIA owns a 17.4% interest, performing but troubled policies from its existing portfolio, with the provision that it could make up any quality problems later so that MBIA could buy time by getting potential workout loans off its balance sheet in order to make its financial results appear better; and -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company. The plaintiffs allege that, as a result of these misleading statements or omissions, the company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices. These lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages in connection with purchases by members of the putative class of the company's stock at such allegedly inflated prices during the class period. On July 25, 2005, the presiding judge issued an order consolidating these five cases into one action under the caption, "In re MBIA Securities Litigation, Case No. 05 CV 3514," and named as lead plaintiffs in the case: -- the Southwest Carpenters Pension Trust, and -- the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System. The defendants, including the company, filed motions to dismiss this lawsuit on various grounds. On Feb. 13, 2007, the Court granted those motions, and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety, on the grounds that these claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Court did not reach the other grounds for dismissal argued by the Company and the other defendants. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on March 14, 2007, according to the company's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The suit is "In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-03514-LLS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Louis L. Stanton. Representing the plaintiffs are: David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP 200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 E-mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com - and - Peter Edward Seidman, Esq. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 613-5625 Fax: (212) 868-1229 E-mail: pseidman@milberg.com MEDPLANS PARTNERS: Ky. Suit Claims Overtime Compensation Denial --------------------------------------------------------------- Medplans Partners, Inc. is facing a class action filed May 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging Labor Code violations. Insurance Claims Examiners of Medplans purport to bring this action for legal relief to redress unlawful violations of plaintiffs' rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et. seq., and the collective action provision of the Act found at Section 216(b), to remedy violations of the wage provisions of the FLSA. These violations have allegedly deprived plaintiffs of their lawful wages. Named plaintiffs in the complaint: -- Pamela Adams -- Melody R. Bateman -- Bureen Frankenberger -- Susan E. Brown -- Melissa Durbin -- Kathrin a. England -- Amy J. Frank -- Leonard D. Frank -- Patricia Gill -- Tammy Harrison -- Tisha Porter This suit is brought to recover unpaid hourly and overtime compensation owed to plaintiffs and all current and former employees of Medplans, pursuant to the FLSA and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all present and former Claims Examiners of MedPlans, who were not paid overtime compensation for time worked in excess of 40 hours per work week or were not compensated for time worked. Plaintiffs claim that during their employment as Claims Examiners, they consistently worked more than 40 horus per week, but were not paid overtime compensation. They were allegedly required to be present at work, but were taken "off the clock" at various time and not paid for such off- the-clock work, the complaint alleges. In addition, upon information and belief, MedPlans has allegedly failed to compensate Claims Examiners for additional work performed on the company's behalf. As a result of defendant's violations of the FLSA, plaintiffs have allegedly suffered damages by failing to receive wages for hours worked and overtime wages in accordance with Sections 206 and 207 of the FLSA, the suit claims. Plaintiffs, pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA, and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act, pray for the following relief: -- that pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), at the earliest possible time, they be allowed to give notice, or that the court issue such notice, to all persons who are presently, or have at any time during the three years immediately preceding the filing of this suit, up through and including the date of the court's issuance of court-supervised notice, been employed as a Claims Examiner by MedPlans. Such notice shall inform them that this action has been filed and of their right to opt in to this lawsuit if they were not paid compensation for time worked and/or overtime compensation for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week; -- certification of a class pursuant to Rule 23 as defined; -- that plaintiffs and the class and collective action members be awarded damages in the amount of their respective unpaid compensation, plus an equal amount of liquidated damages and/or prejudgment interest; -- reasonable attorneys' fees; -- the costs and expenses of this action; and -- such other, further legal and equitable relief, including but not limited to, any injunctive and/or declaratory relief, to which they may be entitled. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?200f The suit is "Adams et al. v. Medplans Partners, Inc et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00259-TBR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky under Judge Thomas B. Russell. Representing plaintiffs are: Mark K. Gray, Esq. Doris A. Kim, Esq. Matthew L. White, Esq. Gray & White 500 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 1200 PNC Plaza Louisville, KY 40202 Phone: 502-585-2060 Fax: 502-581-1933 E-mail: mkgrayatty@aol.com or DKimGW@aol.com or mattwhiteatty@aol.com - and - Garry R. Adams, Jr., Esq. Mary Ann Palmer, Esq. Clay, Kenealy, Wagner & Adams PLLC 462 S. Fourth Avenue, 1730 Meidinger Tower Louisville, KY 40202 Phone: 502-561-2005 Fax: 502-589-5500 E-mail: gadams@tclaylaw.com or palmer.maryann@gmail.com METLIFE LIFE: Court Reverses Class Certification in "Macomber" -------------------------------------------------------------- The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed a trial court's certification of a class in the case, "Macomber, et al. v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp., et al.," which was filed in Connecticut Superior Court on April 7, 1999. An amended putative class action complaint was filed against The Travelers Life and Annuity Co., now known as MetLife Life and Annuity Company of Connecticut (MLAC), Travelers Equity Sales, Inc. and certain former affiliates. The amended complaint alleged Travelers Property Casualty Corp., a former MLAC affiliate, purchased structured settlement annuities from MLAC and spent less on the purchase of those structured settlement annuities than agreed with claimants, and that commissions paid to brokers for the structured settlement annuities, including an affiliate of MLAC, were paid in part to Travelers Property Casualty Corp. On May 26, 2004, the Connecticut Superior Court certified a nationwide class action involving the following claims against MLAC: violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Statute, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. On June 15, 2004, the defendants appealed the class certification order. In March 2006, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial court's certification of a class, according to the company's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations and other institutions. METROPOLITAN INSURANCE: Still Faces Tenants' Litigation in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Co. continues to face a consolidated class action in New York filed by tenants at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village who are challenging a rent increase. The complex, which previously owned by Metropolitan Life, was later sold to Tishman Speyer, which bought it for a record $5.4 billion in 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 29, 2007). The tenants, who are represented by attorney Stuart M. Saft, are seeking are roll back of their rents, claiming that the complex's owners illegally charged market-rate rents for more than 3,000 apartments in the complexes while benefiting from tax breaks that should have precluded them from doing so. One the suits filed is "Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer Properties, et al. (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed Jan. 22, 2007)." The suit also names Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Co. Metropolitan Life was initially a named defendant but the action has been discontinued as to Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. since it did not own the properties during the time period in question. This group of tenants claim that the MetLife entities, and since the sale of the properties, Tishman Speyer as current owner, improperly charged market rents when only lower regulated rents were permitted. The allegations are based on the impact of so-called J-51 tax abatements. The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief and damages. A second purported class action, originally titled, "Carroll v. Tishman Speyer Properties, et. al (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed Feb. 14, 2007)," was filed against the same defendants alleging similar claims as in the Roberts case and, in addition, includes a claim of unjust enrichment and purported violation of New York General Business Law Section 349. The Carroll action was consolidated into the Roberts action, according to the company's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. For more details, contact: Stuart M. Saft, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 545-4710 Fax: (212) 686-0114 Web site: http://www.whafh.com METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Faces Suits Over Policies in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------ Metropolitan Life in Canada continues to face two putative class actions, alleging improper marketing and sales of individual life insurance policies or annuities, according to the company's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. In "Jacynthe Evoy-Larouche v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Que. Super. Ct., filed March 1998)," plaintiff alleges misrepresentations regarding dividends and future payments for life insurance policies and seeks unspecified damages. In "Ace Quan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Ont. Gen. Div., filed April 1997)," plaintiff alleges breach of contract and negligent misrepresentations relating to, among other things, life insurance premium payments and seeks damages, including punitive damages. MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations and other institutions. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeals Court Sides with Firm in "Brubaker" -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the purported class action, "Brubaker, et al. v. Metropolitan Life, et al., Case No. 1:00-cv-02511- EGS," which was filed by former employees of Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. A putative class action, which commenced in October 2000, accuses the company of denying certain ad hoc pension increases awarded to retirees under the Metropolitan Life retirement plan. The ad hoc pension increases were awarded only to retirees (i.e., individuals who were entitled to an immediate retirement benefit upon their termination of employment) and not available to individuals like these plaintiffs whose employment, or whose spouses' employment, had terminated before they became eligible for an immediate retirement benefit. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of former Metropolitan Life employees, or their surviving spouses, who are receiving deferred vested annuity payments under the retirement plan and who were allegedly eligible to receive the ad hoc pension increases. In September 2005, Metropolitan Life's motion for summary judgment was granted. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied. Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Court of Appeals issued its decision on April 10, 2007, affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in Metropolitan Life's favor, according to the company's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The suit is "Brubaker, et al. v. Metropolitan Life, et al., Case No. 1:00-cv-02511-EGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Representing the plaintiffs is: Tas Coroneos, Esq. 5801 Highland Drive Chevy Chase, MD 20815-5531 Phone: (301) 656-1124 Fax: (301) 656-1460 Representing the company are: Emmett Boaz Lewis, Esq. Mark J. Rochon, Esq. Anthony F. Shelley, Esq. Miller & Chevalier 655 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 626-6090 Fax: (202) 628-0858 E-mail: elewis@milchev.com mrochon@milchev.com ashelley@milchev.com MICROSOFT CORP: $179M Antitrust Suit Settlement Gets Initial OK --------------------------------------------------------------- A Polk County District Court has granted preliminary approval to a $179.95 million settlement reached on behalf of persons and entities that purchased certain Microsoft software, or a computer on which Microsoft products were installed for use in Iowa. "While Microsoft believes it has sold its products at fair and reasonable prices that give customers great value, we are pleased to be providing significant long-term benefits to rural and disadvantaged Iowa schools as part of this settlement," said Rich Wallis, associate general counsel for Microsoft. "We have worked to make the claims process as simple as possible so that class members can get their cash or vouchers quickly and without difficulty," explained Roxanne Conlin, co-lead counsel for the class. Plaintiffs claim that Microsoft violated Iowa antitrust laws. Because of this, the lawsuit claims that consumers and businesses paid more for Microsoft Software. Microsoft denies the claims and says it developed and sold high quality software products at fair and reasonable prices. The class includes all individuals and businesses that purchased a license for Microsoft software for use in Iowa from someone other than Microsoft between May 18, 1994, and June 30, 2006. The class also includes Iowa State and its local governments that purchased a license for Microsoft software for use in Iowa from someone other than Microsoft between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2006. Microsoft has agreed to provide benefits totaling more than $179 million to the class. Class members are entitled to receive: - $16 for each copy of Windows or MS-DOS; - $25 for each copy of Microsoft Excel; - $29 for each copy of Microsoft Office; and - $10 for each copy of Microsoft Word, Works and Home Essential software. Payment will be in the form of cash or vouchers that can be used towards the purchase of computers, peripheral computer hardware, and software from any manufacturer, not just Microsoft. Half of any funds that are not claimed will be provided as vouchers for hardware, software and technology services to Iowa public schools. One hundred percent of the volume license vouchers claimed but not redeemed will also be provided to Iowa public schools. Lead plaintiffs in the suit are Joe Comes of Riley Paint Inc., an Iowa Corporation, Skeffington's Formal Wear of Iowa Inc., and Patricia Anne Larsen. The case is "Joe Comes, et al. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. CL82311" filed in Iowa District for Polk County. Deadline for mailing of claims is December 14, 2007 or 30 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement, whichever comes later. . Claims may also be mailed to this address: Settlement Claims Administrator Microsoft - Iowa Settlement P.O. Box 128 Minneapolis, MN 55440-0128 Objections to the settlement must be mailed and received by the court no later than July 30, 2007. Objections may also be mailed to the class and defense counsels or to the court: Clerk of Court Attn: CL82311 Polk County Courthouse 500 Mulberry Street Des Moines, IA 55487 Fairness hearing and the hearing for final approval of settlement are scheduled at 9:00 a.m. on August 31, 2007, at the Polk County Courthouse. For more information regarding the class action settlement and the legal rights of class members, including how to make a claim and to make a claim online, visit http://www.IowaMicrosoftCase.com Plaintiffs' lawyer information: Roxanne B. Conlin Roxanne B. Conlin and Associates, P.C. 319 7th Street, Suite 600 Des Moines, Iowa 50309-3826 Phone: 515-283-1111 Fax: 515-282-0477 Web Site: http://www.roxanneconlinlaw.com Representing the defendants is: David B. Tulchin, Esq. Sullivan and Cromwell LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004-2498 Phone: (212) 558-4000 Fax: (212) 558-3588 Web Site: http://www.sullcrom.com NASHUA CORP: Plaintiffs Fail to Refile Claim in Cerion IPO Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs failed to refile a claim with the Illinois Supreme Court with regards to a consolidated class action filed against Nashua Corp. on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Cerion Technologies between May 24, 1996 and July 9, 1996. Initially, two individual plaintiffs filed suits in August and September 1996 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The suits were later consolidated. The suit was filed against the company, Cerion Technologies, Inc., certain directors and officers of Cerion, and the company's underwriter. In March 1997, the same individual plaintiffs joined by a third plaintiff in filing a consolidated amended class action complaint. The consolidated complaint alleged that, in connection with Cerion's initial public offering, the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and omitted the disclosure of material facts regarding, in particular, certain significant customer relationships. In October 1997, the Circuit Court, on motion by the defendants, dismissed the consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint alleging similar claims as the first consolidated complaint seeking damages and injunctive relief. On May 6, 1998, the Circuit Court, on motion by the defendants, dismissed with prejudice the Second amended consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs filed with the Appellate Court an appeal of the Circuit Court's ruling. On Nov. 19, 1999, the Appellate Court reversed the Circuit Court's ruling that dismissed the second amended consolidated complaint. The Appellate Court ruled that the second amended consolidated complaint represented a valid claim and sent the case back to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. On Dec. 27, 1999, the company filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Illinois. In that petition, the company asked the Supreme Court of Illinois to determine whether the Circuit Court or the Appellate Court is correct. That petition was denied and the case was sent to the Circuit Court for trial. On Oct. 8, 2003, the Circuit Court heard motions on a summary judgment motion and a class action certification motion. On Aug. 16, 2005, the Circuit Court issued an order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint. On Sept. 15, 2005, the plaintiffs appealed the Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment with the Appeals Court. On June 30, 2006, the Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal of the Aug. 16, 2005 order by the Circuit Court, which granted the defendants' motion for Summary Judgment. On Aug. 4, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Illinois for Leave to Appeal the Appellate Court's order. On Nov. 29, 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court declined to hear the plaintiffs' appeal and notice was sent to the Appellate Court effective Jan. 4, 2007. The plaintiffs had until January 24, 2007 to refile their claim with the Supreme Court. Since there was no claim filed, the matter is now favorably ruled in the company's favor, according to Nashua's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2007. Nashua Corp. -- http://www.nashua.com/-- is a manufacturer, converter and marketer of labels and specialty papers. The Company's primary products include thermal and other coated papers, wide-format papers, pressure-sensitive labels, tags, and transaction and financial receipts. It has two operating segments: Label Products, which converts, prints and sells pressure-sensitive labels, radio frequency identification labels and tickets and tags, and Specialty Paper Products, which coats, converts, prints and sells papers and films. NEW CENTURY: Loan Officers to Pursue Claim for Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Daniel J. Rubio, John Hicks and David Vizcarra ask the Court to lift an automatic stay so they may continue to litigate and liquidate their claims against New Century Financial Corp. (Debtor) in a pending civil action before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Rubio, et al. initiated a class action in March 2005 to recover unpaid overtime wages and compensation for failure to provide statutorily mandated meal and rest periods. Rubio, et al. brought the class action on behalf of 1,600 loan officers employed by New Century Mortgage Corporation in California. Rubio, et al. had pursued extensive discovery in the Federal Court Action prior to the Petition Date. U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney also has made dispositive rulings regarding the application of the California Labor Code to Rubio, et al.'s claims. Rubio, et al. have filed a fifth amended complaint to add New Century Financial Corp., Home123 Corp. and five executive and officers of the Debtors as defendants. The Debtors possess liability insurance that is sufficient to cover the claims to the extent the Debtors or the Management Defendants are adjudged liable in the Federal Court Action, Rubio, et al. tell Judge Carey. If permitted to proceed with the Federal Court Action in federal court, Rubio, et al. will satisfy the Claim from available insurance proceeds first. Rubio, et al. are not seeking to continue with the prosecution of the Federal Court Action to circumvent the Debtors' bankruptcy proceedings, Marc J. Phillips, Esq., at Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, clarifies. Allowing Rubio, et al. to liquidate their claims in the Federal Court Action will benefit the orderly and efficient administration of the bankruptcy proceedings, Mr. Phillips says. (New Century Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 11; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) NEW CENTURY: Chapter 11 Cases Include WARN Act Violation Claim -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action relating to alleged violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 2101 et. seq. and California Civil Code Section 1400, et. seq., of New Century Financial Corp. (together with affiliates, Debtors) was filed on April 17, 2007 in the company's Chapter 11 cases. The WARN Class Action relates to various prepetition employee terminations, and the plaintiffs seek allowance of a claim for 60 days of wages and benefits for each employee terminated, and attorney's fees and costs, on an administrative priority claim basis. Monika L. McCarthy, the Debtors' senior vice president and assistant general counsel, relates that in addition to the defense of the WARN Class Action, the Debtors are in need of advice relating to possible additional employee terminations. The Debtors have requested that Irell & Manella LLP provide advice relative to certain insurance matters that arise from time to time. The Debtors also asked Irell & Manella to represent them in employee benefit matters, including with respect to the wind-up of the Debtors' benefit plans, and issues concerning their Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act obligations. Irell & Manella performed an insurance policy review for certain of the Debtors in early 2005. Since January 6, 2006, the firm has not performed any services for the Debtors. The Debtors timely paid Irell & Manella for its services. Ms. McCarthy tells the Court that Irell & Manella has experience in virtually all aspects of the law that may arise in connection with the proposed representation. It has served as counsel in other large class action litigation matters, including Broadcom Securities Class Action, Cheesecake Factory Securities Class Action, and Charter Communications Securities Class Action. Irell & Manella has also served as litigation counsel, insurance litigation counsel and bankruptcy counsel for First Alliance Mortgage Company and Imperial Credit Industries, Inc., among others. Recently, the firm has also provided assistance in matters concerning employee benefit plans for First Alliance, Chevys, and Furrs Supermarkets. In accordance with the terms in the retainer agreement between the firm and the Debtors, Irell & Manella will provide, ordinary and necessary legal services, in connection with: -- the WARN Class Action; -- insurance matters; and -- employee benefit matters, including issues relating to the wind down of the Debtors' benefit plans and their COBRA obligations. The Debtors do not intend for Irell & Manella to be responsible for the provision of substantive legal advice outside the areas of expertise for which it is being retained. The firm is also not required to devote attention to, form professional opinions as to, or advise the Debtors with respect to their disclosure obligations under federal or state securities or other non- bankruptcy laws or agreements. The firm will be paid according to its customary hourly rates, which are adjusted periodically, typically on January 1 of each year: Attorneys $275 - $805 Litigation Support, Legal $110 - $350 Assistants, Paralegals The Debtors will reimburse Irell & Manella according to its customary reimbursement policies. Jeffrey M. Reisner, Esq., a partner at Irell & Manella, has advised the Debtors that the firm has not, does not, and will not represent any parties-in-interest with respect to matters related to their Chapter 11 cases. He adds that neither the firm nor any of the attorneys employed by it have any material connection with the Debtors, their creditors, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, the Office of the U.S. Trustee, any other party with an actual or potential interest in these cases, or their attorneys or accountants. Mr. Reisner discloses that the firm currently represents affiliates of certain creditors, including UBS Real Estate Group, Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corporation, and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., in matters unrelated to these cases. Irell & Manella represents no interest adverse to the Debtors in the matters for which the firm is to be retained, Mr. Reisner tells the Court. The Debtors seek the Court's authority to employ Irell & Manella as their special litigation, employee benefits and insurance counsel, nunc pro tunc to April 20, 2007. (New Century Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 11; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) ORACLE CORP: Court to Rule on Letting British Author Testify ------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins heard arguments on a request to allow an editor with The Economist in London to testify in a shareholder suit against Oracle Corp., Justin Scheck of The Recorder reports. The issue before Judge Jenkins centers on a British author's audio files of interviews with Oracle chief executive Larry Ellison for "Softwar: An Intimate Portrait of Larry Ellison and Oracle" that now seem to be missing. In a deposition held in March, British author Matthew Symonds, who was not a party to the case, asserted a Fifth Amendment right not to testify about allegedly destroyed audio files of his interviews with Mr. Ellison. Mr. Symonds made two statements about how the files were destroyed. His third statement was redacted from court papers under a sealing order. Attorney Mark Solomon of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP in San Diego challenged Mr. Symonds' right to claim a Fifth Amendment privilege as a non-American living outside the U.S. He also wanted to force Mr. Symonds to discuss whether Oracle had a role in any evidence destruction. In a sworn statement filed on March 30, Mr. Symonds denied receiving from Mr. Ellison any document for the book. Judge Jenkins is to decide whether Mr. Ellison can be compelled to testify, or be allowed Fifth Amendment right not to discuss what happened to the files, according to The National Law Journal (Class Action Reporter, April 20, 2007). The suit raises the issue of whether a party to a suit has an obligation to alert nonparties to save evidence, Robert Brownstone, an intellectual property attorney in Mountain View, Calif.-based Fenwick & West's San Francisco office told The National Law Journal. According to the report, for third parties, new amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on electronic discovery that took effect on Dec. 1, 2006, do not have as strict a standard. Electronic data is subject to discovery only if they are relevant and not too burdensome to produce. The securities fraud suit accuses Oracle, Mr. Ellison and other top executives of falsifying software sales to mislead investors during the 2000 to 2001 period of the dot-com bubble burst. It accuses Mr. Ellison of selling $900 million of his own stock before bad news hit the market. The digital recordings in the center of the suit were made during the very period of class claims. The suit is "In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-0988," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins. The class period is Dec. 14, 2000 to March 1, 2001. Plaintiff Firms Named in Complaint are: (1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco) 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA, 94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534, E- mail: info@lerachlaw.com; and (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA) 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, Fax: support@milberg.com. PETCO ANIMAL: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Greenies Dog Chews ----------------------------------------------------------- Petco Animal Supplies Inc. and its pet food distributor, Pet Food Experts Inc., are facing a class action in state court over Greenies dog chews, teeth-cleaning product for dogs claimed to hurt or even killed dogs, The Kansas City Star reports. In 2005, the popular dog treat sold under the name "Greenies" became the subject of a lawsuit filed with the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The complaint contends that the product, manufactured by S&M NuTec, is unsafe, inadequately labeled, and ultimately caused the death of the plaintiff's 4-year old dog, named Burt. S&M NuTec, then, made claims that Greenies are "highly digestible," and the product comes with packaging statements such as "100% edible" and "veterinarian approved!" In April 2006, a group of 10 pet owners from eight states filed a federal suit against S&M NuTec, accusing the company of knowing the dangers of Greenies, but refused to adequately warn consumers or recall the product (Class Action Reporter, April 13, 2006). The lawsuit wants S&M NuTec to change the packaging of and pay unspecified damages. In October, S&M NuTec officials said they had been working on a new formula for their dog treat Greenies Dog Chews, in a move to reshape and reformulate the treat (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 19, 2006). According to Kristy Vetter, consumer care strategy coordinator for S&M NuTec, "We know there are perception issues out there about the original Greenies." She adds though that the revamp on the product will give pet owners confidence about what they're giving their dogs and help their dogs maintain happy, healthy lives. But plaintiffs in the recent suit against Petco are asking for reimbursement on their purchases of the "original" Greenies dental chews for dogs between June 2001 and May 22, 2007. Greenies are hard, dark green treats shaped like a bone on one end and a toothbrush on the other. Greenies manufacturer S&M NuTec claims the treats help scrub the dog's teeth, preventing periodontal disease and freshening the animal's breath. PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Faces Ill. Suit Over Mutual Fund Kickbacks --------------------------------------------------------------- Principal Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Principal Financial Group, is seeking the transfer of a purported class action filed by the trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement Savings Plan over allegations that the company received secret kickbacks from mutual funds. The putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Nov. 8, 2006. It alleges, among other things, that Principal Life breached its alleged fiduciary duties while performing services to 401(k) plans by failing to disclose, or adequately disclose, to employers or plan participants the fact that Principal Life receives "revenue sharing fees from mutual funds that are included in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans" and allegedly failed to use the revenue to defray the expenses of the services provided to the plans. Plaintiff further alleges that these acts constitute prohibited transactions under Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all retirement plans to which Principal Life was a service provider and for which Principal Life received and retained "revenue sharing" fees from mutual funds. Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief. Principal Life has filed its Answer and a Motion to Transfer and is aggressively defending the lawsuit, according to the company's May 2, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The suit is "Ruppert v. Principal Life Insurance Co., Case No. 3:06-cv-00903-DRH-PMF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge David R. Herndon with referral to Judge Philip M. Frazier. Representing the plaintiff is: Klint L. Bruno, Esq. Korein Tillery 209 South LaSalle, Suite 701 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: 312-759-7510 E-mail: kbruno@koreintillery.com Representing the defendant is: Joel S. Feldman, Esq. Sidley, Austin et al. 10 South Dearborn Street, Bank One Plaza Chicago, IL 60603 Pone: 312-853-7000 Fax: 312-853-7036 E-mail: jfeldman@sidley.com REFCO COMMODITY: Moves to Lift Stay to Pursue Dismissal Request --------------------------------------------------------------- Refco Commodity Management Inc. asked Judge Robert D. Drain of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to lift an automatic stay established upon the commencement of RCMI's Chapter 11 case in order to pursue a motion to dismiss a putative class action filed by investors in two investment funds the company jointly administered with IDS Futures Corp. RCMI is a defendant in a putative class action filed in June 2006 by Gary L. Franzen, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated parties, against RCMI and IDS Futures. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in September 2006. The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, under Civil Case No. 06 C-3012. In March 2007, the Illinois District Court entered a final order approving a settlement between IDS and the Plaintiffs. IDS was also dismissed from the action, thus, leaving RCMI as the sole defendant of the Complaint. Under the Settlement, IDS agreed to make an offer that fully compensated potential plaintiffs for their losses attributable to the management of two investment funds, which were jointly administered by IDS and RCMI. IDS also agreed to pay the plaintiffs nearly $400,000 in legal fees. RCMI subsequently sought to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that: -- certain of the Plaintiffs' claims were rendered moot by the Settlement; and -- the Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their remaining claims. Richard B. Levin, Esq., at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, relates that in the Plaintiffs' response, they argued that the Litigation is stayed as to RCMI, and adjudication of the Motion to Dismiss cannot proceed due to the "automatic stay" established upon the commencement of RCMI's Chapter 11 case. Accordingly, to ensure that the Motion to Dismiss is adjudicated on its merits and prevent further delay in the Litigation, RCMI asks the Bankruptcy Court to lift the automatic stay imposed under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code to: (a) permit RCMI to prosecute the Motion to Dismiss to full and final adjudication, and oppose an appeal, if any, from a final order of the District Court granting the Motion to Dismiss; (b) allow the Plaintiffs to oppose the Motion to Dismiss on the basis of any filed response or as permitted by the District Court, and to prosecute an Appeal; and (c) permit the District Court and the Appellate Court to fully and finally adjudicate the Motion to Dismiss or an Appeal, if any. RCMI will inform the District Court regarding the filing of its Lift Stay Motion and, thereafter, will advise the District Court regarding the progress and resolution of the Motion, including any ruling the Bankruptcy Court may enter with respect to the Motion. (Refco Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 63; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) REFCO INC: Lift Stay Order in Sunstate Investors' Suit Expanded --------------------------------------------------------------- In relation to a putative class action filed in April 2003 by Sunstate FX, Inc. investors, Judge Robert D. Drain of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York expanded a Lift Stay Order to allow Refco Group Ltd., LLC, one of several defendants, to pursue its Dismissal Motion at a time and date convenient to the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, and the parties to the Litigation. In July 2006, the Florida Circuit Court dismissed the case with prejudice. The Plaintiffs subsequently filed their notice of appeal in the District Court of Appeal for the 4th District, State of Florida. Pursuant to Rule 9.110(f) of Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Plaintiffs filed their initial appellate brief, which was duly answered by Refco Group. Steven R. Griffin, Esq., at Beggs & Lane, in Pensacola, Florida, states that the Plaintiffs are now in the process of finalizing their reply brief. They have requested oral argument, and are anticipating to receive a ruling from the appellate court within six months. Accordingly, at the Plaintiffs' request, the Court expands the Lift Stay Order to allow the parties to participate in the pending appeal. SIRVA INC: Parties Seek to Settle Ill. Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the consolidated securities fraud class action, "Central Lab PenFd v. Sirva Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv- 07644," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, entered into settlement discussions in a bid to conclude the matter. Initially, two securities suits were filed in November 2004 against SIRVA, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors. They are: -- "Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. SIRVA Inc., et al., No.04-CV-7644," and -- "Hiatt v. SIRVA,Inc., et al., No.04-CV-7532." Both complaints purported to be brought on behalf of all persons who acquired the company's common stock between Nov. 25, 2003 and Nov. 9, 2004. On Jan. 25, 2005, the plaintiff in "Hiatt" voluntarily dismissed his suit. On March 29, 2005, the court appointed Central Laborers' Pension Fund as lead plaintiff in the remaining case, and approved its choice of counsel, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, as lead plaintiff's counsel. On May 13, 2005, plaintiff filed a "corrected" complaint, retaining the same class period, and alleging, among other things, that defendants had made false and misleading statements in certain SEC filings, including the prospectuses to the company's initial and secondary public offerings, and press releases. The statements subject to the complaint generally relate to the Company's insurance claims reserves, European operations, and restatement accounts and are said to constitute violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages. On Oct. 11, 2005, plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class action complaint, a corrected version of which was filed on Oct. 19, 2005. The amended complaint adds ten new defendants, including an additional director, the seven underwriters which participated in the initial and secondary public offerings, the company's independent auditor and its controlling shareholder. It also extends the class period, purporting to be brought on behalf of all those who acquired the Company's common stock between Nov. 25, 2003 and Jan. 31, 2005. The amended complaint also contained allegations relating to the following areas: the company's restatement of financial statements and accounting errors for years 2000 through 2003 and the first nine months of 2004, problems in the company's European operations, insurance reserves, financial forecasting, and internal controls. The statements subject to the amended complaint are alleged to violate Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, as well as Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages. On Jan. 3, 2006, the company and all other defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On Sept. 22, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part that motion. It dismissed in full, without prejudice, the claim under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, as well as various allegations underlying the other claims, and granted plaintiff 30 days to amend its complaint. On Oct. 23, 2006, plaintiff filed its consolidated second amended class action complaint in order to replead claims that the court dismissed without prejudice. On Nov. 14, 2006, the company and all other defendants filed the their answer to the second amended complaint. On Nov. 15, 2006, the company and certain of the other defendants moved in part to dismiss the second amended complaint. The parties have entered into settlement discussions, according to the company's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "Central Lab PenFd v. Sirva Inc., et al., case no. 1:04-cv-07644," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Ronald A. Guzman. Representing the plaintiffs is: Steven G. Schulman, Esq. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Representing the company are: Tara Kocheran Charnes, Esq. Richard Bradshaw Kapnick, Esq. Matthew Brian Kilby, Esq. Catherine Rosen, Esq. Sidley Austin LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 853-7000 E-mail: rkapnick@sidley.com mkilby@sidley.com crosen@sidley.com SMART & FINAL: Settles Calif. Suit Over Sharp Merger Agreement -------------------------------------------------------------- Smart & Final, Inc. has entered into an agreement to settle a class action filed in California with regards to its February 2007 Agreement and Plan of Merger with Sharp Holdings Corp., and Sharp Acquisition Corp. On Feb. 21, 2007 and Feb. 26, 2007, putative class actions were filed against the company and members of its board of directors in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. They are: -- "City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System v. Smart & Final Inc., et al.," and -- "Call 4U, Ltd. vs. Smart & Final Inc., et al." The named respective plaintiffs propose to represent a class of stockholders and claim that, among other things, a proposed merger by and among Sharp Holdings Corp. and Sharp Acquisition Corp. is the product of alleged breaches of duty and self- dealing by the board of directors. Along with other relief, the complaints seek an injunction against the closing of the proposed merger. On April 27, 2007 the company and members of its board of directors through counsel entered into a memorandum of understanding with counsel for the plaintiffs in the City of Ann Arbor and Call 4U, Ltd. actions under which, subject to court approval, the two actions would be dismissed with prejudice. Smart & Final, Inc. -- http://www.smartandfinal.com/-- is engaged primarily in the business of providing food and related non-food items in bulk sizes and quantities. The company sells food, foodservice products and culinary equipment through non- membership warehouse stores and wholesale stores. Its product selection includes grocery, frozen and refrigerated foods, delicatessen products, fresh produce and meat, paper products, janitorial supplies, restaurant equipment, candy, snacks, beverages and party supplies. TB ISLE: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Denial of Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- TB Isle Resort LP is facing a class-action complaint filed May 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging Labor Code violations. Named plaintiff Hugoberto Richardson brings this action to recover unpaid wages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq. Mr. Richardson claims he worked for defendants as a non-exempt employee paid at various hourly rates depending upon whether he was assigned as a bartender, waiter or foodrunner, and depending upon where he was assigned, including the Pool Bar, Veranda Bar, Veranda Dining Room, Grill Bar, Banquets, or the Ocean Club. During one or more workweeks, plaintiff worked more than 40 hours, but was not paid one and one-half his regular hourly rate of pay for overtime hours, the complaint alleges. Plaintiff further claims he was paid less than the applicable minimum wage when he worked as a bartender at banquets, receiving, however, a portion of the service charge that defendants charged to the banquet customer. To the extent that defendants paid plaintiff less than the minimum wage because the tip credit provisions of the FLSA, plaintiff submits that defendants cannot properly avail itself of the tip credit provisions because: (a) the service charge does not qualify as a tip within the meaning of the FLSA; and (b) even if the service charge qualified as a tip, the tip pooling arrangement was invalid given that unauthorized person, including managers and supervisors, share in the money. Defendants' failure to pay plaintiff at least the minimum wage for all hours worked constitutes a violation of the overtime provisions of the FLSA, according to the complaint. By reason of the intentional, willful and unlawful acts of defendants, plaintiff has suffered damages, including liquidated damages, and will continue to incur costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants for all damages, including liquidated damages, and relief, including attorneys' fees and costs, in addition to all other equitable, injunctive and all other relief the court deems just and proper. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?201b The suit is "Richardson v. TB Isle Resort LP, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21289-KMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge K. Michael Moore. Representing plaintiffs is: Todd William Shulby, Esq. Suite 270, 12555 Orange Drive Davie, FL 33330 Phone: 954-862-1770 Fax: 954-862-1769 E-mail: shulbylaw@comcast.net TIMOTHY J. BROPHY: Wis. Court Okays Settlement with Tenants ----------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable David A. Hansher of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, has preliminarily approved a settlement on behalf of residential tenants who rented properties from Timothy J. Brophy between March 30, 2000 to May 15, 2007. In 2006, a lawsuit entitled "Wineberg v. Brophy, Case No. 06-CV- 003064," was filed in Wisconsin state court on behalf of two proposed classes of persons who from March 30, 2000 to the present: (a) paid security deposits or made rent payments to Defendant, Timothy J. Brophy, Jr., during the Class Period for properties owned by Brophy where there were uncorrected housing and building code violations that Brophy failed to disclose; or (b) did not receive from Brophy the return of security deposits that they paid him, or a written explanation of the reasons why any such amounts were being withheld, within twenty-one (21) days. On January 26, 2007, the Court entered an order determining that this lawsuit was appropriate for class action treatment and certifying these two classes of persons. On March 15, 2007, the Court held a hearing and determined that damages should be awarded to Class members. The Court has not entered a final judgment in the case and the distribution of damages will be contingent, among other things, on the collection of damages from Brophy. Under the settlement, Brophy has agreed to make a cash payment in the sum of $300,000, which will be used for purposes of paying: (a) a cash payment, on a pro rata basis, to all Class members who timely submit claim forms; and (b) attorneys' fees and costs and an incentive award. In addition, pursuant to the settlement, Brophy is prohibited from: (i) renting any properties that have outstanding building code violations, and (ii) failing to comply with applicable law regarding the return of security deposits to tenants. Brophy has consented to the Court's jurisdiction to enforce the injunction, to enter any necessary contempt findings and to award counsel for any petitioning party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in connection with obtaining any relief for a violation of the injunction. Furthermore, Brophy must provide new and existing tenants an agreed-upon notice of the tenants' rights under the statutes and administrative code sections under which this lawsuit was instituted. Class Counsel is: Douglas P. Dehler, Esq. Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC 35 East State Street Media, Pennsylvania 19063 Phone: (877) 891-9880 or +1-414-226-9900 E-mail: ddehler@sfmslaw.com Website: http://www.sfmslaw.com TRI-STAR INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Rattles with Detachable Parts ------------------------------------------------------------- Tri-Star International Inc., of Newark, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is conducting a voluntary recall nearly 2,000 Ball Rattles, Wrist Rattles, Wind-Up Toys. The firm said these toys contain small parts, posing a choking hazard to young children. No incidents or injuries have been reported. The recall involves three different types of toys. The ball rattle is a multi-colored, 3-inch ball with oval openings and a small hexagon opening at each end. The wrist rattle toy is a white plastic wristband toy with six multi-colored balls with small bells inside. The wind-up toy is a 7.5-inch pink giraffe with yellow legs and a green wind-up knob below the tail of the giraffe. These toys were manufactured in China and were sold at Dollar stores in California from January 2005 through May 2007 for about $1. Just click on the link for the photo of these toys: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07192.html Consumers should immediately take these toys away from children and return them to the store where purchased for a refund. For additional information, contact Tri-Star at (510) 856-8785 anytime or CPSC's Hotline at (800) 638-2772 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday. U.S. ENGINEERING: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Engineering Contractors Corp. is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging Labor Code violations. Named plaintiff Soctt Gochenouer brings this action for compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq. This action is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as for declaratory and injunctive relief, under the provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et. seq. and specifically under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The complaint alleges defendants failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-19 in that plaintiff, while employed with defendants performed hours of service in excess of 40 during one or more work weeks, for which defendants failed to properly pay additional overtime compensation. Plaintiff claims he is entitled to be paid time and one-half for each hour worked in excess of 40 per work week and to have such overtime calculated in accordance with Federal Regulations, to include commission/bonus payments earned in the appropriate workweek in the calculation of the regular rate for the purposes of determining overtime entitlement. Plaintiff demands judgment against defendant for the wages and overtime payments due him for hours worked by him for which he has not been properly compensated, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and for all other relief the court deems just and proper. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2015 The suit is "Gochenouer v. U.S. Engineering Contractors Corp. et al., Case No. 9:07-cv-80437-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Kenneth A. Marra. Representing plaintiffs are: Robin Ilene Cohen, Esq. Daniel R. Levine, Esq. Shapiro Blasi Wasserman & Gora PA 7777 Glades Road, Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Phone: 561-477-7800 Fax: 477-7722 E-mail: ricohen@sbwlawfirm.com or drlevine@sbwlawfirm.com U.S. RECOVERY: Student in Bounty Hunter Class Files Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Recovery Bureau, Inc. is facing a purported consumer class action in New Jersey that accuses it of defrauding students by falsely promising it could make them bounty hunters because the state does not license the profession. William Smith filed the suit on May 7, 2007 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, saying that he paid $425 for the Bounty Hunter training classes. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that U.S. Recovery advertised and sold to him and other members of the class training, classes to become a Bounty Hunter by affirmatively misrepresenting that New Jersey has no Bounty Hunter Licensing Act (N.J.S.A. 45:19-28, et. seq.) when, in fact, it does and that the plaintiffs and other members of the class would be eligible to become Bounty Hunters in New Jersey after completion of the training program when in fact, they would not. Mr. Smith pointed out that the defendant offered 30 hours of classes, but state law requires, among other things, that bounty hunters have at least five years experience in law enforcement or private investigations. The suit, which seeks class-action status, was brought on behalf of New Jersey consumers who purchased Bounty Hunter Training Classes also referred to as Bail Enforcement Training Classes, from defendant subsequent to Jan. 12, 2006, the date of approval of the New Jersey Bounty Hunter Licensing Act. The alleges two counts of violations: -- Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; and -- Common Law Fraud. Plaintiff is demanding damages and an injunction against the defendants. He is also seeking for a jury trial. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?200b For more details, contact: Jeffrey W. Herrmann Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP Park 80 Plaza West-One Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 Phone: (201) 845-9600 Fax: (201) 845-9423 Web site: http://www.clphk-njlawfirm.com W.R. GRACE: Opposes Anderson Memorial's Access to Privilege Log --------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co. (together with its affiliates, Debtors) asserts that Anderson Memorial Hospital and its counsel, Speights & Runyan, cannot meet Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, thus they are not entitled to the privilege log of the Debtors' in-house and outside counsel. Timothy P. Cairns, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young Jones & Weintraub, LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, argues that Anderson Memorial wants the privilege logs for a purpose that the Court has already recognized is improper -- to probe privileged settlement communications and analyses in the Debtors' in-house and outside counsel files related to the Anderson lawsuit. The settlement communications, analysis and evaluations are protected from discovery by Rule 408 of the Federal Rule of Evidence, Mr. Cairns says. Thus, Anderson Memorial's request for the privilege log should be denied (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 130; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000). In a Feb. 23, 2007 issue of Class Action Reporter, it was stated that James E. O'Neill, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young Jones & Weintraub LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware told Judith Fitzgerald of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the District of Delaware that Speights & Runyan has requested deposition testimony and "all documents" regarding: (i) Anderson's South Carolina lawsuit, Anderson's request to certify in South Carolina, the certification hearing, any purported efforts to delay the same, and circumstances surrounding the South Carolina Circuit Court's certification of a statewide class as to W.R. Grace & Co.; (ii) members or potential members of the putative Anderson class; (iii) damage estimates of Anderson's individual and class claims; (iv) any position the Debtors took with respect to Anderson's request to be included on the Official Committee of Asbestos Property Damage Claimants; (v) any evaluation of Anderson's individual or class claims before the Debtors' Petition Date; and (vi) the Debtors' knowledge before Sept. 1, 2005, of Anderson's individual and class proofs of claim. Speights & Runyan also requested "all documents" relating to: -- the identity of any asbestos-containing surface treatment in any building owned or operated by Anderson and potential membership of Anderson's putative class, including buildings located in South Carolina and outside of South Carolina; -- communications with witnesses involving any issues in Anderson's efforts to obtain class certification; -- the Debtors' knowledge concerning the facts or factual assertions relating to Anderson's putative class action; -- any amount that could or should be set aside for the resolution of Anderson's claim, including any insurance reserve; -- communications between the Debtors and insurers relating to Anderson's claims; and -- communications with any building owners regarding the Anderson proofs of claim. Headquartered in Columbia, Maryland, W.R. Grace & Co. (NYSE:GRA) -- http://www.grace.com/-- supplies catalysts and silica products, especially construction chemicals and building materials, and container products globally. The company and its debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on April 2, 2001 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 01-01139). Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has $401.6M Liability in 1Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s current asbestos-related liability, as of March 30, 2007, amounted to US$401,659,000, compared with US$424,628,000 as of Dec. 29, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2007. As of March 30, 2007, the Company's current asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable amounted to US$339,047,000, compared with US$424,628,000 as of Dec. 29, 2006. Some of the Company's U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries face asbestos- related lawsuits and out-of-court informal claims pending in the U.S. and U.K. Plaintiffs claim damages for personal injury alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with work allegedly performed by the subsidiaries during the 1970s and earlier. Clinton, N.J.-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. builds business process and power generating facilities. The Company operates through two business groups. The Engineering & Construction group designs and builds facilities for the oil and gas, chemical, pharmaceutical, and other industrial markets. The Global Power Group makes steam-generating units and related equipment for power and industrial plants, including fluidized-bed and conventional boilers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Ltd. Has 135,260 U.S. Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Wheeler Ltd., for the three months ended March 30, 2007, recorded 135,260 open asbestos claims filed against its U.S. subsidiaries, compared with 164,240 claims for the three months ended March 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2007. For the three months ended March 30, 2007, the Company noted 1,640 new claims and 2,270 claims resolved. For the three months ended March 31, 2006, the Company noted 2,740 new claims and 3,320 claims resolved. For the year ended Dec. 29, 2006, the Company recorded 135,890 asbestos-related claims filed against its U.S. subsidiaries, compared with 164,820 claims for the year ended Dec. 30, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, March 9, 2007) As of March 30, 2007, the U.S. subsidiaries' asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable amounted to US$304,800,000, compared with US$316,700,000 as of Dec. 29, 2006. As of March 30, 2007, the U.S. subsidiaries' total asbestos- related assets amounted to US$350,700,000, compared with US$363,700,000, as of Dec. 29, 2006. As of March 30, 2007, the U.S. subsidiaries' total asbestos- related liabilities amounted to US$442,400,000, compared with US$466,000,000 as of Dec. 29, 2006. The amount spent on asbestos litigation, defense and case resolution was US$23,600,000 for the three months ended March 30, 2007 and US$18,400,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2006. The Company funded US$10,600,000 of the payments made during the three months ended March 30, 2007, while all remaining amounts were paid from insurance proceeds. Through March 30, 2007, total cumulative indemnity costs paid were about US$588,500,000 and total cumulative defense costs paid were about US$222,200,000. As of March 30, 2007, total asbestos-related liabilities were comprised of an estimated liability of US$179,900,000 relating to open (outstanding) claims being valued and an estimated liability of US$262,500,000 relating to future unasserted claims through year-end 2021. As of March 30, 2007, the Company estimated the value of its asbestos insurance asset contested by its subsidiaries' insurers in ongoing litigation in New York state court as US$32,700,000. The litigation relates to the amounts of insurance coverage available for asbestos-related claims and the proper allocation of the coverage among the Company subsidiaries' various insurers and the Company subsidiaries as self-insurers. In 2006, the Company was successful in its appeal of a New York state trial court decision that previously had held that New York, rather than New Jersey, law applies in the above coverage litigation with the Company subsidiaries' insurers, and as a result, the Company increased its insurance asset and recorded a gain of US$19,500,000. On Feb. 13, 2007, the subsidiaries' insurers were granted permission by the appellate court to appeal the decision in the Company's favor to the New York Court of Appeals. The Company has funded US$10,600,000 of the asbestos liability indemnity payments and defense costs from its cash flow in the first three months of 2007, net of the cash received from insurance settlements. The Company expects to fund US$32,300,000 of the asbestos liability indemnity and defense costs from its cash flow in fiscal year 2007, net of the cash expected to be received from existing insurance settlements. Clinton, N.J.-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. builds business process and power generating facilities. The Company operates through two business groups. The Engineering & Construction group designs and builds facilities for the oil and gas, chemical, pharmaceutical, and other industrial markets. The Global Power Group makes steam-generating units and related equipment for power and industrial plants, including fluidized-bed and conventional boilers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has 326 U.K. Claims at 1Q07 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Wheeler Ltd. says that 829 asbestos-related claims to date have been filed against it U.K. subsidiaries of which 326 remained open as of March 30, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2007. The Company said that 824 asbestos-related claims have been brought against its U.K. subsidiaries, of which 330 remained open as of Dec. 29, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, March 9, 2007) Some of the Company's subsidiaries in the United Kingdom have received claims alleging personal injury arising from exposure to asbestos. As of March 30, 2007, the Company had recorded total liabilities of US$36,500,000 comprised of an estimated liability relating to open (outstanding) claims of US$7,100,000 and an estimated liability relating to future unasserted claims through year-end 2021 of US$29,400,000. Of the total, US$2,200,000 was recorded in accrued expenses and US$34,300,000 was recorded in asbestos-related liability on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. An asset in an equal amount was recorded for the expected U.K. asbestos-related insurance recoveries, of which US$2,200,000 was recorded in accounts and notes receivable-other and US$34,300,000 was recorded as asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. The liability and asset estimates are based on a U.K. court of appeal ruling that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a compensable injury and accordingly, the Company has reduced its liability assessment. Should this ruling be reversed, the asbestos liability and the related asset recorded in the U.K. would be about US$57,600,000. Clinton, N.J.-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. builds business process and power generating facilities. The Company operates through two business groups. The Engineering & Construction group designs and builds facilities for the oil and gas, chemical, pharmaceutical, and other industrial markets. The Global Power Group makes steam-generating units and related equipment for power and industrial plants, including fluidized-bed and conventional boilers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re Reserves $517.9M for A&E Losses ---------------------------------------------------------------- Everest Re Group Ltd.'s net asbestos and environmental loss reserves, for the three months ended March 31, 2007, amounted to US$517,910,000, compared with US$461,235,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2007. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company reserved a net of US$511.4 million for A&E losses, compared with US$450.5 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, March 30, 2007) For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company's gross A&E loss reserves amounted to US$632,239,000, compared with US$639,635,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2006. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company reserved a gross of US$650.1 million for A&E losses, compared with US$649.5 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, March 30, 2007) The Company's asbestos claims involve potential liability for bodily injury from exposure to asbestos or for property damage resulting from asbestos or products containing asbestos. In connection with the acquisition of Mt. McKinley, which has significant exposure to A&E claims, LM Property and Casualty Insurance Co. provided reinsurance to Mt. McKinley covering 80 percent (US$160 million) of the first US$200 million of any adverse development of Mt. McKinley's reserves as of Sept. 19, 2000 and The Prudential guaranteed LM's obligations to Mt. McKinley. At March 31, 2007, the Company had gross asbestos loss reserves of US$563.7 million, of which US$309.8 million was for assumed business and US$253.9 million was for direct excess business. At March 31, 2007, the gross reserves for A&E losses were comprised of US$141.2 million representing case reserves reported by ceding companies, US$135.4 million representing additional case reserves established by the Company on assumed reinsurance claims, US$208.4 million representing case reserves established by the Company on direct excess insurance claims, including Mt. McKinley, and US$147.2 million representing incurred but not reported reserves. The Company's net three-year survival ratio on its asbestos exposures was 4.4 years for the period ended March 31, 2007. Hamilton, Bermuda-based Everest Re Group Ltd. is the holding company for Everest Reinsurance Co., an underwriter of property & casualty reinsurance and insurance. The Company offers specialized underwriting in several areas, including property & casualty, marine, aviation, and surety, as well as medical malpractice, directors and officers liability, and professional errors and omissions liability. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Celanese Units Rise to 658 in 1Q07 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings Inc., as of March 31, 2007, are defendants in about 658 asbestos-related cases, according to Celanese Corp.'s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2007. Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings are both U.S. subsidiaries of Celanese Corp. Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings, as of Dec. 31, 2006, faced about 647 asbestos-related cases. (Class Action Reporter, March 2, 2007) During the three months ended March 31, 2007, 26 new cases were filed against the Company and 15 cases were resolved. Because 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. Dallas-based Celanese Corp., with its subsidiaries, is an integrated global hybrid chemical company. The Company's business involves processing chemical raw materials, like methanol, carbon monoxide and ethylene, and natural products, including wood pulp, into value-added chemicals, thermoplastic polymers and other chemical-based products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Records 145T Open Claims in 1Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc., for the six months ended March 31, 2007, recorded 145,000 open asbestos-related claims, compared with 174,000 claims for the six months ended March 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2007. For the six months ended March 31, 2007, the Company noted: 3,000 new claims filed; 1,000 claims settled; and 19,000 claims dismissed. For the six months ended March 31, 2007, the Company noted: 3,000 new claims filed; 2,000 claims settled; and 11,000 claims dismissed. The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Those claims result from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley Stoker Corp., a former subsidiary. While Riley was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos, its industrial boilers contained some asbestos- containing components provided by other companies. Since Oct. 1, 2003, Riley has been dismissed as a defendant in 83 percent of the resolved claims. Amounts spent on litigation defense and claim settlements averaged US$812 per claim resolved in the six months ended March 31, 2007, compared with US$1,594 in the six months ended March 31, 2006, and annual averages of US$1,428 in 2006 and US$1,985 in 2005. Most lawsuits filed involve multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, with the number of defendants in many cases exceeding 100. Plaintiffs have asserted specific dollar claims for damages in about five percent of the 49,500 active suits pending as of March 31, 2007. In these active suits, about 0.4 percent of the active suits involve claims between US$0 and US$100,000. About 1.6 percent of the active suits involve claims between US$100,000 and US$1 million. Less than one percent of the active suits involve claims between US$1 million and US$5 million. Less than 0.1 percent of the active suits involve claims between US$5 million and US$10 million. Less than two percent of the active suits involve claims between US$10 million and US$15 million. Less than .02 percent of the active suits involve claims between US$15 million and US$100 million. For the six months ended March 31, 2007, the Company's asbestos- related reserve amounted to US$619 million, compared with US$550 million for the six months ended March 31, 2006. At March 31, 2007, the Company's receivable for recoveries of litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers amounted to US479 million, of which US$83 million relates to costs previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to US$474 million at Sept. 30, 2006 and US$375 million at March 31, 2006. Covington, Ky.-based Ashland Inc. is a diversified, global chemical company. The Company operates through four divisions: Ashland Performance Materials, Ashland Distribution, Valvoline, and Ashland Water Technologies. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Faces 19,120 Pending Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp., as of April 27, 2007, was defending against 19,120 asbestos-related claims, compared with 19,388 claims as of Feb. 16, 2007, and 19,416 claims as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2007. The Company faces suits brought in various U.S. courts by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing products made by the Company. The Company produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. Those fabrics generally had a useful life of three to 12 months. These suits allege a variety of lung and other diseases based on alleged exposure to products previously made by the Company. As of April 27, 2007, about 12,709 of the claims pending against the Company are pending in Mississippi. Of these, about 12,042 are in federal court, at the multidistrict litigation panel, either through removal or original jurisdiction. In addition to the 12,042 Mississippi claims pending against the Company at the MDL, there are about 850 claims pending against the Company at the MDL removed from various U.S. District Courts in other states. As of April 27, 2007, the Company had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 21,231 claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was US$6,691,000. Of this amount, US$6,656,000, or 99 percent, was paid by the Company's insurance carrier. The Company has about US$130 million in confirmed insurance coverage that should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage that it should be able to access. Albany, N.Y.-based Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing, which are custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each phase of production. The Company makes around 35 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and relies on suppliers for the rest. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Open Claims v. Brandon Drying Drop to 9,089 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Inc.'s affiliate, Brandon Drying Fabrics Inc., as of April 27, 2007, faced 9,089 asbestos-related claims, compared with 9,189 claims as of Feb. 16, 2007, and 9,114 claims as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2007. Brandon Drying, a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a Company subsidiary, is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which the Company is named as a defendant. The Company acquired Geschmay, formerly known as Wangner Systems Corp., in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned Geschmay subsidiary. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney Mills, a South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales Inc., which had sold dryer fabrics with asbestos made by its parent, Abney. Although Brandon made and sold dryer fabrics under its own name after the asset purchase, none of those fabrics had asbestos. Under the terms of the Assets Purchase Agreement between Brandon and Abney, Abney agreed to indemnify, defend, and hold Brandon harmless from any actions or claims on account of products made by Abney and its related corporations before the date of the sale. As of April 27, 2007, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 8,463 claims for a total of US$152,499. Brandon's insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2 percent of the total indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings. The remaining 11.8 percent of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon. In 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100 percent of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related to these proceedings. Albany, N.Y.-based Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing, which are custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each phase of production. The Company makes around 35 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and relies on suppliers for the rest. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Still Faces Mt. Vernon Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Inc., in several asbestos-related cases, continues to be named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2007. The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products allegedly sold by Mount Vernon years before the acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising out of those products. The Company denies any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon before the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets. Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, the Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions. Albany, N.Y.-based Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing, which are custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each phase of production. The Company makes around 35 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and relies on suppliers for the rest. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Faces Actions from Old Businesses ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magnetek Inc. continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations previously acquired by the Company, but which are no longer owned. During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced or sold asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2007. With respect to these claims, the Company is either contractually indemnified against liability for asbestos-related claims or said it believes that it has no liability for those claims. The Company seeks dismissal from these proceedings, and has also tendered the defense of these cases to the insurers of the previously acquired businesses and is awaiting their response. The Company has also filed a late claim amounting to US$2.5 million in the Federal-Mogul Corp. bankruptcy proceedings to recover attorney's fee paid for the defense of these claims, which the Company said it believes is an obligation of Federal Mogul although the claim is subject to challenge. Costs associated with other previously owned businesses were amounted to US$300,000 for the three months ended April 1, 2007. These costs have historically included charges for an arbitration award in a patent infringement claim and related legal fees, as well as certain expenses for product liability claims, environmental issues, and asbestos claims. Menomonee Falls, Wis.-based Magnetek Inc.'s Power Control Systems Group makes programmable motion control and power conditioning systems, including variable-frequency motor drives uses in overhead cranes and elevators, power conditioners for stationary fuel cells, and telecommunications power plants. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. IntriCon Corp. Remain at 122 in 1Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos-related lawsuits against IntriCon Corp., as of March 31, 2007, remain at about 122, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2007. As of Dec. 21, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, the Company faced 122 asbestos-related cases. (Class Action Reporter, March 23, 2007) These suits allege that plaintiffs have or may have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more named defendants. Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know whether any of the complaints state valid claims against it. Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the primary policies for the period Aug. 1, 1970 to Aug. 1, 1973, have been exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide a defense under those policies. The Company has requested that the carriers substantiate this situation. The Company said it believes it has more policies available for other years, which have been ignored by the carriers. As settlement payments are applied to all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos, the Company said it believes when settlement payments are applied to these additional policies, the Company will have availability under the years deemed exhausted. Arden Hills, Minn.-based IntriCon Corp., f/k/a Selas Corp. of America, designs, develops, engineers, and manufactures micro- miniature medical and electronic products. The Company supplies micro-miniaturized components, systems and molded plastic parts, primarily to the hearing instrument manufacturing industry, as well as the computer, electronics, telecommunications and medical equipment industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Reserves $7.75M for Liability Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Entrx Corp.'s current reserve for asbestos liability claims, as of March 31, 2007, amounted to US$7,750,000, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2007. This compares to US$8 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. As of March 31, 2007, the Company's long-term reserve for asbestos liability claims amounted to US$33,500,000, compared with US$35 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. Minneapolis-based Entrx Corp. provides insulation and asbestos abatement services through Metalclad Insulation Corp. The Company installs insulation on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other industrial equipment. The Company also maintains and removes insulation and sells specialty insulation products. Entrx Corp. was originally established as Metalclad Corp. in 1947. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. Entrx Corp. Drop to 375 in 1Q07 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Entrx Corp., mainly its subsidiary Metalclad Insulation Corp., at March 31, 2007, recorded 375 pending asbestos-related cases, which are defended and covered by insurance, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2007. Metalclad, for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, recorded 404 pending asbestos-related cases, compared with 507 pending cases for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, April 13, 2007) Metalclad continues to be engaged in suits involving asbestos- related injury or potential injury claims. In the first three months of 2007, 37 new claims were made, compared with 68 in the first three months of 2006. At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's total estimated future asbestos- related liability amounted to US$43 million. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company projected that about 186 new asbestos-related claims would be commenced, and about 237 cases would be resolved, in 2007, resulting in an estimated 353 cases pending at Dec. 31, 2007. Since the Company projected that an aggregate of 924 new cases would be commenced after Dec. 31, 2006, and that 186 of these cases would be commenced in 2007, the Company estimated that an aggregate of 738 new cases would be commenced after Dec. 31, 2007. Accordingly, the cases pending and projected to be commenced in the future at Dec. 31, 2007, would be 1,091 cases. In the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company expended defense costs of US$107,000 to administer the asbestos claims, compared with US$215,000 in 2006. On its March 31, 2007 balance sheet, the Company included US$41,250,000 of insurance coverage as an asset, compared with US$43 million on its Dec. 31, 2006 balance sheet. Minneapolis-based Entrx Corp. provides insulation and asbestos abatement services through Metalclad Insulation Corp. The Company installs insulation on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other industrial equipment. The Company also maintains and removes insulation and sells specialty insulation products. Entrx Corp. was originally established as Metalclad Corp. in 1947. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Still Faces Suit by ACE, Insurers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Entrx Corp.'s subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation Corp., and several other liability insurers continue to face an asbestos- related declaratory relief action filed by ACE Property & Casualty Co., Central National Insurance Co. of Omaha, and Industrial Underwriters Insurance Co. On Feb. 23, 2005, ACE, Central National, and Industrial Underwriters, which are all related entities, sued Metalclad and a number of Metalclad's other liability insurers, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. ACE, Central National and Industrial Underwriters issued umbrella and excess policies to Metalclad, which has sought and obtained from the plaintiffs both defense and indemnity under these policies for the asbestos lawsuits brought against Metalclad during the last four to five years. The ACE Law seeks declarations regarding various coverage issues, but is centrally focused on issues involving whether historical and pending asbestos suits brought against Metalclad are subject to either an "aggregate" limits of liability or separate "per occurrence" limits of liability. The ACE suit also seeks to determine the effect of the settlement agreement between the Company and Allstate Insurance Co. on the insurance obligations of various other insurers of Metalclad, and the effect of the "asbestos exclusion" in the Allstate policy. The ACE suit does not seek any monetary recovery from Metalclad. Allstate, in a cross-complaint filed against Metalclad in October 2005, asked the court to determine the Company's obligation to assume and pay for the defense of Allstate in the ACE suit under the Company's indemnification obligations in the Settlement Agreement. Minneapolis-based Entrx Corp. provides insulation and asbestos abatement services through Metalclad Insulation Corp. The Company installs insulation on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other industrial equipment. The Company also maintains and removes insulation and sells specialty insulation products. Entrx Corp. was originally established as Metalclad Corp. in 1947. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ballantyne Faces Stehman Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ballantyne of Omaha Inc. faces an asbestos-related case, filed on Dec. 8, 2006, and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2007. The suit is styled Larry C. Stehman and Leila Stehman v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. and Ballantyne of Omaha Inc. individually and as successor in interest to Strong International, Strong Electric Corp. and Century Projector Corp., et al. The plaintiffs have made no monetary demand upon the Company. In March 2006, the Company settled an asbestos case entitled Bercu v. BICC Cables Corp., et al., originally filed June 27, 2003 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Administrative costs rose to US$1.4 million or 11 percent of revenue, compared with US$1.2 million or 9.5 percent a year ago. The increase was primarily due to employee severance costs incurred as a result of planned workforce reductions as well as for legal expenses to settle the Company's remaining asbestos lawsuit. Omaha, Nebr.-based Ballantyne of Omaha Inc., with its wholly owned subsidiary Strong Westrex Inc., Strong Technical Services Inc., and Design & Manufacturing Inc., designs, develops, manufactures, services, and distributes theatre and lighting equipment. The Company's products are distributed to movie exhibition companies, sports arenas, auditoriums, amusement parks and special venues. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Records $10.37M Liabilities in 1Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- Congoleum Corp.'s current asbestos-related liabilities, as of March 31, 2007, amounted to US$10,372,000, compared with US$13,950,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2007. In 2003, the Company was one of many defendants in about 22,000 pending lawsuits (including workers' compensation cases) involving about 106,000 individuals, alleging personal injury or death from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. Nearly all asbestos-related claims that have been brought against the Company to date allege that various diseases were caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products, including resilient sheet vinyl and tile made by the Company (or, in the workers' compensation cases, exposure to asbestos in the course of employment with the Company). The Company discontinued the manufacture of asbestos-containing sheet products in 1983 and asbestos-containing tile products in 1974. Claims involving about 80,000 individuals were settled under the Claimant Agreement and the Bankruptcy Code stayed litigation related to unsettled or new claims. The Company expects unsettled and future claims to be handled in accordance with the terms of a plan of reorganization and a Plan Trust. In December 2005, the Company commenced the Avoidance Actions seeking to void the security interest granted to the Collateral Trust and settlements. In March 2006, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment in the Avoidance Actions seeking to avoid the Claimant Agreement settlements and liens under various bankruptcy theories, which motion was denied in June 2006. In April 2007, the Company filed a new motion for summary judgment in the Avoidance Actions, seeking to avoid the security interests in insurance allegedly securing the Claimant Agreement settlements. A hearing on this summary judgment motion is set for June 4, 2007. Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corp. makes flooring products for residential and commercial use. Company products include resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it- yourself vinyl tile, and commercial flooring. American Biltrite Inc. owns about 66 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms $9.2M Settlement to Congoleum ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Bankruptcy Court, in April 2007, approved a settlement agreement where law firm Gilbert Heintz & Randolph would pay Congoleum Corp. about US$9.2 million for asbestos-related insurance matters, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2007. Under the terms of the Claimant Agreement, the Company's claims processing agent processed 79,630 claims meeting the requirements of the Claimant Agreement with a settlement value in excess of US$466 million. In addition, Pre-Existing Settlement Agreements and Trial-Listed Settlement Agreements with claims secured by the Collateral Trust total about US$25 million. As a result of tabulating ballots on its Fourth Plan, the Company is also aware of claims by claimants whose claims were not determined under the Claimant Agreement but who have submitted claims with a value of about US$512 million based on the settlement values applicable in the Sixth Plan. The Company's gross liability of in excess of US$491 million for these settlements and contingent liability for the about US$512 million in unsettled claims is substantially in excess of the total assets of the Company. In February 2006, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court ordered GHR to disgorge all fees and certain expenses it was paid by the Company. The amount of the disgorgement is about US$9.6 million. In October 2006, the Company and GHR entered into the agreement in full satisfaction of the disgorgement order. The payment would be secured by assets of GHR and would be made over time according to a formula based on GHR's earnings. Treatment of funds received pursuant to the GHR Settlement under a future amended plan of reorganization may differ from the treatment accorded by any prior plans. The Company recorded charges aggregating about US$51.3 million in prior years, and is not yet able to determine the amount of the additional cost that will be required to complete its reorganization. Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corp. makes flooring products for residential and commercial use. Company products include resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it- yourself vinyl tile, and commercial flooring. American Biltrite Inc. owns about 66 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norcross Safety Has 95 Exposure Suits in 1Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- Norcross Safety Products LLC, as of March 31, 2007, recorded about 636 product liability lawsuits, of which 15 percent, or about 95 suits, is asbestos-related, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2007. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had about 644 product liability lawsuits, of which 15 percent, or about 96 suits, is asbestos- related. (Class Action Reporter, April 13, 2007) Most of the suits and claims the Company faces are product liability matters that arise out of the use of respiratory product lines made by its North Safety Products subsidiary. As of March 31, 2007, North Safety Products, along with its predecessors and the former owners of such business were named as defendants in about 624 suits involving respirators allegedly made and sold by it or its predecessors. The Company also monitors an additional 12 suits in which it says it feels that North Safety Products, its predecessors and the former owners of such businesses may be named as defendants. Collectively, these 636 suits represent about 8,434, excluding spousal claims, plaintiffs. About 85 percent of these suits involve plaintiffs alleging injury resulting from exposure to silica dust. These suits allege that the purported injuries resulted in part from respirators that were negligently designed and made. The defendants in these suits are often numerous, and include, in addition to respirator manufacturers, employers of the plaintiffs and manufacturers of sand (used in sand blasting) and asbestos. The Company acquired North Safety Products on Oct. 2, 1998 from Siebe plc. In connection with the acquisition, Siebe, which was subsequently merged with BTR plc (now known as "Invensys plc"), contractually agreed to indemnify the Company for any losses, including costs of defending claims, resulting from respiratory products made or sold before its acquisition of North Safety Products in October 1998. Oak Brook, Ill.-based Norcross Safety Products LLC makes protective equipment (boots, clothing, eyewear, hats, hearing protection aids, and respiratory devices) for the agricultural, fire service, industrial, and utility markets. Odyssey Investment Partners LLC owns 75 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reunion Industries Opens 109 Cases in 1Q07 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reunion Industries Inc. says that, since the end of 2006, 109 new asbestos-related cases have been opened, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2007. Since the end of 2006, 128 cases have been dismissed and 47 cases have been settled for a net reduction of 66 cases during the 2007-1st quarter. The gross cost of the 47 case settlements was US$48,000 and the gross amount of legal fees and costs incurred during the 2007- 1st quarter were US$212,000. The Company's insurance carriers cover the significant majority of these costs and the Company's total share of these settlement and other costs in the 2007-1st quarter was US$37,000. Pittsburgh-based Reunion Industries Inc. makes machined and fabricated industrial products like fluid power cylinders, gratings, and steel pressure vessels. The Company serves customers in the transportation, power generation, chemicals, metals, and electronics industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Faces 115 Pending Suits in 1Q07 ---------------------------------------------------------------- IPALCO Enterprises Inc.'s subsidiary Indianapolis Power & Light Co., as of March 31, 2007, faced about 115 pending asbestos- related lawsuits, compared with 114 suits as of March 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2007. These suits allege personal injury or wrongful death stemming from exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing products formerly located in IPL power plants. As of Dec. 31, 2006, IPL faced about 114 pending asbestos- related lawsuits, compared with about 109 suits as of Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, April 20, 2007) IPL has been named as a "premises defendant" in that IPL did not mine, manufacture, distribute or install asbestos or asbestos containing products. These suits have been brought on behalf of persons who worked for contractors or subcontractors hired by IPL. IPL has insurance, which may cover some portions of these claims. Counsel, retained by various insurers who wrote policies applicable to the period of time during which much of the exposure has been alleged, is defending these cases. Historically, settlements paid on IPL's behalf have been comprised of proceeds from one or more insurers along with comparatively smaller contributions by IPL. Indianapolis-based IPALCO Enterprises Inc., through regulated unit Indianapolis Power & Light, generates, transmits, and distributes electricity to more than 465,000 customers in central Indiana. The Company is a subsidiary of The AES Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Ohio Faces Fewer than 10 Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Ohio Inc. faces lawsuits related to asbestos at its electric generating stations, in which there are fewer than 10 pending suits, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2007. The Company is a subsidiary of Duke Energy Corp. In these suits, plaintiffs claim to have been exposed to asbestos-containing products in the course of their work as outside contractors. The plaintiffs further claim that as the property owner of the generating stations, the Company should be held liable for their injuries and illnesses based on an alleged duty to warn and protect them from any asbestos exposure. As it has been named in fewer than 10 cases, the Company has virtually no settlement history for asbestos cases. Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy Ohio Inc. distributes electricity and natural gas in Cincinnati and surrounding areas, including portions of Indiana and Kentucky. The Company has 680,000 power and 420,000 gas customers. The Company also operates fossil-fueled power plants with more than 5,200 MW of generating capacity. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Indiana Faces 120 Pending Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Indiana Inc. faces lawsuits related to asbestos at their electric generating stations, of which about 120 suits are pending, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2007. The Company is a subsidiary of Duke Energy Corp. In these suits, plaintiffs claim to have been exposed to asbestos-containing products in the course of their work as outside contractors. The plaintiffs further claim that as the property owner of the generating stations, the Company should be held liable for their injuries and illnesses based on an alleged duty to warn and protect them from any asbestos exposure. Of these suits, one case filed against the Company has been tried to verdict. The jury returned a verdict against the Company on a negligence claim and a verdict for the Company on punitive damages. The Company appealed this decision up to the Indiana Supreme Court. In October 2005, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the jury's verdict. The Company paid the judgment of about US$630,000 in the 2005-4th quarter. In addition, the Company has settled over 150 other claims for amounts, which neither individually nor in the aggregate, were material to its operations. The Company estimates that the range of reasonably possible exposure in existing and future suits over the next 50 years could range from an immaterial amount to about US$60 million. Plainfield, Ind.-based Duke Energy Indiana Inc. transmits and distributes electricity to 69 of Indiana's 92 counties (about 766,000 customers). The utility also owns power plants (7,275 MW of primarily fossil-fueled capacity), which are operated by Duke Energy Corp.'s merchant energy division. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BJ Services Faces Exposure Actions in Miss. ---------------------------------------------------------------- BJ Services Co. and certain of its predecessors continue to face asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the Circuit Court of Jones and Smith Counties in Mississippi, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2007. Filed in August 2004, these four suits included 118 individual plaintiffs alleging that they suffer various illnesses from exposure to asbestos and seeking damages. The suits assert claims of unseaworthiness, negligence, and strict liability, all based upon the status of the Company's predecessors as Jones Act employers. About 25 plaintiffs have identified the Company or its predecessors as their employer. Four individuals filed amended suits against the Company and the remainder of the original claims (114) were dismissed. Of these four suits, three failed to name the Company as an employer or manufacturer of asbestos containing products so it was dismissed. Subsequently an individual from one of these suits brought his own action against the Company. As a result, the Company is named as an employer in two of the Mississippi suits. In addition to the Jones Act cases, the Company has been named in a small number of additional asbestos cases. The allegations in these cases vary, but generally include claims that the Company provided some unspecified product or service, which contained or utilized asbestos. Some of the allegations involve claims that the Company is a successor to the Byron Jackson Co. To date, the Company has been successful in obtaining dismissals of such cases without any payment in settlements or judgments. Houston-based BJ Services Co. provides pressure-pumping services used to protect oil formation. The Company's oilfield services include casing and tubular services, process and pipeline services, production chemicals, completion tools and completion fluids services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,381 Claims in 1Q07 ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Biltrite Inc., as of March 31, 2007, is a co-defendant in about 1,381 pending asbestos-related claims involving about 1,967 individuals, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission May 14, 2007. The claimants allege personal injury or death from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company faced about 1,332 pending asbestos-related claims involving about 1,918 individuals, compared with 1,703 claims as of Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, April 13, 2007) For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded 164 new claims filed, three settlements, and 112 dismissals. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 625 new claims filed, 30 settlements, and 966 dismissals. The total indemnity costs incurred to settle claims during the three months ended March 31, 2007 amounted to US$19,000, compared with US$3.1 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The amounts were paid by the Company's insurance carriers under the Company's applicable insurance policies, as were the related defense costs. The average indemnity cost per resolved claim was about US$200 for the three months ended March 31, 2007, compared with US$3,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. At Dec. 31, 2006, the estimated range of liability for settlement of current claims pending and claims anticipated to be filed through 2012 was US$10.3 million to US$35.3 million. The Company recorded the minimum liability estimate of US$10.3 million in its consolidated financial statements at Dec. 31, 2006. At March 31, 2007, the Company has recorded US$10.4 million for the estimated minimum liability. The Company said it believes that corresponding amount of insurance probable of recovery is US$9.3 million at March 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006. Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc. produces Congoleum-brand vinyl tile flooring and sheet-vinyl floors, and it distributes fashion jewelry through its K&M Associates supplier. The Company also makes industrial products like adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes used to protect materials during handling and for varied applications. The Company owns 66 percent of Congoleum Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus Metering Still Faces 3rd Party Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sensus Metering Systems Inc. and other third parties continue to face several lawsuits related to illnesses from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2007. The complaints did not specify which plaintiffs allegedly were involved with the Company's products. Since the cases are in its initial stages, it is uncertain whether any plaintiffs have asbestos-related illnesses or dealt with the Company's products, much less whether any plaintiffs were exposed to an asbestos-containing component part of the Company's product or whether that part could have been a substantial contributing factor to the alleged illness. Although the Company is entitled to indemnification for legal and indemnity costs for asbestos claims related to these products from certain Invensys plc subsidiaries, under the stock purchase agreement under which the Company acquired Invensys Metering Systems, those indemnities are limited to the purchase price paid by the Company in connection with the acquisition of Invensys Metering Systems. The Company is unable to estimate the amount of its exposure, if any, related to these claims at this time. Raleigh, N.C.-based Sensus Metering Systems Inc. provides metering and related communications solutions to the utility industry. The Company makes water, gas, heat, and electric meters. The Company was formed on Dec. 17, 2003 through the acquisition of the metering systems and certain other businesses of Invensys plc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BMCA Continues to Face G-I Holdings Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Building Materials Corp. of America continues to face asbestos- related liabilities of its indirect parent, G-I Holdings Inc., which filed for bankruptcy in January 2001. In connection with its formation, the Company contractually assumed and agreed to pay the first US$204.4 million of liabilities for asbestos-related bodily injury claims relating to the inhalation of asbestos fiber of G-I Holdings. As of March 30, 1997, the Company paid all of its assumed asbestos-related liabilities. In January 2001, G-I Holdings filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code due to Asbestos Claims. Most asbestos claims do not specify the amount of damages sought. On Feb. 2, 2001, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order enjoining any existing or future claimant from bringing or prosecuting an Asbestos Claim against the Company. By oral opinion on June 22, 2001, and written order entered Feb. 22, 2002, the Bankruptcy Court converted the temporary restraints into a preliminary injunction, prohibiting the bringing or prosecution of any Asbestos Claim against the Company. On Feb. 7, 2001, G-I Holdings filed an action in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey seeking a declaratory judgment that the Company has no successor liability for Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings and that it is not the alter ego of G-I Holdings (the "BMCA Action"). One of the parties to this matter, the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants (the "creditors' committee"), subsequently filed a counterclaim against the Company seeking a declaration that the Company has successor liability for Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings and that it is the alter ego of G-I Holdings. On May 13, 2003 the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey overseeing the G-I Holdings' Bankruptcy Court withdrew the reference of the BMCA Action from the Bankruptcy Court, and this matter will therefore be heard by the District Court. On or about Feb. 8, 2001, the creditors' committee filed a complaint in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey against G-I Holdings and the Company. The complaint requests substantive consolidation of the Company with G-I Holdings or an order directing G-I Holdings to cause the Company to file for bankruptcy protection. The plaintiffs also filed for interim relief absent the granting of their requested relief. On March 21, 2001, the Bankruptcy Court denied plaintiffs' application for interim relief. In November 2002, the creditors' committee, joined in by the legal representative of future demand holders, filed a motion for appointment of a trustee in the G-I Holdings' bankruptcy. In December 2002, the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion. The creditors' committee appealed the ruling to the U.S. District Court, which denied the appeal on June 27, 2003. The creditors' committee appealed the denial to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal on Sept. 24, 2004. The creditors' committee filed a petition with the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing of its denial of the creditors' committee's appeal, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on Oct. 26, 2004. On July 7, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court authorized the creditors' committee to commence an adversary proceeding against the Company and others challenging, as a fraudulent conveyance, certain transactions entered into in connection with the Company's formation in 1994, in which G-I Holdings caused to be transferred to the Company all of its roofing business and assets and in which the Company assumed certain liabilities relating to those assets, including a specified amount of asbestos liabilities (the "1994 transaction"). On July 20, 2004, the creditors' committee appealed certain aspects of the Bankruptcy Court's order (and a June 8, 2004 decision upon which the order was based). G-I Holdings, the holders of the Company's bank and bond debt and the Company cross-appealed. The District Court entered an order on June 21, 2006 affirming in part and vacating in part the Bankruptcy Court's July 7, 2004 order. In March 2007, after participating in a mediation, which resulted in the parties agreeing to an outline of the principal terms of a settlement of the G-I Holdings bankruptcy and all related litigations, the parties agreed to a stay of proceedings pending the completion of their negotiations. The judges presiding over the G-I Holdings bankruptcy proceeding and the related litigations, including the BMCA action and the fraudulent conveyance action, have each entered stipulated orders dated March 22, 2007, March 23, 2007, and April 4, 2007, implementing the stay. Wayne, N.J.-based Building Materials Corp. of America makes and markets asphalt and polymer based roofing products and accessories for the residential and commercial roofing markets. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of BMCA Holdings Corp., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of G-I Holdings Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Building Materials Has 1,900 Injury Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Building Materials Corp. of America, as of April 1, 2007, had about 1,900 alleged asbestos-related bodily injury claims pending against it, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2007. These claims relate to the inhalation of asbestos fiber. Wayne, N.J.-based Building Materials Corp. of America makes and markets asphalt and polymer based roofing products and accessories for the residential and commercial roofing markets. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of BMCA Holdings Corp., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of G-I Holdings Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Empire State Still Faces Staniszek Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Empire State Building Associates LLC and other New York City Building owners continue to face an asbestos-related action styled Stanislawa Staniszek v. A.C.&S. Inc., et al., according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2007. The action is part of the New York City Asbestos Litigation pending before the New York State Supreme Court. It is alleged that Mr. Staniszek, now deceased, suffered from mesothelioma and other related conditions as a result of being exposed to asbestos and asbestos-related products while employed as a project supervisor at various locations, including the Empire State Building. New York-based Empire State Building Associates LLC, an investor group led by New York real estate expert Peter Malkin, holds the master lease on the Empire State Building through 2076. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amerex Accrues $768T for Cleanup Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amerex Group Inc., at March 31, 2007, recorded US$768,101 as accrued remediation liability for the removal of asbestos that exists at its Pryor, Okla., facility, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2007. At March 31, 2007, the Company had current liabilities amounting to US$13,092,169, which is comprised of the current portion of long term debt, accounts and notes payable, accrued expenses, the Company's accounts receivable line of credit, and accrued share-based liabilities. At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's current liabilities were US$12,838,806. COMPANY PROFILE Amerex Group Inc. 512 7th Ave., 9th Fl. New York, N.Y. 10118 Phone: 212-609-3000 Fax: 212-575-1940 http://www.amerexgroup.com Description: The Company makes outerwear for men, women, and children. Established in 1946, the Company has licensing agreements with brands like Jones New York, London Fog, OshKosh, and Mudd. The Company also sells outerwear under its own labels and sports- oriented outdoor wear through subsidiary Gerry. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Commercial Has 101 Hilco Claimants ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colonial Commercial Corp. faces asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, with 101 plaintiffs, from predecessor Hilco Inc., in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Middlesex County. The Company has never sold any asbestos related products. Of the existing plaintiffs, 11 filed actions in 2007, seven filed actions in 2006, 15 filed actions in 2005, 42 filed actions in 2004, 23 filed actions in 2003, and three filed actions in 2002. There are 110 other plaintiffs that have had their actions dismissed and nine other plaintiffs that have settled as of March 31, 2007 for a total of US$3,325,500. There has been no judgment against Hilco. The Company's Universal Supply Group Inc. subsidiary was named by 35 plaintiffs. Of these, two filed actions in 1999, one filed an action in 2000, five filed actions in 2001, 11 filed actions in 2005, six filed actions in 2006 and 10 filed actions in 2007. Six plaintiffs naming Universal have had their actions dismissed and, of the total US$3,325,500 of settled actions, two plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for US$26,500. No money was paid by Universal in connection with any settlement. After these dismissed and settled actions, there exist 27 plaintiffs that name Universal. The Company has been indemnified against asbestos-based claims, and insurance companies are defending the interests of Hilco and the Company in these cases. The Company said it believes that none of the litigation that was brought against the Company's Universal subsidiary through March 31, 2007 is material, and that the only material litigation that was brought against Hilco through that date was Rhodes v. A.O. Smith Corp., filed on April 26, 2004 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket Number MID-L-2979-04AS. The Company was advised that the Rhodes case was settled for US$3,250,000 ("Settlement") under an agreement reached in connection with a US$10 million jury verdict that was rendered on Aug. 5, 2005. The Company was not a defendant in the Rhodes case. On April 29, 2005, before the Rhodes case trial, Hilco filed a third party complaint against Sid Harvey Industries ("Third Party Complaint") in an action demanding contributor payment in connection with the Settlement. Sid Harvey Industries moved successfully for summary judgment. Hilco filed an appeal as to the dismissal of its Third Party Complaint. In a decision dated Dec. 29, 2006, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed the dismissal of Hilco's Third Party Complaint and remanded the matter for further proceedings as to Predecessor's claim for contribution. Hawthorne, N.J.-based Colonial Commercial Corp., through subsidiaries Universal Supply Group, RAL Supply Group, and American/Universal Supply, supplies HVAC products, climate- control systems, and plumbing fixtures to some 6,000 customers (mostly builders and HVAC contractors) in New York and New Jersey. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Intermountain Recognizes $11T for Cleanup ---------------------------------------------------------------- Intermountain Refining Co. Inc., 1n 2007, recognized US$11,141 from the salvage of metals from asbestos-containing equipment being dismantled in its Fredonia, Ariz., facility, compared with US$29,505 in 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2007. In April, 2005, the Company began the process of dismantling the portions of its refining equipment at its Fredonia facility that are no longer used for ongoing operations and were not expected to be used in the future. As part of the dismantling process, the Company identified asbestos containing materials in portions of the equipment being dismantled. The Company engaged a consultant to evaluate the extent of asbestos present on the site and to prepare a plan for the abatement and removal of the material. During the year ended Feb. 28, 2006, the Company incurred US$276,212 in consulting and abatement costs associated with the removal of the material. The Company said it believes that abatement and disposal of the asbestos containing materials had been completed as of Feb. 28, 2006, and does not expect to incur any material abatement costs in the future. Farmington, N.M.-based Intermountain Refining Co. Inc. produces natural gas, manufactures and stores asphalt-paving products. The Company also provides management and consulting services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Reached in Phase I of Congoleum Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Congoleum Corp. said that a court decision was issued in Phase I of the trial addressing disputes regarding insurance coverage for asbestos liabilities, according to a Company press release dated May 23, 2007. The decision found that the Company's insurers were not obligated to provide coverage for the settlement agreement covering numerous claimants with asbestos claims against the Company. The settlement had been reached in 2003, before the Company's Chapter 11 filing. Roger S. Marcus, Chairman of the Board, commented, "The judge presiding over our reorganization proceedings has already made it clear that she would not confirm a plan that honored the terms of the settlement agreement addressed by this state court decision. "This decision further confirms the issues created by that agreement, and provides additional guidance on the steps we can take to comply with the bankruptcy court's rulings and decisions. We are proceeding with those steps so we can move ahead with a plan that complies with all necessary legal requirements and enables us to complete our reorganization." On Dec. 31, 2003, the Company filed a voluntary petition with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (Case No. 03-51524) seeking relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code as a means to resolve claims asserted against it related to the use of asbestos in its products decades ago. Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corp. makes resilient flooring, serving both residential and commercial markets. The Company's sheet, tile and plank products are available in a wide variety of designs and colors, and are used in remodeling, manufactured housing, new construction and commercial applications. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Firms Fined CDN175T for Removal Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Suncor Energy Products Inc. and Tornado Insulation Ltd. were issued a total penalty of CDN175,000, two years after workers were exposed to asbestos during an insulation-removal job at an ethanol refinery in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, Canadian Occupational Health & Safety News reports. Suncor Energy was fined CDN125,000 for two asbestos-related violations and Tornado Insulation was fined CDN50,000 for one violation. Suncor Energy was fined CDN25,000 on the first count and CDN100,000 on the second count. Tornado Insulation, for their part, pleaded guilty to one charge identical to Suncor Energy's second count. The fines follow incidents between March 9, 2005 and March 12, 2005, during which workers from both firms were removing insulation and other materials from heat exchangers and from a large chemical vessel, known as a stripper change drum, according to a Ministry of Labor press release. However, on March 11, 2005, when concern was raised that material on the stripper change drum contained asbestos, Suncor Energy sent the material to a testing facility in London, Ontario, which confirmed that the materials contained asbestos. However, Suncor Energy did not notify the MoL of the presence of asbestos, and both companies failed to ensure workers wore appropriate personal protective equipment when removing the materials both after the asbestos was discovered and after it was confirmed, the MoL said. On May 14, 2007, Suncor Energy pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that the friable material discovered during the work, that was not referred to in a previously prepared asbestos report, was reported orally and in a written report to the MoL. Suncor Energy also pleaded guilty to failing to ensure workers were provided with protective equipment that included a respirator with supplied air, positive pressure full-facepiece respirator for a Type 3 asbestos removal. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Asks Court to Bar Suits v. BNSF ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co. asked U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald to bar asbestos-related lawsuits against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. over the railroad's objections to the legal protection, Bloomberg News reports. Grace's effort to resolve more than 100,000 asbestos claims it faces would be more difficult if BNSF starts defending itself against 113 suits involving the railroad's transportation of vermiculite ore in Libby, Mont., Grace attorney David M. Bernick said in court. Grace faces federal criminal charges and civil suits related to its former vermiculite ore mine outside Libby, where town residents claim the Company is responsible for exposing them to asbestos. BNSF transported vermiculite from Grace's mine until 1990, when the mine was shut down, according to court documents. While Grace is in bankruptcy protection, none of the civil asbestos cases against the Company can go forward. The criminal case is on hold pending legal appeals. Grace has proposed settling all the suits as part of its plan to exit bankruptcy. About 600 town residents and former railroad workers sued BNSF, claiming the railroad's transportation of vermiculite ore exposed them to asbestos, which is linked to lung diseases, including cancer. Grace argued that the plaintiffs in the BNSF case will eventually sue Grace. The BNSF cases would give plaintiffs' attorneys the chance to collect evidence that would later be used as leverage against Grace in negotiations, Mr. Bernick told Judge Fitzgerald. Judge Fitzgerald agreed to sign an order allowing BNSF to pursue legal claims against its insurers. Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries, engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison," which includes silica- and alumina-based catalysts and materials; and "Grace Performance Chemicals," which includes specialty chemicals and materials. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Worker's Kin Sues 44 Firms in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elsie Eberhard, representing her mother Barbara Clarke, on May 16, 2007, sued 44 defendant corporations in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed in Madison County Circuit Court, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. The suit, which states that Mrs. Clark resided in Pennsylvania, claims that she was exposed to asbestos while employed as a production worker, machinist, and engineering draftsman from 1961 to 1995. Several defendants include Bondex Inc., Cooper Industries Ltd., Ford Motor Co., General Electric Co., General Motors Corp., John Crane Inc., Kelly-Moore Paint Co. Inc., and Thyssenkrupp AG. The suit states that Mrs. Clarke was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Jan. 26, 2005, and died on May 25, 2005. Ms. Eberhard claims her mother was also 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. Ms. Eberhard claims the defendants included asbestos in their products when they knew asbestos fibers would have a highly deleterious effect on the health of people absorbing them, included asbestos in their products when adequate substitutes were available. She claims the defendants failed to provide any warnings to people working with or around asbestos and failed to conduct tests on asbestos-containing products in order to determine the hazards to workers. As a result of the alleged negligence, Ms. Eberhard claims Mrs. Clarke was exposed to fibers with asbestos and developed a disease caused only by asbestos which disabled and disfigured her. Ms. Eberhard 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. Ms. Eberhard claims that as a result of each defendant breaching its duty to preserve material evidence by destroying documents and information she has been prejudiced and impaired in proving claims against all potential parties. Ms. Eberhard claims that, before her death, Mrs. Clarke experienced great pain and mental anguish, became liable for medical expenses and lost large sums of money she otherwise would have earned. Ms. Eberhard seeks damages in excess of US$700,000, plus punitive damages in an amount to punish the defendants for their alleged misconduct. Case No. 07 L 452 has been assigned to Circuit Judge Daniel Stack. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Action Filed v. 43 Companies in Tex. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maren Roberts, for her husband Henry Joe Roberts, sued the A.O. Smith Corp., along with 42 other major corporations, for distributing products throughout Jefferson County, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports. Mrs. Roberts filed the suit with the Jefferson County District Court on May 18, 2007. Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd Judicial District, will preside over the case. This is the eighth case of its kind filed by Attorney Bryan Blevins of Provost Umphrey in the last two months. Mrs. Roberts is blaming corporations like Lockheed Martin Corp. and Zurn Industries Inc. for manufacturing and distributing asbestos laced products. The petition does not state Mr. Roberts' age when he passed away or the nature of his illness. The suit only says he was exposed to asbestos while working as an electrician. However, a separate suit against E.I. Du Pont De Nemours filed by Mrs. Roberts, says Mr. Roberts died from an asbestos related disease on May 18, 2005. Provost Umphery is also representing Mrs. Roberts in the separate suit (case No. A179-324). The second suit says Mr. Roberts was a former employee of the Beaumont refinery. In the first suit, the petition says the 43 defendants in Mr. Roberts' suit were negligent, failing to adequately test their asbestos-laced products before flooding the market with dangerous goods. In addition, the petition faults Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Corp. (3M Corp.) and American Optical Corp. for producing defective masks that failed to "provide respiratory protection." In Case No. E179-325, Mrs. Robersts is suing for physical pain and suffering in the past and future, mental anguish in the past and future, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, disfigurement in the past and future, physical impairment in the past and future, and past and future medical expenses. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Files Suit v. 16 Firms in W.Va. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Ellen Burns and Patricia Ann Rollins, on May 1, 2007, sued 16 corporations, for the death of Willard Harold Burns from asbestos-related diseases, in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. The suit was filed through Attorney James A. McKowen. Ms. Rollins is the executrix of Mr. Burns' estate. According to the suit, Mr. Burns died Feb. 3, 2007, of asbestosis and mesothelioma. He worked for Union Carbide Corp. as an operator, boilermaker and welder, from 1943 to 1977. The suit says Mr. Burns breathed asbestos and other harmful dusts and developed mesothelioma. According to the suit, the defendants are responsible for Mr. Burns' illness and subsequently, his death, by neglecting to inform him of the dangers associated with asbestos. Mrs. Burns and Ms. Rollins seek full compensation and punitive damages, in the nine-count suit. Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-813 will be assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ironworker Sues 55 Companies in W.Va. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry Mayo Sr., on May 4, 2007, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 55 companies in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Mr. Mayo, of Cabell County, claims the defendants' negligence with asbestos-containing materials caused him to contract lung cancer. Gladys Mayo, Mr. Mayo's wife, is also named as plaintiff. Mr. Mayo was an ironworker for several mills and plants in West Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky from 1970 to 1993. During that time, he claims he was forced to breath asbestos and other harmful dusts, which caused his cancer. In the 12-count suit filed through Attorney Samuel D. Elswick, the Mayos seek compensatory and punitive damages. Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-851 will be assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Warns of Dangers of Working with Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United Kingdom's Health and Safety Executive issued warnings to firms to take extra care when demolishing buildings containing asbestos cement sheets, Azobuild.com reports. The warning came after Wye Valley Demolition Ltd. of St. Weonards, Hereford, on May 18, 2007, was fined GBP6,000 and asked to pay costs of GBP13,621.49 at Hereford Magistrates' Court after the release of asbestos during the demolition of a former grain store building in Bodenham. HSE Principal Inspector for Construction, Joy Jones, said, "People working in the construction industry need to exercise caution when working in areas that may contain asbestos. Asbestos should not be treated lightly as it causes 3,500 deaths in Britain each year, with annual numbers predicted to go on rising into the next decade. "All people working in areas that may contain asbestos need to be aware of the dangers to others and the financial penalties imposed if asbestos is mishandled. The risks from asbestos cement are lower than from other asbestos materials but contractors still need to take proper precautions." This prosecution followed an incident between June 25, 2004 and June 29, 2004 during the demolition of a former grain store building at Chapel Lane, Bodenham. The building contained asbestos cement sheets which should have been removed under controlled conditions but which instead were smashed to the ground by a machine then spread over the demolition site. Wye Valley Demolition Ltd. pleaded guilty to breaches of Regulation 10(1) and Regulation 15 of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002. ASBESTOS ALERT: Meruelo Maddux Sued for Illegal Waste Disposal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, on April 3, 2007, filed a misdemeanor complaint against Meruelo Maddux Properties Inc., alleging illegal disposal of hazardous waste, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2007. Regarding its project at Vignes Village, the Company has been notified that the South Coast Air Quality Management District was investigating compliance with regulations and laws relating to demolition of structures with asbestos-containing materials, but that no claim had been asserted yet by the agency. Since the date of the disclosure, the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, upon referral by SCAQMD, filed the complaint in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles against the company, the subsidiary of the company that owns the property, and employees of the company or its subsidiaries, alleging illegal disposal of hazardous waste. The arraignment is not scheduled until July 2007. COMPANY PROFILE Meruelo Maddux Properties Inc. 761 Terminal St. Bldg. 1, 2nd Fl. Los Angeles, Calif. 90021 Phone: 213-291-2800 Fax: 213-627-5979 http://www.meruelomaddux.com Fiscal Year-End: December 2006 Sales (mil.): US$23.5 1-Year Sales Growth: 30.9 percent 2006 Net Income (mil.): (US$17.1 million) 2005 Employees: 91 Description: The Company is a self-managed, full-service real estate company that develops, redevelops and owns commercial and residential properties located in downtown Los Angeles and other densely populated urban areas in California that are undergoing demographic or economic changes. New Securities Fraud Cases XINHUA FINANCE: Bernstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A securities class action was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired American Depositary Shares of Xinhua Finance Media Ltd. pursuant or traceable to Xinhua's initial public offering, dated March 8, 2007. The lawsuit is also on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired ADSs of Xinhua between March 8, 2007 and May 21, 2007, inclusive. The complaint charges that defendants: - Xinhua; - Fredy Bush; - Shelly Singhal; - J.P. Morgan Securities Inc; - UBS AG, CIBC World Markets Corp.; and - WR Hambrecht & Co., LLC made, or facilitated, misleading statements in the company's March 8, 2007 prospectus, issued in connection with the offering of 23,076,932 ADSs, representing 46,153,846 common shares at $13 per share. The complaint alleges that the prospectus failed to disclose material information that since April 2006, prior to the company's IPO, Shelly Singhal, the company's CFO at the time of the IPO, was simultaneously an investment banker and stockbroker in charge of Bedrock Securities. Since April 2006, prior to the company's IPO, Bedrock had been under a Nasdaq cease-and-desist order for violating SEC regulations. Moreover, reports also surfaced that Singhal had been fighting a private civil racketeering lawsuit in California and had previously been a major investor in AremisSoft and ACLN, companies previously sued for fraud by the SEC. This information was never disclosed in the prospectus. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Xinhua ADSs during the class period. Interested parties may move the court no later than July 23, 2007, for appointment as lead plaintiff. For more information about the case or to obtain a copy of the complaint, contact: Sandy A. Liebhard, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, New York Phone: (877) 779-1414 or (212) 779-1414 E-mail: XFML@bernlieb.com Web Site: http://www.bernlieb.com ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, and Mary Grace Durana, 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 * * *