/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070622.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 22, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 123 Headlines BATTELLE MEMORIAL: Utah Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations BEST PALLETS: Fla. Suit Claims Denial of Overtime Compensation BLUE GOOSE: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Claim Denied Overtime Wages CHARGERS FOOTBALL: Faces Cal. Suit Over Playoff Tickets Rip-Off COCO SOD: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Alleging Labor Code Violations DEPT OF HOMELAND: Suit Filed Over Forcible Drugging of Deportees DOWNEY SAVINGS: Still Faces “Sims” Overtime Wage Suit in Calif. DOWNEY SAVINGS: Still Faces “Holman” Labor Lawsuit in Calif. GOLD COAST ROOFING: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations INDONESIA: Court Hears Suit Against Gov’t Over Feb. Flood IPO LITIGATION: U.S. High Court Blocks Investor Antitrust Suits ISRAEL: Tiv Taam Investor Sues Billionaire for Canceling Deal MORTGAGE VENDORS: Accused of Unlawful Sales Practices to Aged NORTHWEST CARE: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over Denied Overtime Wages NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Settles Wash. Consumer Lawsuit for $5.1M ORBITZ LLC: Discovery Ongoing in Ill. Taxes/Fees Assessment Suit ORBITZ LLC: Still Faces Calif. Taxes/Fees Assessment Litigation ORBITZ INC: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes PHARMA COS: Mass Court Dismisses Schering-Plough in AWP Case POWEREX CORP: U.S. High Court Remands Price-Fixing Lawsuit ROYAL AHOLD: Investors to Start Receiving Payouts by Sept. 2007 SCOTTISH RE: N.Y. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit SEPRACOR INC: Settles Mass. Securities Fraud Suits for $52.5M SLM CORP: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over FFELP Billing Practices SPECTRUM BRANDS: 2006 Securities Suit Filed in Ga. Dismissed TASER INT'L: $20M Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final Okay TERAYON COMM: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss I.B.L. Suit Set July TIME WARNER: $2.65B Settlement of Securities Fraud Suit Proceeds TOLT TECHNOLOGIES: Fla. Suit Aims to Recover Unpaid Overtime UNITED STATES: Illegal Immigrants’ Kids Sue to Halt Deportations WEYERHAEUSER CO: Trial in Sawlog Market Antitrust Suit Set 2008 WEYERHAEUSER CO: Opposes Motions in Pa. OSB Antitrust Litigation WHITE ELECTRONIC: Court Gives Final OK to Ariz. Suit Settlement ZIPREALTY INC: Former Employee Agents File Lawsuit in Calif. Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Todd Shipyards Corp. Drop to 504 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Waste Mgmt. Director Fined GBP2T for Breach ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Mechanic Gets GBP135T Payout for Illness ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Contractor’s Death to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Summary Judgment to Favor Sequoia ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Dowman in Nagl Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Open Claims v. BNS Holding Inc. Rise to 171 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AXA Has EUR1.176B Reserves for Loss in ‘06 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AXA Units Face Actions in U.S., Netherlands ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Experts Blast Health Dept. Over Info Delay ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Kingston, Ontario Property ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Official Pleads Guilty to Removal Breaches ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Governor Reviews Statute Limitations ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Workplace Standards Hit for Botched Inquiry ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Grants 3 Firms’ Summary Judgment Move ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Workers Exposed at Calif. Plant, ATSDR Says ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Public Schools to be Checked for Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Remands Bessire Action v. Defendants ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Mulls Palermo Certiorari Bid ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks THAN’s Appeal in Insurance Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ark. Local Sues 96 Companies in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Motion for Leave in Anderson Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Study Says Payout Recipients Remain “Poor” ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Mining Town Closed Over Health Risks ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Richland, Ga. Faces Contamination Crisis ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belluck & Fox Supports Bill to Ban Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Inks $10.5M Deal w/ Insurers ASBESTOS LITIGATION: S.C. Court Favors 7 Firms in Henderson Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrician’s Mate Gets GBP102,500 Payout ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. School District OKs Asbestos Probe ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Seeks Reorganization Approval New Securities Fraud Cases NYSE: Two Law Firms Commence Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. STERLING FINANCIAL: Schiffrin Files Penna. Securities Fraud Suit ********* BATTELLE MEMORIAL: Utah Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Battelle Memorial Institute is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah over alleged Labor Code violations, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiffs Jason Sweat and Sue Renzello allege Battelle violates labor laws at the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, where it disposes of chemical warfare agents for the federal government. Battelle is a subcontractor for EG&G Defense Materials, a prime contractor with the U.S. Army, the plaintiff workers claim. They say Battelle fails to pay overtime, fails to pay for all hours worked, violates labor laws on meal and work breaks, and fails to pay for time spent on required safety procedures. The suit is “Sweat et al. v. Battelle Memorial Institute., Case No. 2:07-cv- 00401-TS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah under Judge Ted Stewart. Representing plaintiffs are: Jesse S. Brar Sue Renzello 716 E 4500 S STE N142 Salt Lake City, UT 84107 Phone: (801)269-9541 E-mail: jbrar@xmission.com or sharon@xmission.com BEST PALLETS: Fla. Suit Claims Denial of Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Best Pallets Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 18 in the U.S District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Danny D. Hall alleges denial of overtime compensation, thus a violation of the Labor Code. The suit is “Hall v. Best Pallets Inc. et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-01053-EAK- EAJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich, with referral to Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins. Representing plaintiffs is: Carlos V. Leach 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 BLUE GOOSE: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Claim Denied Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Blue Goose Growers, LLC is facing a class-action complaint filed June 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff James Clark claims denial of overtime compensation, thus violating the Labor Code. The suit is “Clark v. Blue Goose Growers, LLC, Case No. 2:07-cv-14181-KMM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge K. Michael Moore, with referral to Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr. Representing plaintiffs is: Kelly Allyssha Amritt Morgan & Morgan 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Phone: 954-318-0268 Fax: 954-333-3515 E-mail: kamritt@forthepeople.com CHARGERS FOOTBALL: Faces Cal. Suit Over Playoff Tickets Rip-Off --------------------------------------------------------------- Football fans have filed a class-action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego against the Chargers Football Co., the CourtHouse News Service reports. The suit claims the Chargers required season ticket-holders who wanted NFL playoff tickets this year to buy tickets to two playoff games, and promised refunds if the team lost in the first round. The Chargers lost game one to the New England Patriots, but refuses to refund the price of tickets for game two, named plaintiff Kells Christian claims in Superior Court. Plaintiff brings this class action complaint for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion and false advertising. Mr. Christian says the Chargers owe him $266 for the two game two tickets he bought at $133 each. He says when he demanded a refund, the team told him it “intended to retain the funds ‘for any future transactions’ with the purchaser.” The suit is "Kells Christian et al. v. Chargers Football Company, LLC, Case No. 37-2007-0006871-CU-BC-CTL," filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego. Representing plaintiffs is: JoBeth Halper JoBeth Halper Litigation Group, P.C. 160 chesterfield Drive, Suite 2 Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007 Phone: 760-632-1101 Fax: 760-632-1131 E-mail: jobeth@halperlitigation.com COCO SOD: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Alleging Labor Code Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- CoCo Sod Farms, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Angel Rivera claims denial of overtime compensation, thus violating the Labor Code. The suit is “Rivera v. CoCo Sod Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-14180- JEM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Jose E. Martinez, with referral to Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr. Representing plaintiffs is: Kelly Allyssha Amritt Morgan & Morgan 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Phone: 954-318-0268 Fax: 954-333-3515 E-mail: kamritt@forthepeople.com DEPT OF HOMELAND: Suit Filed Over Forcible Drugging of Deportees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Two men who claim they were forcibly injected with drugs to make it easier for the Department of Homeland Security to deport them have filed a class- action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against DHS Director Michael Chertoff, the CourtHouse News Service reports. According to the suit, “Federal officials have publicly admitted that the government has a policy of forcibly injecting immigrants with psychotropic drugs in order to render them less ‘agitated’ for deportation. Named plaintiffs Amadou Diouf and Raymond Soeoth claim they were both forcibly injected in anticipation of their deportation. “In both cases, the men lacked any history of mental illness. Further, in both cases, the men had exhibited no behavior that indicated they would be mentally unstable during deportation. And, in both cases, the men were not examined by a doctor before being injected with potentially fatal anti- psychotic drugs. Because both men remain in immigration proceedings, they reasonably fear it could happen to them again,” the suit states. “No federal statue authorizes forcible injection under these circumstances, and the Constitution clearly forbids it,” according to the suit. Mr. Diouf, of Senegal, and Mr. Soeoth, of Indonesia, were allegedly injected with haloperidol and cogentin, powerful drugs often administered to psychotic people that stuns them and puts them to sleep. They also sue Division of Immigration Health Services Interim Director Neil Sampson, and several official at the San Pedro Service Processing Center (immigration prison), where they were drugged. The suit is "Diouf et al. v. Michael Chertoff et al., Case No. CV07- 03977AHM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Ahilan T. Arulanantham Mark D. Rosenbaum ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1616 Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90026-5752 Phone: 213-977-9500 Fax: 213-250-3919 - and- Bradley S. Phillips Stephen M. Kristovich Fred A. Rowley, Jr. Fadia I. Raefedie Munger Tolles & Olson LLP 355 South Grand Avenue Thirty-Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Phone: 213-683-9100 Fax: 213-687-3702 DOWNEY SAVINGS: Still Faces “Sims” Overtime Wage Suit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Downey Savings and Loan Association, F.A., a subsidiary of Downey Financial Corp., remains a defendant in a purported class action filed by a former loan-underwriting employee in Contra Costa Superior Court, California. Filed on June 21, 2005, the suit, "Teresa Sims, et al. v. Downey Savings and Loan Assoc., Case No. C05-01293," seeks unspecified damages for alleged unpaid overtime wages and bonuses, inadequate meal and rest breaks, and related claims. It is seeking class action status to represent all other current and former Downey Savings employees that held the position of loan underwriter, including, but not limited to, the job title of Senior Loan Underwriter within the State of California at any time during the four years prior to June 21, 2005 and/or who was employed by Downey Savings on or about Sept. 30, 2002, when the company terminated an annual bonus program. The company reported no development in the matter in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. DOWNEY SAVINGS: Still Faces “Holman” Labor Lawsuit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ Downey Savings and Loan Assoc., F.A., a subsidiary of Downey Financial Corp., remains a defendant in a purported class action filed by two former traditional branch employees in Los Angeles Superior Court, California. The suit was filed on Oct. 29, 2004, under the caption, “Margie Holman and Alice A. Mesec, et al. v. Downey Savings and Loan Association, Case No. BC323796.” The complaint seeks unspecified damages for alleged unpaid regular and overtime wages and bonuses, inadequate meal and rest breaks, and related claims. The plaintiffs are seeking class action status to represent all other current and former Downey Savings employees who held the position of Customer Service Supervisor and/or Customer Service Representative at any time during the four years prior to Oct. 29, 2004. The company reported no development in the case at its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 Downey Financial Corp. -- http://www.downeysavings.com-- is a savings and loan holding company. Downey Savings and Loan Association (the Bank) is the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary. The Company is also involved in real estate investments. Its banking activities focus on attracting funds from the general public and institutions and obtaining borrowings; originating and investing in loans, primarily residential real estate mortgage loans, investment securities and mortgage-backed securities, and originating and selling loans to investors in the secondary markets. GOLD COAST ROOFING: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Gold Coast Roofing & Builders, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Adam Ziselman claims denial of overtime compensation, thus violating the Labor Code. The suit is “Ziselman v. Gold Coast Roofing & Builders, Inc., Case No. 2:07- cv-14179-DLG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Donald L. Graham, with referral to Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr. Representing plaintiffs is: Kelly Allyssha Amritt Morgan & Morgan 7450 Griffin Road Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Phone: 954-318-0268 Fax: 954-333-3515 E-mail: kamritt@forthepeople.com INDONESIA: Court Hears Suit Against Gov’t Over Feb. Flood --------------------------------------------------------- The Central Jakarta District Court (Indonesia) on Monday heard a class action against Governor Suityoso and Jakarta's five mayors over February's devastating floods, according to the Jakarta Post. Ten flood victims filed the suit accusing defendants of failing to properly manage the flooding. They demand IDR100 million for each flood victim and IDR5.16 trillion to rebuild the ruined city (Class Action Reporter, April 24, 2007). Made Suarjaya, representing the governor, said he questions whether the plaintiffs represent all the residents in Jakarta. He added that a flood is a natural calamity, plus the government has already provided the victims compensation. Representing the plaintiffs is Nurkholis Hidayat. Judge Moefri presided over the case, letting the plaintiffs read their suit in court. The court will decide whether the class-action can proceed on June 25. IPO LITIGATION: U.S. High Court Blocks Investor Antitrust Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-1 to overturn a federal appeals court ruling allowing antitrust suits against 16 investment banks and institutional investors involved in hundreds of initial public offerings in the 1990s, reports say. The suit was filed in 2002 by 60 investors. The principal defendants are Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Bank of America Corp, Fidelity Investments, Janus Capital and Comerica. Other defendants are Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Credit Suisse Group and Merrill Lynch & Co. They are accused of conspiring to inflate IPO prices during the 1990 Internet boom, causing huge losses for investors when the market sank in early 2000. The antitrust lawsuits said the securities firms profited at the investing public’s expense by ensuring that the prices of Amazon.com Inc., EBay Inc. and hundreds of other Internet stocks would soar soon after they began trading publicly. The companies were demanding cash kickbacks from clients and engaged in “laddering” a practice which requires clients to buy more stock, at higher prices, after the securities are sold to the public. A U.S. District Court in Manhattan dismissed the case. In 2005, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the class action to move forward. But The Supreme court disagreed, saying lawsuits alleging IPO abuses have to be brought under securities rather than antitrust statutes. It said an antitrust shield was warranted because the Securities and Exchange Commission regulates IPOs and lays out detailed rules governing what steps underwriters can and can’t take. "Allowing an antitrust lawsuit would threaten serious harm to the efficient functioning of the securities markets," Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority. The suit is “Credit Suisse Securities v. Billing, No. 05-1157.” Plaintiffs' attorney is: Fred T. Isquith, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 Phone: 212-545-4690 Fax: 212-545-4653 The lead lawyer for the investors at the high court is: Christopher Lovell, Esq. Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP 500 Fifth Avenue 58th Floor New York, NY 10110 Phone: 212-608-1900 Fax: 212-719-4677 One of the lawyers representing the investment banks in the case is: Stephen M. Shapiro, Esq. Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw Phone: +1 312 701 7327 Fax: +1 312 706 8684 E-mail: sshapiro@mayerbrownrowe.com ISRAEL: Tiv Taam Investor Sues Billionaire for Canceling Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- An Israeli Tiv Taam Holdings shareholder filed a class action against Israeli-Russian billionaire Arcadi Gaydamak, The Marker Online’s Nurit Roth reports. Itai Aharon filed the suit in Tel Aviv District Court Wednesday. He intends to represent all investors who bought Tiv Taam shares from June 10. Mr. Aharon acquired about 690 points of the non-kosher supermarket chain for NIS20,000 on June 10, the day Mr. Gaydamak said he was purchasing it. He then sold it on June 18 after he found out the billionaire didn’t make good on his promise, canceling the deal. The investor claims he lost up to 16.2% of his investment because of Mr. Gaydamak's misconduct. He asserts that since Mr. Gaydamak intended to become the sole controlling shareholder, he must exercise due caution. The motion charges Mr. Gaydamak of acting in bad faith regarding his legal obligations to Tiv Taam shareholders. It could cost Mr. Gaydamak tens of millions of shekels if the court grants it class-action status. MORTGAGE VENDORS: Accused of Unlawful Sales Practices to Aged ------------------------------------------------------------- Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corp. and Carteret Mortgage Corp. are named in a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, claiming these mortgage vendors prey on senior citizens, the CourtHouse News Service reports. The complaint alleges: (a) elder financial abuse (b) unlawful, deceptive and unfair business practices; (c) unfair, deceptive and misleading advertising; (d) breach of fiduciary duty (e) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty (f) fraudulent concealment (g) unjust enrichment and imposition of constructive trust (h) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, civil Code Section 1750, et. seq. (i) breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (j) negligence/negligent misrepresentation The deceptively named Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corp. financially abuses old people nationwide in a deceptive reverse mortgage scheme, the complaint claims. Named plaintiff Mary Munoz also accuses Carteret Mortgage Corp., Kathleen Miller and Louis Soqui of elder financial abuse, fraudulent concealment, deceptive and unfair business practices and violating consumer laws. “Financial Freedom formulated and implemented a deceptive scheme to originate, underwrite and sell reverse mortgages to vulnerable senior citizens -- by imposing a variety of undisclosed and excessive costs, fees, and charges -- providing kickbacks, referral fees and/or other unearned fees to its mortgage brokers to encourage them to steer unwary borrowers into Financial Freedom reverse mortgage loans, often under the guise of offering ‘estate’ or ‘financial planning services,’” the suit states. Ms. Munoz brings this nationwide class action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated senior citizens (persons aged 62 and older) to halt and obtain redress for the harm caused by defendants' systematic unfair, fraudulent and unlawful sales practices in connection with the structuring, origination, underwriting, marketing and sale of reverse mortgage loans in California and nationwide. She alleges Financial Freedom formulated and implemented a deceptive scheme to originate, underwrite and sell reverse mortgages to vulnerable senior citizens, in part, by imposing a variety of undisclosed and excessive costs, fees and charges associated with its reverse mortgages, as well as providing kickbacks, referral fees and/or other unearned fees to its mortgage brokers to encourage them to steer unwary borrowers into Financial Freedom reverse mortgage loads, often under the guise of offering "estate" or "financial planning services". A reverse mortgage is a type of home equity loan that allows a senior homeowner to convert the home's equity into cash, while allowing the borrower to retain ownership and not make immediate repayments. Plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendant improperly solicited, referred, marketed, brokered, underwrote and/or originated reverse mortgage loans to senior citizens, including plaintiff and the class; (b) whether defendant committed elder abuse as defined in California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15600 et seq.; (c) whether defendant committed unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 in its solicitation, referral, marketing, brokering, underwriting and/or origination of reverse mortgage loans to senior citizens, including plaintiff and the class; (d) whether defendant engaged in false and misleading advertising in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17500; (e) whether defendant breached a fiduciary duty owed to plaintiff and the class; (f) whether defendant aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty owed to plaintiff and the class; (g) whether defendant fraudulently concealed information about reverse mortgages from plaintiff and the class in violation of California law; (h) whether defendant has violated California Civil Code Section 1750 (Consumer Legal Remedies Act); (i) whether defendant breached its obligation of good faith to plaintiff and the class; (j) whether defendant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the class; (k) whether plaintiff and members of the class have sustained damages; (l) whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled to damages; and (m) whether the class is entitled to injunctive, declaratory and/or other relief. Plaintiff prays for judgment against defendant as follows: -- an order certifying this action as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- for a temporary, preliminary and permanent order for injunctive relief enjoining defendants from pursuing the acts, methods and/or practices complained of; -- imposition of a constructive trust, an order granting recessionary and injunctive relief and/or such other equitable relief, including restitution, disgorgement of ill-gotten profits as set forth and as the court deems just and proper; -- for compensatory, actual and special and general damages according to proof; -- for punitive and exemplary damages under Cal. Civ. Code Section 3294 and Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15657.5 et seq.; -- for statutory, treble damages and penalties under, inter alia, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750-1784 (including but not limited to Sections 1761, et. seq. and 1780, et. seq.) and Section 3345; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 6153, 6175.4, 6175.5 and 17206.1; and Cal. Ins. Code Section 789, among other statutes; -- for double damages under Cal. Probe. Code Section 859; -- for transfer of the wrongfully obtained monies and/or property under Cal. Prob. Code Sections 850-859 et seq.; -- rescission of the policies under Cal. Ins. Code Sections 331 and 359; -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of investigation and litigation under, among other statutes, Cal. Code Civ. Pro. Section 1021.5 and 2033.420; and Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Section 15657.5 et seq. or the common fund doctrine; -- for costs of suit, pre-judgment, and post-judgment interest; and -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem necessary or appropriate. The suit is "Mary P. Munoz et al. v. Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corp. et al. Case No. SACV 07-0710 CJC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central California. Representing plaintiffs are: Louise H. Renne David L. Cheng Steven P. Shaw Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP 350 Saonsome Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-678-3800 Fax: 415-678-3838 E-mail: lrenne@publiclawgroup.com or dcheng@publiclawgroup.com or stevenpshaw@publiclawgroup.com NORTHWEST CARE: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over Denied Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Northwest Care Centre, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 18 in the U.S District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Tacara Lopez alleges denial of overtime compensation, thus a violation of the Labor Code. The suit is “Lopez v. Northwest Care Centre, Inc., Case No. 8:07-cv-01054- JDW-MSS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge James D. Whittemore, with referral to Judge Mary S. Scriven. Representing plaintiffs is: Kelly Allyssha Amritt Morgan & Morgan 7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Phone: 954/318-0268 Fax: 954/333-3515 E-mail: KAmritt@forthepeople.com NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Settles Wash. Consumer Lawsuit for $5.1M ----------------------------------------------------------- NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., a subsidiary of Novastar Financial, Inc., agreed to pay $5.1 million to settle a federal class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington accusing it of charging higher rates because of hidden fees it pays brokers, Reuters reports. In the settlement, NovaStar Mortgage Inc. agreed to include $3.3 million to be paid to the roughly 1,600 class members, or just over $2,000 per person, plus $1.8 million for legal fees. Filed in December 2005, the suit argued that the company failed to disclose prior to closing that a broker payment would be made on their loans, which was an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The suit sought a return of fees paid on the affected loans, excess interest charged, and damage to plaintiffs' credit and finances, treble damages as provided in the Washington Consumer Protection Act and attorney fees. On Oct. 31, 2006 , the district court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a Washington state class. NovaStar Mortgage sought to appeal the grant of class certification; however, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit denied the request for interlocutory appeal so review of the class certification order must wait until after a final judgment is entered, if necessary (Class Action Reporter, May 7, 207). The recent settlement removes a potential obstacle to a sale of NovaStar, an option the Kansas City, Missouri-based company said it was considering when it announced on April 11 that it would explore strategic alternatives. NovaStar said it did not admit wrongdoing, and settled to avoid further litigation costs. NovaStar maintained that its disclosures were appropriate, and that borrowers were not harmed because absent the yield spread premiums, they would have had to pay higher broker fees. The suit is "Pierce, et al. v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 3:05-cv- 05835-RJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge Robert J. Bryan. Representing the plaintiffs are: Matthew Phineas Bergman, Esq. The Law Office Of Matthew Bergman 705 2ND Avenue, Suite 1601 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-957-9510 E-mail: matt@bergmanlegal.com - and - Ari Y. Brown, Esq. Bergman & Frockt 705 Second Avenue, Ste. 1601 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-957-9510 E-mail: ari@bergmanlegal.com Representing the defendants are: Donald C. Brown, Jr. Esq. Weiner Brodsky Sidmann Kider 1300 19TH St., NW, 5th Fl. Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-628-2000 E-mail: brown@wbsk.com - and - Sal Mungia, Esq. Gordon Thomas Honeywell Malanca Peterson & Daheim P.O. BOX 1157 Tacoma, WA 98401-1157 Phone: 253-620-6500 Fax: 1-253-620-6565 E-mail: smungia@gth-law.com ORBITZ LLC: Discovery Ongoing in Ill. Taxes/Fees Assessment Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action against Orbitz, LLC and Orbitz, Inc., according to the company’s May 10, 2007 S-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On May 24, 2005, a consolidated class-action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against Orbitz, LLC, Orbitz, Inc., and Cendant Corp. The case purports to be a national class action brought by persons who were assessed taxes/fees when paying for a hotel, motel or resort room through Orbitz. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that Orbitz improperly charged customers for transient occupancy taxes that are not being submitted to the taxing authorities. Orbitz is also alleged to have concealed that it was charging more tax than required. Plaintiffs seek an order certifying the action as a class action, actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs, interest, and penalties. On May 31, 2006, the court dismissed Cendant from the case again and dismissed all counts, with the exception of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Procedures Act claim. Discovery is ongoing. Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.orbitz.com/-- is a global online travel company that uses technology to enable leisure and business travelers to research, plan and book a range of travel products. The Company owns and operates a portfolio of consumer brands that includes Orbitz, CheapTickets, ebookers, HotelClub, RatesToGo and the Away Network and corporate travel brands, Orbitz for Business and Travelport for Business. It provides customers with access to a set of travel products, including air, hotels, vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, travel insurance and destination services from over 80,000 suppliers worldwide. ORBITZ LLC: Still Faces Calif. Taxes/Fees Assessment Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Orbitz, LLC remains a defendant in the purported class action, “Ronald Bush, et al. v. CheapTickets, Inc., et al.,” which was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The suit was file on Feb. 17, 2005 on behalf of all Californians who were assessed a "Taxes/Fees" charge when paying for a hotel, motel, or resort room through defendants. The complaint was brought against a number of Internet travel companies, including Trip Network, Inc. (d/b/a Cheaptickets.com), Cendant Corp., Orbitz, Inc., and Orbitz. Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the California Business and Professions Code, conversion, and imposition of a constructive trust. Plaintiffs' claims are based on allegations that the defendants charged for taxes that were not legitimate in that they were not required by the taxing authorities to be collected. Plaintiffs also allege that the defendants failed to disclose this improper practice. They seek an order certifying the action as a class action, actual damages, punitive damages, restitution and/or disgorgement, attorneys' fees, costs, interest, and injunctive relief. On July 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims under the California Business and Professions Code and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The company reported no development in the case at its May 10, 2007 S-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.orbitz.com/-- is a global online travel company that uses technology to enable leisure and business travelers to research, plan and book a range of travel products. The Company owns and operates a portfolio of consumer brands that includes Orbitz, CheapTickets, ebookers, HotelClub, RatesToGo and the Away Network and corporate travel brands, Orbitz for Business and Travelport for Business. It provides customers with access to a set of travel products, including air, hotels, vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, travel insurance and destination services from over 80,000 suppliers worldwide. ORBITZ INC: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes -------------------------------------------------------------- Orbitz, Inc. along with several others continues to face several lawsuits relating to hotel occupancy taxes, according to the company’s May 10, 2007 S- 1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Orbitz, Inc., Orbitz, LLC, Trip Network, Inc. (d/b/a CheapTickets.com), Travelport Americas, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.), and Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com) were named as parties to various cases brought by consumers and municipalities and other governmental entities involving hotel occupancy taxes and our merchant hotel business model. Some of the cases are purported class actions and most of the cases were brought simultaneously against other Internet travel companies, including Expedia, Travelocity and Priceline. The cases allege, among other things, that the company violated the jurisdictions hotel occupancy tax ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under the ordinance. While not identical in their allegations, the cases generally assert similar claims, including violations of local or state occupancy tax ordinances, violations of consumer protection ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a constructive trust, demand for a legal or equitable accounting, injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and in one cases, civil conspiracy. The plaintiffs seek relief in a variety of forms, including declaratory judgment, full accounting of monies owed, imposition of a constructive trust, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, interest, penalties and costs, attorneys' fees, and where a class action has been claimed, an order certifying the action as a class action. Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.orbitz.com/-- is a global online travel company that uses technology to enable leisure and business travelers to research, plan and book a range of travel products. The Company owns and operates a portfolio of consumer brands that includes Orbitz, CheapTickets, ebookers, HotelClub, RatesToGo and the Away Network and corporate travel brands, Orbitz for Business and Travelport for Business. It provides customers with access to a set of travel products, including air, hotels, vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, travel insurance and destination services from over 80,000 suppliers worldwide. PHARMA COS: Mass Court Dismisses Schering-Plough in AWP Case ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor Schering-Plough Corp. and dismissed all claims relating to Schering-Plough's branded pharmaceutical products in a class action involving several pharmaceutical companies and the setting of average wholesale prices (AWPs) for prescription products. "We are gratified that the hard work of our new management team has resulted in Schering-Plough putting another issue from the past substantially behind us," said Fred Hassan, Schering-Plough chairman and CEO. While the company also said it was pleased that the Court found no liability against Warrick Pharmaceuticals, its generic subsidiary, for the period from 1991 through 1997 and from 2000 through 2003, it disagreed with the Court's finding of limited liability against Warrick with respect to one form of a generic product, albuterol sulfate solution, in the years 1998 and 1999. While the Court has scheduled further proceedings on damages, plaintiffs' claim for damages for this one formulation during 1998 and 1999 totaled less than $100,000. The company said it continues to believe that Warrick complied with all applicable laws and regulations governing pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement in connection with reporting AWPs. Although damages claimed against the company for the Warrick albuterol sulfate solution product are quite limited, the company said it is considering whether to appeal the ruling. Earlier in 2006, Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts certified a nationwide class action against four big drugs company for defying pricing rules set out by the Average Wholesale Price formula (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 23, 2006). Named defendants in the suit are: -- AstraZeneca (NYSE: AZN); -- Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ); -- Schering-Plough (NYSE: SGP) and -- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (NYSE: BMY). The suit is "In re Average Wholesale Price Litigation, Case No. 1:01-cv- 12257-PBS," filed in the United States District Court in Massachusetts, under Judge Patti B. Saris with referral to Marianne B. Bowler. Representing the plaintiffs are: Steve W. Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1301 5th Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101-1090 Phone: 206-623-7292 Fax: 206-623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com Gary L. Azorsky Berger & Montague, PC 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-875-3000 - and - Terrianne Benedetto Kline & Specter 1525 Locust Street, 19th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Representing the defendants are: Jon Steven Baughman Ropes & Gray LLP 700 Twelfth Street N.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005-3948 Phone: 202-508-4606 Fax: 202-508-4650 E-mail: sbaughman@ropesgray.com Aimee E. Bierman Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP State Street Financial Center One Lincoln Boston, MA 02111 Phone: 617-261-3100 Fax: 617-261-3175 E-mail: abierman@klng.com - and - Joseph G. Adams Snell & Wilmer LLP 1 Arizona Center 400 E Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 Phone: 602-382-6207 Fax: 602-382-6070 POWEREX CORP: U.S. High Court Remands Price-Fixing Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Canadian power company Powerex Corp. in a suit relating to the 2000-2001 energy crisis, reports say. Reliant Energy filed the suit in California state court. The plaintiff claims price fixing and price gouging during the California energy crisis of 2000 and 2001. Several defendants filed cross claims for indemnity against additional companies, including Powerex. Cross-claimants sought to have the case removed to federal court. Powerex argued that because it was a wholly owned subsidiary of a crown corporation of the Canadian province of British Columbia, it is an instrumentality of a foreign nation under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 and is therefore entitled to have its case moved to a U.S. federal court. Reliant disagreed, and the District Court remanded the suit to state court. The Ninth Circuit court upheld the ruling. In a ruling on June 18, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ninth Circuit was barred from considering Powerex's claim that it is a foreign state under FSIA by 28 USC 1447(d). It said that a defendant who moved a state court lawsuit to federal court cannot except in narrow circumstances appeal a federal judge's ruling sending it back. The court stated: “Section 1447(d) reflects Congress’s longstanding ‘policy of not permitting interruption of the litigation of the merits of a removed case by prolonged litigation of questions of jurisdiction of the district court to which the cause is removed.’” “Appellate courts must take that jurisdictional prescription seriously, however pressing the merits of the appeal might seem. We hold that Section 1447(d) bars appellate consideration of petitioner’s claim that it is a foreign state for purposes of the FSIA. We therefore vacate in part the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remand the case with instructions to dismiss petitioner’s appeal for want of jurisdiction.” The suit is "Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services Inc., 05-85." ROYAL AHOLD: Investors to Start Receiving Payouts by Sept. 2007 --------------------------------------------------------------- Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Lead Plaintiffs' counsel appointed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, issues this informational release concerning the current projected timing of payment of claims in the Settlement of the class action against Royal Ahold N.V. in the U.S. The Garden City Group -- the Court-appointed Claims Administrator -- is in the final stages of reviewing all of the claims submitted in the Settlement, including a large volume of originally deficient claims that required the claimant to provide additional information. The Claims Administrator currently anticipates concluding this process and submitting required information to the Court in the U.S. by August 2007. Based upon the current schedule, it appears that the Claims Administrator will be able to start making Settlement payments to Class Members in September 2007. If this schedule changes, Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel will issue another informational release. Claimants who have questions about their claims are reminded and encouraged to direct all questions regarding the process or individual claims to the Claims Administrator in the U.S. by email at Questions@AholdSettlement.com or by telephone to the international call center toll-free at 00-800-1020- 4060. The best time for Dutch claimants to call is between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. CET. The Claims Administrator is prepared to answer your questions in Dutch or in English. The suit "In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities & ERISA Litigation" is before Judge Catherine C. Blake of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The judge entered a final order and judgment approving Royal Ahold's settlement of the suit for US$1.1 billion (EUR937 million) in June 2006. Case Background The lawsuit stems from a 2003 accounting scandal that forced the company to restate earnings by $1.1 billion over three years. Most of the problems were related to inflated earnings at the company's U.S. Foodservice subsidiary in Columbia. It alleged that Ahold N.V. misled investors by presenting an inaccurate financial picture of the company to stockholders and inflating the price of its common stock. It alleged claims against Ahold and Ahold USA, Inc., Ahold USA Holdings, Inc., U.S. Foodservice, Inc., Cees Van der Hoeven, Michiel Meurs, Henny de Ruiter, Cor Boonstra, James L. Miller, Mark Kaiser, Michael Resnick, Tim Lee, Robert G. Tobin, William J. Grize, Roland Fahlin, Jan G. Andreae, ABN AMRO Rothschild, Goldman Sachs International, Merrill Lynch International, ING Bank N.V., Rabo Securities N.V., and Kempen & Co. N.V. based upon the matters that Ahold first announced on Feb. 24, . The settlement of the suit covers Ahold, its subsidiaries and affiliates, the individual defendants and the underwriters. It resolves all securities law claims against Ahold, and all other defendants, other than Deloitte & Touche entities. The settlement is global in nature and is designed to provide a recovery to all persons who purchased Ahold common stock and/or American Depository Receipts from July 30, 1999 through Feb. 23, 2003, regardless of where such persons live or purchased their Ahold shares. The settlement must be approved by at least 180 million shares from about 800 million qualifying shares. The average payment is estimated to be $1.51 per Fund A share and 40 cents per share for Fund B shares, according to court documents. Claims are to be made about 12 months after the court's final approval (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 10, 2006). The company denies any wrongdoing in the settlement. SCOTTISH RE: N.Y. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Scottish Re Group Ltd. On Aug. 2, 2006, putative class actions were filed against: -- the company; -- Glenn Schafer, the chairman of its board of directors; -- Dean E. Miller, chief financial officer; -- Scott E. Willkomm, former chief executive officer; and -- Seth Vance, former chief executive officer - North America. Between Aug. 7, 2006 and Oct. 2, 2006, seven additional related class actions were filed against the company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and certain third parties. Each of the complaints allege that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning the company's business and operations, thereby causing investors to purchase the company's securities at artificially inflated prices, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the 1934 Act. Two of the complaints also allege violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, related to a 2005 preferred stock offering. Each of the class actions filed seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as other forms of relief. On Oct. 12, 2006, all of the class actions were consolidated. On March 7, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the putative class action lawsuit. This motion is still pending, according to the company’s May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The is suit is "Zuckerman v. Scottish Re Group Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv- 05853-SAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Representing the plaintiff are: Arthur N. Abbey, Esq. Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis LLP, 212 East 39th Street New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 889-3700 Fax: (212) 684-5191 E-mail: aabbey@abbeygardy.com - and - Max W. Berger, Esq. Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, L.L.P. 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 554-1400 Fax: (212) 554-1444 Representing the company is: George E. Anhang, Esq. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P. 1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20009 Phone: (202) 986-8052 SEPRACOR INC: Settles Mass. Securities Fraud Suits for $52.5M ------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement was reached in two securities fraud class actions filed against Sepracor, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and a current director in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The company and several of its officers were named as defendants in several class action complaints, which have been filed on behalf of certain persons who purchased the company's common stock and/or debt securities during different time periods, beginning on various dates, the earliest being May 17, 1999, and all ending on March 6, 2002. These complaints allege violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Primarily, they allege that the defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements relating to the testing, safety and likelihood of approval of tecastemizole by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In both the debt purchasers' action and equity purchasers' action, the court has granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In late February 2006, two corrected and amended consolidated complaints were filed, one on behalf of the purchasers of the company common stock and the other on behalf of the purchasers of the company's debt securities. The amended complaints were for: -- "In re: Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-12235-MEL," (Debt Purchasers Action); and -- "In re: Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-12338-MEL," (Equity Purchasers Action). The cases were brought on behalf of all persons and entities who either purchased any of the 5%, 5.75% or 7% convertible debt securities of the company, or purchased the common stock or call options or who sold put options of the company on the open market, between May 17, 1999 and March 6, 2002. These corrected and amended consolidated complaints reiterate the allegations contained in the previously filed complaints. The parties are engaged in discovery. On April 20, 2007, the company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, regarding the cases. Under the terms of the MOU, which outlines certain elements of a settlement that will require the execution by all parties of definitive settlement agreements, notice to the plaintiffs and final approval by the Court, the company has agreed with counsel for the lead plaintiffs to pay or cause to be paid $52.5 million in settlement of the class actions. Of this amount, the company expects to pay $34.0 million, and the company expects that its insurance carriers will pay the remaining $18.5 million. In consideration of this settlement payment, counsel for the lead plaintiffs has agreed that the settlement will include a dismissal of the class actions with prejudice and a release of claims by the plaintiffs. A copy of the Debt Purchasers lawsuit is available at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?9e7 A copy of the Equity Purchasers lawsuit is available at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?9e8 For more details, contact: Sepracor Inc. Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Notice Administrator P.O. Box 9000 #6372 Merrick, New York 11566-9000 Phone: (800) 916-5305 Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-439-3939 Fax: 617-439-0134 E-mail: ted@shulaw.com - and - Michael R. Dube, Esq. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-526-6420 Fax: 617-526-5000 E-mail: michael.dube@wilmerhale.com SLM CORP: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over FFELP Billing Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- SLM Corp. faces a purported class action in California federal court in relation to its Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) billing practices. The suit, “Chae, et al. v. SLM Corporation et al.,” was filed on April 14, 2007. It was served to the Company by several borrowers. The complaint alleges violations of California Business & Professions Code 17200, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of consumer legal remedies act and unjust enrichment. The complaint challenges the Company’s FFELP billing practices as they relate to use of the simple daily interest method for calculating interest. SLM Corp., -- http://www.salliemae.com/-- also known as Sallie Mae, is engaged in education finance. The company is a holding company that operates through a number of subsidiaries. The Company’s primary business is to originate and hold student loans by providing funding, delivery and servicing support for education loans in the U.S. through its participation in the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) and through offering non-federally guaranteed Private Education Loans. The Company provides an array of credit products and related services to the higher education and consumer credit communities and others through two primary business segments: Lending business segment and Debt Management Operations (DMO) business segment. SPECTRUM BRANDS: 2006 Securities Suit Filed in Ga. Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Spectrum Brands, Inc. announces the dismissal of a putative class action filed against the company last year in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The Company, along with certain Executive Officers, are defendants in a purported class action, filed on February 2, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The lawsuit generally alleges that the Company and the individually named defendants made materially false and misleading public statements concerning the Company’s operational and financial condition, thereby allegedly causing plaintiff to purchase Company securities at artificially inflated prices. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, as well as interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. On March 6, 2006 defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On October 27, 2006, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, and also ordered plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint within 30 days. On November 22, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an extension of time to file an amended complaint and a partial lift of the stay of discovery. Defendants opposed this motion, which remains pending with the Court. On October 27, 2006, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, and ordered plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, if any, within 30 days. Plaintiffs requested, among other things, additional time to file an amended complaint and on May 18, 2007, the Court entered an opinion and order denying that request. Plaintiffs did not file an appeal and, accordingly, this case is now closed. TASER INT'L: $20M Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final Okay ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona gave final approval to the proposed $20 million settlement of a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Taser International, Inc. Beginning on or about Jan. 10, 2005, numerous securities class actions were filed against the company and certain of its officers and directors. These actions were filed on behalf of the purchasers of the company's stock in various class periods, beginning as early as May 29, 2003 and ending as late as Jan. 14, 2005. The majority of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Four actions were filed in New York and one Michigan, which were transferred to the District of Arizona. Judge Susan Bolton consolidated the class actions and lead plaintiff and lead counsel were selected. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, which became the operative complaint for all of the class actions, on Aug. 29, 2005. The operative class period is May 29, 2003 to Jan. 11, 2005. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which has been fully briefed for the court but has not yet been decided. It alleged, among other things, violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief against all defendants. The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that the company and the individual defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding, among other things, the safety of the company's products and the company's ability to meet its sales goals, including the validity of a $1.5 million sales order with the company's distributor, Davidson's, in the fourth quarter of 2004. The consolidated complaint also alleges that product defects were leading to excessive product returns by customers. On July 25, 2006, lead plaintiff, lead counsel, defendants and defendants' counsel engaged in a mediation conference, and in subsequent discussions, in an attempt to settle the consolidated securities class actions. On Aug. 9, 2006, the parties filed a joint notice of settlement stating, among other things, that the parties had reached an agreement in principal setting all consolidated actions, subject to documentation, notice and court approval. On Aug. 11, 2006, the court issued an order staying the class action for 60 days to allow the parties to complete and submit settlement documents, and further denying as moot the defendants' pending motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On Oct. 11, 2006, the parties filed a joint stipulation of settlement and related documents, and plaintiff filed a motion in support of the proposed order preliminarily approving the settlement, to which motion the defendants consented. On Oct. 13, 2006, the court, upon the joint stipulation of the parties to the action, entered an order continuing the stay of the action through Nov. 6, 2006 to complete and submit settlement documents. The stipulation of settlement and related documents filed on Oct. 11, 2006 set forth terms of settlement including, among other things, full releases of any and all related known or unknown claims among the plaintiff, plaintiff class and the defendants, and payment of $20 million from TASER for the benefit of the plaintiff class to be comprised of: -- $12 million in cash (approximately $4.1 million to be provided from the Directors' and Officers' Liability Insurance policy), and -- $8 million in company common stock valued as of the date at which the stock is transferred (1,103,448 shares based on a closing market price of $7.25 at Sept. 29, 2006). On December 14, 2006, the Court entered an order, which among other things, approved preliminarily the Stipulation of Settlement, provided for notice of the Settlement, set forth for the submissions of objections to and exclusions from the Settlement, and set a final Settlement Hearing. On March 19, 2007, the Court entered the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, which, among other things, approved the settlement terms as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement and dismissed with prejudice the consolidated securities class actions. The Company made the final payment of $8 million in cash in settlement of the shareholder class action litigation in March 2007. On April 17, 2007, the Court entered an additional order, which, among other things, awarded plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs. The suit is "In re Taser International Securities Litigation, Master File No. CV 05-115-PHX-SRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Susan R. Bolton. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ramzi Abadou, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 W Broadway, Ste. 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Fax: 619-231-7423 E-mail: ramzia@lerachlaw.com - and – Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC 2901 N Central Ave., Ste. 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311 Phone: 602-776-5903 Fax: 602-274-1199 E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com Representing the defendants are: Maureen Beyers, Esq. Osborn Maledon P.A. 2929 North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794 Phone: 602-640-9305 Fax: 602-664-2053 E-mail: mbeyers@omlaw.com - and - David A. McCarthy, Esq. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650-493-9300 Fax: 650-493-6811 E-mail: dmccarthy@wsgr.com TERAYON COMM: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss I.B.L. Suit Set July --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to rule on a motion by Terayon Communication Systems, Inc., seeking for the dismissal of a purported class action field against it. On June 23, 2006, a putative class action was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by I.B.L. Investments Ltd. purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between Oct. 28, 2004 and March 1, 2006. Zaki Rakib, Jerry D. Chase, Mark Richman and Edward Lopez are named as individual defendants. The lawsuit focuses on the company's March 1, 2006 announcement of the restatement of financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2004, and for the four quarters of 2004 and the first two quarters of 2005. On Nov. 8, 2006, Adrian G. Mongeli was appointed lead plaintiff in the case, replacing I.B.L. Investments Ltd. On Jan. 8, 2007, Mongeli filed an amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock between June 28, 2001 and March 1, 2006. The amended complaint adds as defendants: * Ernst & Young, * Ray Fritz, * Carol Lustenader, * Matthew Miller, * Shlomo Rakib, * Doug Sabella, * Christopher Schaepe, * Mark Slaven, * Lewis Solomon, * Howard W. Speaks, * Arthur T. Taylor, and * David Woodro. The amended complaint incorporates the prior allegations and includes new allegations relating to the restatement of the Company's consolidated historical financial statements as reported in the Company's Form 10-K filed on Dec. 29, 2006. The plaintiffs are seeking damages, interest, costs and any other relief deemed proper by the court. On March 9, 2007, Terayon and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. That motion is to be heard on June 5, 2007. On March 23, 2007, Ernst & Young filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Both motions are scheduled to be heard on July 24, 2007, according to the company’s May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The suit is "Adrian G. Mongeli, et al. v. Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-03936-MJJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins. Representing the plaintiff is: Michael David Braun, Esq. Braun Law Group, P.C. 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-442-7755 Fax: (310) 442-7756 E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com TIME WARNER: $2.65B Settlement of Securities Fraud Suit Proceeds ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York signed an order approving a partial modification of the distribution order in the $2.65 billion settlement of the lawsuit, "AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities & 'ERISA' Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ. 5575. A group called BizProLink LLC filed an appeal against the settlement. In response, Lead Securities Counsel entered into a stipulation with BizProLink which asked the Court to modify its prior distribution order to create a reserve from the DOJ Funds in the amount of $10.6 million (the DOJ Funds Reserve), the amount to which BizProLink claims that it is entitled. U.S. District Judge Shirley Wohl Kram ordered that California-based claim- processing firm, Gilardi & Co., under the supervision of Lead Securities Counsel, is authorized and directed to make an initial distribution to Authorized Claimants of the DOJ Funds, plus accrued interest, with the exception of $10.6 million. This initial distribution will be made simultaneously with the initial distribution of the Net Settlement Sum and the entire distribution of the SEC Fair Funds in accordance with the Distribution Order. The DOJ Fund Reserve will remain on deposit in an interest-earning escrow account for the purpose of satisfying any judgment that may be entered in favor of BizProLink. Any balance of the DOJ Funds remaining after final adjudication of BizProLink's claim will be distributed to Authorized Claimants. Gilardi will commence processing checks for distribution to Authorized Claimants and estimates that this process will be completed by the end of July. On April 6, 2006 the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York granted final approval to a $2.65 billion settlement of a consolidated class action alleging that Time Warner, Inc. and America Online Inc. inappropriately inflated advertising revenues in a series of transactions. The lead counsel for the class is Heins, Mills, & Olson of Minneapolis. Case Background As of July 31, 2006, 30 shareholder class actions have been filed naming as defendants the company, certain current and former executives of the company and, in several instances, AOL. These lawsuits were filed in U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of Virginia, and the Eastern District of Texas. The complaints purport to be made on behalf of certain shareholders of the company and allege that the company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in violation of 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 claim that the company failed to disclose AOL's declining advertising revenues and that the company and AOL inappropriately inflated advertising revenues in a series of transactions. Certain of the lawsuits also allege that certain of the individual defendants and other insiders at the company improperly sold their personal holdings of Time Warner stock, that the company failed to disclose that the AOL-Historic Time Warner Merger was not generating the synergies anticipated at the time of the announcement of the merger and, further, that the company inappropriately delayed writing down more than $50 billion of goodwill. All of these lawsuits have been centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings -- along with the federal derivative lawsuits and certain lawsuits brought under Employee Retirement Income Security Act -- under the caption, "In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Securities and 'ERISA' Litigation." Additional lawsuits brought by individual shareholders have also been filed, and the federal actions have been, or are in the process of being transferred and/or consolidated for pretrial proceedings. The Minnesota State Board of Investment was designated lead plaintiff for the consolidated securities actions and filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 15, 2003, adding additional defendants, including: -- additional officers and directors of the company, -- Morgan Stanley & Co., -- Salomon Smith Barney Inc., -- Citigroup Inc., -- Banc of America Securities LLC, and -- JP Morgan Chase & Co. Plaintiffs also added additional allegations, including that the company made material misrepresentations in its registration statements and joint proxy statement-prospectus related to the AOL-Historic Time Warner Merger and in its registration statements pursuant to which debt securities were issued in April 2001 and April 2002, allegedly in violation of Section 11 and Section 12 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933. In July 2005, the company reached an agreement in principle for the settlement of the case. The court granted initial approval to the settlement in September 2005. On April 6, 2006, the court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement. The class consists of those who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired publicly traded common stock of AOL, and/or bought or sold options on AOL common stock during the period Jan. 27, 1999 through Jan. 11, 2001, and/or purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired publicly traded common stock and bonds of Time Warner and/or bought or sold options on Time Warner common stock during the period Jan. 11, 2001 through and including Aug. 27, 2002. Settlement Terms In exchange for the dismissal of all claims against all Defendants, Time Warner and Ernst & Young have paid $2.4 billion and $100 million, respectively, into the Settlement Account. In addition, $150 million set aside as part of the Time Warner settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice (the DOJ Funds), has also been placed in the settlement account as part of this settlement. The $2.65 billion in settlement monies have been earning interest for the securities class since Oct. 7, 2005. Another $300 million Time Warner paid to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC Fair Fund), or the SEC for distribution as part of the settlement thereof, may also make a portion available. For more details, contact AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Gilardi & Co., Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 808061, Petaluma, CA 949475-8061, Phone: (877) 800-7852, E-mail: aoltimewarnersettlement@gilardi.com, Web site: http://www.aoltimewarnersettlement.com/. TOLT TECHNOLOGIES: Fla. Suit Aims to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Tolt Technologies Service Group, LLC is facing a class-action complaint filed June 18 in the U.S District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Cedrick K. Sampeur alleges denial of overtime compensation, thus a violation of the Labor Code. The suit is “Sampeur v. Tolt Technologies Service Group, LLC, Case No. 8:07- cv-01055-SDM-TGW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge Steven D. Merryday, with referral to Judge Thomas G. Wilson. Representing plaintiffs is: Richard Bernard Celler Morgan & Morgan 7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Phone: 954/318-0268 Fax: 954/333-3515 E-mail: rceller@forthepeople.com UNITED STATES: Illegal Immigrants’ Kids Sue to Halt Deportations ---------------------------------------------------------------- A national class action has been filed against the state on behalf about 300 U.S. born children of undocumented immigrants, WBBM's Debra Dale reports. The plaintiffs include some 70 Chicago children on behalf of Four Million Kids, a project of Centro Sin Fronteras, a Chicago-based immigrant rights group, according to Jessica Pupovac of AHN. It is a reference to the estimated 4 million children whose citizenship derives from the 14th Amendment provision declaring anyone born on U.S. soil a citizen, the report said. The only current exception is for those whose parents are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, such as the children of foreign diplomats. Plaintiffs’ attorneys requested on June 15 an emergency hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. The complaint alleges that the deportation of illegal immigrant parents violates the constitutional rights of their U.S. citizen children. According to the report, the suit further asserts that the law subjects the citizen children to de facto deportation. The suit, which seeks to stop the deportation of illegal immigrant parents of U.S. citizens, specifically names President Bush, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Secretary of Homeland Security, among other officers. WEYERHAEUSER CO: Trial in Sawlog Market Antitrust Suit Set 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------- An April 2008 trial is slated for the civil antitrust class action "Morelock Enterprises, Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co." The suit was filed in April 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon claiming that as a result of its alleged monopolization of the alder sawlog market in the Pacific Northwest as determined in the Initial Alder Case, the company monopolized the market for finished alder and charged monopoly prices for finished alder lumber. In December 2004, the Judge issued an order certifying the plaintiff as a class representative for all U.S. purchasers of finished alder lumber between April 28, 2000, and March 31, 2004, for purposes of awarding monetary damages. The company denies the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend the matter. In December 2004, the judge issued an order certifying the plaintiff as a class representative for all U.S. purchasers of finished alder lumber between April 28, 2000, and March 31, 2004, for purposes of awarding monetary damages. The claimed value of this matter, with trebling, is $59 million. The company denies the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend the matter. In February 2005, class counsel notified the court that approximately 5 percent of the class members opted out of the class action. In April 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended complaint, extended the claims period to Dec. 31, 2006 and scheduled trial on the matter for April 2008, according to the company’s May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2007. The suit is "Morelock Enterprises, Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co., Case No. 3:04-cv-00583-PA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon under Judge Owen M. Panner. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregory Baruch, Esq. R. Stephen Berry, Esq. Berry & Leftwich 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 450 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 296-3020 Fax: (202) 296-3038 E-mail: gbaruch@berry-leftwich.com sberry@berry-leftwich.com - and - Charles E. Corrigan, Esq. Ramis Crew Corrigan, LLP 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 Phone: (503) 222-4402 Fax: (503) 243-2944 E-mail: chuckc@rcclawyers.com Representing the defendants are: Kevin J. Arquit, Esq. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 455-7680 Fax: (212) 455-2502 E-mail: karquit@stblaw.com - and - George J. Cooper, III, Esq. Dunn Carney Allen Higgins & Tongue, LLP 851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97204-1357 Phone: (503) 224-6440 Fax: (503) 224-7324 E-mail: gjc@dunn-carney.com WEYERHAEUSER CO: Opposes Motions in Pa. OSB Antitrust Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Weyerhaeuser Co. and several companies are opposing class certification motion filed in the consolidated antitrust class action pending against them in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In February and March 2006, seven lawsuits were filed seeking class action status for persons and entities that purchased oriented strand boards (OSB) directly from the company, Louisiana-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific, Potlatch, Ainsworth Lumber, Norbord and J.M. Huber Corp. from June 2002 through the present. The lawsuit alleges the defendants conspired to fix and raise OSB prices in the U.S. during the class period and as a result, class members paid artificially inflated prices for OSB during that period. Additional lawsuits have also been filed and have been consolidated in the same court for discovery purposes on behalf of "indirect purchasers" of OSB in different states that have laws permitting such actions on behalf of indirect purchasers. No specific damage amounts have been claimed. In the third quarter 2006, the court dismissed with prejudice the claims filed by Pennsylvania indirect purchasers. In January 2007 both the direct and indirect purchasers requested class certification. The company has filed motions opposing class certification for both the direct and indirect purchaser claims, according to the company’s May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2007. The suit is "Sawbell Lumber Co. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00826-PD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvani under Judge Paul S. Diamond. Representing the defendants are: William P. Butterfield, Esq. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-408-4600 E-mail: wbutterfield@cmht.com - and – Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. Spector Roseman and Kodroff 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-496-0300 E-mail: jcorrigan@srk-law.com Representing the company are: Barack S. Echols, Esq. James Howard Mutchnik, Esq. James H. Schink, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-861-3144 and 312-861-2350 E-mail: bechols@kirkland.com jmutchnik@kirkland.com - and - Sherry A. Swirsky, Esq. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP 1600 Market St., Ste. 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-751-2000 Fax: 215-972-7475 E-mail: sswirsky@schnader.com WHITE ELECTRONIC: Court Gives Final OK to Ariz. Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona gave final approval to the $5.7 million settlement of the consolidated securities fraud suit filed against White Electronic Designs Corp. On July 22, 2004, July 29, 2004, Aug. 6, 2004 and Aug. 20, 2004, shareholder class actions were filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers. The suits are: -- "McJimsey v. White Electronic Designs Corp., et al. Case No. CV04-1499-PHX-SRB;" -- "Afework v. White Electronic Designs Corp., et al., Case No. CV04-1558-PHX-JWS;" -- "Anders v. White Electronic Designs Corp., et al., Case No. CV04-1632-PHX-JAT;" and -- "Sammarco v. White Electronic Designs Corp., et al., Case No. CV04-1744-PHX-EHC. The actions were consolidated and the Wayne County Employees' Retirement System was appointed as lead plaintiff. A consolidated complaint was filed on or about Feb. 14, 2005. The defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint were granted on Feb. 14, 2006. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 17, 2006. Like the dismissed complaint, the new complaint alleged, among other things, that between Jan. 23, 2003 and June 9, 2004, the company made false and misleading statements concerning its financial results and business, and issued a misleading registration statement and prospectus in connection with the company's July 2003 secondary offering. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint in June 2006. While defendants' motions were pending, the parties reached an agreement to settle the lawsuit. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the company's insurance carrier will pay the entire $5.7 million settlement amount. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement on Dec. 16, 2006. The members of the settlement class were notified of the settlement and allowed an opportunity to object before the Court granted final approval of the settlement agreement. The Court held a hearing on May 7, 2007 at which time the Court granted final approval of the settlement, entered judgment and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. The suit is "McJimsey, et al. v. White Electronic Des, et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01499-SRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Susan R. Bolton. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ramzi Abadou, Esq. Russell J. Gunyan, Esq. Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 401 B. St., Ste. 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 - and - Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Esq. Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. Patrick James Van Zanen, Esq. Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC 2901 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311 Phone: 602-274-1100 Fax: 602-274-1199 E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com afriedman@bffb.com pvanzanen@bffb.com Representing the company are: Joseph G. Adams, Esq. Joel Philip Hoxie of Snell & Wilmer, LLP 1 Arizona Ctr., 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 Phone: 602-382-6207 Fax: 602-382-6070 E-mail: jgadams@swlaw.com jhoxie@swlaw.com - and - Boris Feldman, Esq. Sherry Hartel Haus, Esq. Nicole Healy, Esq. Rodney G. Strickland, Jr., Esq. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: 650-496-4334 Fax: 650-565-5100 E-mail: nhealy@wsgr.com ZIPREALTY INC: Former Employee Agents File Lawsuit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ Four former employee agents of ZipRealty, Inc. filed a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit, “Lubocki, et al. v. ZipRealty, Case No. CV 07 2959,” was filed on May 4, 2007. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company’s policies for expense allowances, expense reimbursements and commission payments to agents for transactions that do not close during the period of employment violate federal and California state laws. The complaint seeks monetary damages and declaratory and equitable relief but does not specify the amount of damages sought. The suit is “Lubocki, et al v. ZipRealty, Case No. CV 07 2959,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge S. James Otero with referral to Judge Jacqueline Chooljian. Representing the plaintiffs are: Sandeep Baweja, Esq. Sandeep Baweja Law Offices 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-426-2112 E-mail: sbaweja@walialaw.com - and - Ernest J. Franceschi, Jr., Esq. Ernest J. Franceschi Jr. Law Offices 445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-612-7723 Representing the defendant is: Holly A. Hogan Kerr and Wagstaffe 100 Spear Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105-1528 Phone: 415-371-8500 E-mail: hogan@kerrwagstaffe.com Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Todd Shipyards Corp. Drop to 504 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Shipyards Corp., as of April 1, 2007, faces about 504 asbestos-related claims, of which about 19 are “malignant” claims and about 485 are “non- malignant” claims, according to the Company’s annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 13, 2007. The Company faced about 568 asbestos-related claims, of which about 22 are "malignant" and about 546 are "non-malignant." (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 16, 2007) The Company has been named as a defendant in civil actions by parties alleging damages from past exposure to toxic substances, generally asbestos, at its Seattle shipyard and closed former Company facilities. The cases generally include as defendants, in addition to the Company, other ship builders and repairers, ship owners, asbestos manufacturers, distributors and installers, and equipment manufacturers and arise from injuries or illnesses allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos or other toxic substances. Included in about 424 cases open as of April 1, 2007 are about 504 claimants. About 204 cases do not assert any specific amount of relief sought. About 154 cases assert on behalf of each claimant a claim for compensatory damages of US$2 million and punitive damages of US$20 million against about 20-100 defendants. About 37 cases assert US$5 million to US$20 million in compensatory and US$5 million to US$20 million in punitive damages on behalf of each claimant against about 20 to 100 defendants. About 25 cases assert US$1 million to US$5 million in compensatory and US$5 million to US$10 million in punitive damages on behalf of each claimant against about 20 to 100 defendants. About four cases seek compensatory damages of less than US$1 million per claim. Bodily injury reserves declined from US$7.3 million at April 2, 2006 to US$5.8 million at April 1, 2007. Bodily injury insurance receivables also decreased from US$5.5 million at April 2, 2006 to US$4.3 million at April 1, 2007. The Company resolved 19 malignant claims in 2007 compared with 9 in 2006 and 11 in 2005. Seattle-based Todd Shipyards Corp. operates through its wholly owned unit, Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp., which historically has been engaged in the repair/overhaul, conversion and construction of commercial and military ships. Today, the Company is the largest private shipyard in the Pacific Northwest. A substantial amount of its business is repair and maintenance work on commercial and federal government vessels engaged in various maritime activities in the Pacific Northwest. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Waste Mgmt. Director Fined GBP2T for Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hayden Bendall, a director of Lyndley Land Resources Ltd., faces asbestos- related charges brought by the Environment Agency and was fined GBP2,000 and ordered to pay cost of GBP1,000, Environment Times reports. At Gloucester Magistrates Court, on June 8, 2007, the 67-year-old Mr. Bendall, of Rangemoor Farm, Aylburton, U.K., pleaded guilty to knowingly permitting asbestos waste to be deposited on land without a waste management license. This is an offense under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Mr. Bendall is a director of both Bendalls of Lydney Ltd., a waste management company based at Harbour Road, Lydney, and Lydney Land Resources Ltd. Bendalls of Lydney also pleaded guilty to breaching their waste management license by storing End of Life vehicles. The company was fined GBP500 and ordered to pay costs of GBP350. At the same hearing, Lydney Land Resources Ltd. pleaded guilty to depositing asbestos waste on land off Harbour Road at Lydney without a proper waste management license and also failing to produce proper waste transfer notes. The company was fined GBP2,200 and ordered to pay costs of GBP2,000. The solicitor representing the Agency told the court that on Sept. 23, 2005, officers from the Agency visited land owned by Lydney Land Resources Ltd. next to Bendalls of Lydney Ltd.’s waste transfer station. They noticed, scattered over the surface of the raised land, asbestos like material. Samples of this material were taken and analysis proved them to contain asbestos fibers of the white, brown and blue forms above the threshold for hazardous waste. When officers again inspected the site on Dec. 1, 2005, they found stockpiled loads of construction and demolition waste among which were pieces of fiber reinforced cement sheeting and roofing tiles that appeared to contain asbestos. Again analysis proved them to contain asbestos. Ian Skuse, an Agency officer involved in the investigation said, “It is vital that hazardous waste, in this case asbestos which can cause cancer, is separated from inert construction and demolition waste and disposed of safely.” ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Mechanic Gets GBP135T Payout for Illness ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ex-motor mechanic Graham Mansfield has been awarded GBP135,000 in compensation after losing the use of his right kidney through an asbestos- related illness, Evening Post reports. The case was settled in February 2007, shortly before trial. Mr. Mansfield, 67 years old, developed retroperitoneal fibrosis, a rare condition which causes damage to other organs. Mr. Mansfield, from Sutton-in-Ashfield, U.K., worked for the Trent Motor Traction Co., Speeds Motor Group, and Evans Halshaw (Northern) between 1955 and 1977. He claimed he was exposed to the asbestos fibers in the dust from brake linings, which in turn caused his illness. Mr. Mansfield's doctor stated it was exposure to asbestos which caused Mr. Mansfield's condition, including the loss of function in his right kidney and damage to the lining of his lungs. In addition, an epidemiology expert reported on the potential link between asbestos exposure and Mr. Mansfield's illness. The report concluded that the disease can be attributed to asbestos in cases where lifetime exposure exceeds five years. It is thought Mr. Mansfield was exposed through his work for more than 16 years. Denis O'Gorman, a solicitor at law firm Irwin Mitchell, said, “It now seems unmistakable that Mr. Mansfield's illness is solely down to the exposure to asbestos fibers he received between 1955 and 1977.” ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Contractor’s Death to Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Cork Coroner’s Court inquest, on June 14, 2007, heard that the death of plumbing contractor Patrick Whelan to lung cancer was linked to asbestos, Irish Examiner.com reports. Mr. Whelan, aged 69, from St, Luke’s in Cork, Ireland, died surrounded by his family at Marymount Hospice on Dec. 24, 2005. The cause of death was invasive malignant mesothelioma. Mr. Whelan’s widow, Cora, told city coroner Dr. Myra Cullinane that her late husband loved his job, never smoked, and looked after his health. The Whelans’ son, Des, told the inquest that after his father served his time in the 1950s, the elder Mr. Whelan worked on the construction of oil refineries in England. Pipes used at that time were lined with asbestos, the younger Mr. Whelan said. The elder Mr. Whelan returned to Ireland in the late 1950s and worked on the construction of the oil refinery in Whitegate, Co Cork. Dr. Cullinane recorded a verdict of death due to occupational disease. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Summary Judgment to Favor Sequoia ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Department, New York, affirmed the summary judgment motion filed by Sequoia Ventures Inc. f/k/a Bechtel Corp. in an asbestos-related action filed by Claire Held and other plaintiffs. On June 12, 2007, the Panel, comprised of Judges Mazzarelli, Andrias, Nardelli, Williams, and Gonzales, handed down the decision of the case. Ms. Held's claim that her decedent's mesothelioma was caused by Sequoia’s engineer's issuance of insulation specifications requiring or allowing the use of asbestos at the work site, and that those specifications fell below the then-existing professional standard of care for engineers, is improperly raised for the first time on appeal. In any event, the record establishes that months before Ms. Held’s decedent began working at the site in October 1972, Sequoia’s specifications were superseded by interim insulation specifications issued by the site owner that, while indicating a preference for asbestos-free insulation, allowed for their continued use if the owner deemed no available substitute to be acceptable. These superseding specifications would also preclude any Labor Laws 200 claim against respondent based on unsafe work site conditions created by its insulation specifications. The Supreme Court has considered and rejected Ms. Held’s other arguments. Stephen J. Riegel of Weitz & Luxenberg P.C., New York, represented Claire Held. William G. Ballaine of Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C., New York, represented Sequoia Ventures Inc. f/k/a Bechtel Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Dowman in Nagl Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Oregon upheld a prior court ruling, which granted summary judgment in favor of Dowman Products Inc. in an asbestos-related suit filed by The Union Bank of California, N.A., the personal representative of Morris Nagl's estate and his three surviving children: Bruce, Corrina, and Philip. On June 13, 2007, the Panel, comprised of Judges Landau, Schuman, and Ortega, handed down the decision of Case No. 050707909; A131135. Mr. Nagl installed floors from 1953 to 1991. During that time, he was exposed to asbestos-containing building materials, including joint compound, filler, and leveling and patching products. In 2001, Mr. Nagl was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease. In 2003, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. In 2004, Mr. Nagl and his wife, Donna, filed a personal injury action against a number of companies engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of asbestos-containing materials. Dowman was among those companies named as a defendant. The complaint alleged claims of negligence, product liability, and loss of consortium, based on Mr. Nagl's exposure to asbestos-containing products that Dowman manufactured, delivered, or sold. The Nagls settled with other defendants and then obtained a verdict against Dowman for a total of US$659,720.87, consisting of US$274,720.87 in economic damages to Mr. Nagl, US$350,000 in noneconomic damages to Mr. Nagl, and US$35,000 in loss of consortium damages to his wife. About five months after the judgment was entered in the personal injury action, Mr. Nagl died. In 2005, the Union Bank of California initiated this wrongful death action against Dowman. The complaint alleges claims of negligence and product liability, based on Mr. Nagl's exposure to asbestos-containing products that Dowman made, delivered, or sold. Dowman moved for summary judgment on the ground that the wrongful death action was not permitted by statute. According to Dowman, the statute permits a wrongful death action only "if the decedent might have maintained an action, had the decedent lived, against the wrongdoer for an injury done by the same act or omission." The Appeals Court concluded that Mr. Nagl's successful prosecution of a personal injury claim for exposure to asbestos-containing products bars Union Bank from bringing another claim on behalf of Mr. Nagl's estate and children on the basis of the same exposure because plaintiffs cannot satisfy the requirement of the wrongful death statute that, Mr. Nagl, had he not died, might have brought the claim. Therefore, the trial court therefore did not err in granting Dowman's motion for summary judgment. Robyn L. Stein argued the cause for the Union Bank of California, N.A. On the opening brief were Scott Niebling and Brayton Purcell LLP. With them on the reply brief was James Shadduck. Jay W. Beattie argued the cause for Dowman Products Inc. With him on the brief was Lindsay, Hart, Neil & Weigler, LLP. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Open Claims v. BNS Holding Inc. Rise to 171 ---------------------------------------------------------------- BNS Holding Inc., as of May 31, 2007, recorded 171 known open and active asbestos-related claims, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2007. As of Feb. 28, 2007, the Company recorded 158 known open and active asbestos- related claims. (Class Action Reporter, March 23, 2007) Since 1994, the Company’s BNS Co. subsidiary has been served notice that it has been named as a defendant in a total of 690 known asbestos-related toxic- tort claims (as of May 31, 2007). In many cases these claims involve more than 100 other defendants. Fifty-four of those claims were filed before Dec. 31, 2001. As of May 31, 2007, 26 more claims were filed. In 2006, 11 were granted Summary Judgment and were closed, 10 claims were settled for an aggregate of US$8,000 and 122 more claims were dismissed. As of May 31, 2007, three more claims were granted Summary Judgment and were closed, 29 claims were dismissed, and one claim was settled for US$1,000. The Company has recorded a liability of US$569,000 on the consolidated balance sheet relating to the open and active claims against BNS Co. as of April 30, 2007 and Oct. 31, 2006. To date, no toxic tort or asbestos claims have been filed against BNS, which came into existence in December 2004 and has never conducted any active business operations. Middletown, R.I.-based BNS Holding Inc. acquired 80 percent of bus manufacturer Collins Industries Inc. in 2006. Formerly Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing, the Company changed its name in 2001 when debt and a history of losses prompted it to sell its metrology instrument business to Hexagon AB. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AXA Has EUR1.176B Reserves for Loss in ‘06 ---------------------------------------------------------------- AXA, at end of Dec. 31, 2006, reserved EUR1.176 billion, gross of reinsurance, for asbestos and environmental losses and loss expenses, compared with EUR1.046 billion, gross of reinsurance, at end of Dec. 31, 2005, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2007. At end of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company’s A&E reserves for losses and loss expenses amounted to EUR1.123 billion, net of reinsurance, compared with EUR966 million, net of reinsurance, at end of Dec. 31, 2005. At constant scope and on a net of reinsurance basis, the Company paid claims and legal costs of EUR126 million in 2006 (including EUR98 million in respect of asbestos). During the year, and on a constant scope basis, the Company incurred losses and loss expenses of EUR211 million net of reinsurance, including EUR224 million in respect of asbestos and (EUR13 million) in respect of environmental pollution. As a result of the integration of Winterthur, the Company also assumed additional reserves for A&E exposures. On a net of reinsurance basis, these reserves amount to EUR87 million, of which EUR77 million related to asbestos. Based in Paris, AXA offers life insurance, personal and commercial property and casualty insurance, reinsurance, financial services, and real estate investment services. In the U.S., the Company owns AXA Financial, which owns majority of investment manager AllianceBernstein. The Company has major subsidiaries in the U.K. (AXA UK), Australia (AXA Asia Pacific), and Belgium (AXA Belgium). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AXA Units Face Actions in U.S., Netherlands ---------------------------------------------------------------- Several AXA subsidiaries face litigation in the Netherlands and in the U.S., in relation to asbestos claims made by Philips (on behalf of one of its US subsidiaries) under its worldwide liability program, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2007. Certain insurance companies taking part into this program seek the cancellation of this program for misrepresentation claiming that Philips failed to disclose information material to the program and, in particular, the fact that one of its subsidiaries distributed asbestos. After the acquisition of Winterthur, the Company’s exposure to the Philips program increased because Winterthur and some of its subsidiaries held a significant participation in Philips program. Philips commenced proceedings in the U.S. seeking a judgment that a U.S. court and not a Dutch court should have jurisdiction over the claim. The transfer of the proceedings to U.S. courts would increase the Company’s exposure to this risk. Based in Paris, AXA offers life insurance, personal and commercial property and casualty insurance, reinsurance, financial services, and real estate investment services. In the U.S., the Company owns AXA Financial, which owns majority of investment manager AllianceBernstein. The Company has major subsidiaries in the U.K. (AXA UK), Australia (AXA Asia Pacific), and Belgium (AXA Belgium). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Experts Blast Health Dept. Over Info Delay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Some health experts are criticizing the Minnesota Department of Health over the decision to withhold asbestos-related information about cancers among Iron Range miners, The Associated Press reports. On June 17, 2007, The Star Tribune reported that the Health Department suppressed the research for a year, finally releasing it in March 2007. The department discovered in March 2006 that a rare, asbestos-related cancer had stricken 35 more miners. Seventeen cases had been previously known. All the miners have died. According to documents, officials had planned in 2006 to reveal the information. However, state Health Commissioner Dianne Mandernach rejected those plans in fall 2006. Ms. Mandernach told the newspaper that the department had needed time to plan new studies of mining and disease. She said that releasing the findings, without having a plan for further studies, could "excite and cause tremendous concern before you have all of your ducks in a row." Mesothelioma strikes the lung lining and develops decades after exposure to asbestos fibers. The findings have renewed concern about taconite dust and lung cancer among the 4,000 workers in Minnesota's iron-ore industry. Mine dust has long been a concern because some taconite fibers are chemically identical to asbestos. Mine operations also used commercial asbestos on things as pipes and boilers, creating another source of exposure. In 2003, Health Department researchers found that 17 miners had developed mesothelioma between 1988 and 1996, and that commercial asbestos, not taconite dust, was a more likely culprit. The Star Tribune reported that, according to department e-mails, memos and notes released under the state public-records law, officials worried about public reaction to the latest research, which covered 1997 to 2005. The Health Department has regularly released public-health research. In May 2007, the department quickly released another study based on the same cancer- tracking registry used in the Iron Range research. State Rep. Denny McNamara, R-Hastings, serves on a committee that reviewed the Iron Range findings in April 2006. He said he did not know the release of the mesothelioma research had been delayed a year until a reporter called him. He said the Legislature should have been told earlier. According to the Star Tribune, internal documents show that the Health Department drafted a news release in June 2006 about the 35 additional cases of mesothelioma, but planned to release it only if word of the findings leaked out. The newspaper reported the documents reveal that department officials were so concerned about a possible leak that they excluded two prominent University of Minnesota researchers from scientific consultation because they had been critical of the Health Department in the past. The two scientists are Greaves, the lung-disease expert, and Professor William Toscano, head of the division of environmental health sciences in the School of Public Health. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Kingston, Ontario Property ---------------------------------------------------------------- The City of Kingston in Ontario, Canada and Utilities Kingston informed staff members that asbestos has been found in a construction area during the renovation of a city property, according to a City of Kingston press release dated June 15, 2007. Ceiling stipple in the first floor lobby area of 1211 John Counter Boulevard, now undergoing renovations, was removed by contractors prior to learning that the material had asbestos. As a result of the discovery, air quality tests were conducted which showed that the level of fiber found in the air on June 14, 2007 was 10 times less than the level at which the Ministry of Labour has identified as safe. Jim Keech, President and CEO of Utilities Kingston, said, "Tests show there is now no danger to our staff. We have informed our employees about the current situation and we will continue to monitor and provide updates as soon as we receive information." There is also no danger for members of the general public who may have visited the building in the past to pay utility bills. Ministry of Labour guidelines say asbestos is considered safe in its dormant state. Construction has halted on the building, which is home to Utilities Kingston, while the City develops a plan to clean up existing material. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Official Pleads Guilty to Removal Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Powell Jr. pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in East St. Louis, Mo., to a conspiracy charge and a charge of failing to notify authorities before removing asbestos, St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports. Mr. Powell is a former East St. Louis councilman, St. Clair County Board member and a head of the Democratic Party in East St. Louis. Court documents state that Mr. Powell admitted that he had been hired to renovate the Spivey Building, at 417 Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, and that he had hired a man named Isaiah Newton. Documents say that although both men knew the building contained asbestos, they improperly removed and disposed of hundreds of feet of asbestos-covered pipes and other asbestos-containing material in 2002. The two men did not notify the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, as required, and did not tell refuse haulers that "numerous" trash bins that they were taking to the Milam Landfill contained asbestos. The indictment also says that Mr. Powell told workers the building contained asbestos, but not the "dangerous kind," and gave them paper masks instead of respirators. The indictment says that workers, who were paid in cash, threw building materials out the windows, scattering debris down Missouri Avenue, and were told to lie and tell anyone who asked that they were not tearing out walls and removing pipes. Illinois EPA investigators later found asbestos-containing debris on the sidewalk and asbestos-contaminated dust inside the building. Philip H. Cohn, owner of the 12-story structure built in 1929, pleaded guilty in 2004 of improperly removing asbestos from the building and other charges, and was sentenced to five years in prison. Mr. Powell agreed to cooperate with the government and testify if necessary "concerning all criminal activity about which he knows, whether or not defendant was himself involved," the plea agreement says. Prosecutors agreed not to charge Mr. Powell for "activities concerning violations of the Clean Air Act for demolition procedures at the Roy Weiss Building . . . and the facility at 17th and Broadway (sometimes referred to as the 'Cahokia Common Fields')," both located in East St. Louis. Under federal sentencing guidelines, Mr. Powell faces 15 to 21 months in prison and a fine of US$3,000 to US$30,000. However, prosecutors agreed to recommend no fine, and a sentence at the low end of the range. The agreement states that Mr. Powell could win a reduction of his sentence if his cooperation is helpful enough. In exchange for the plea, prosecutors will dismiss seven other CAA-related charges at sentencing. On June 15, 2007, Mr. Powell appeared in court for the hearing. He is serving a 21-month sentence at the prison camp in Marion after being convicted in 2005 of conspiracy to commit election fraud in a vote-buying scandal. Mr. Powell and Mr. Newton were indicted in January 2007. Charges against Mr. Newton are pending. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Governor Reviews Statute Limitations ---------------------------------------------------------------- New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine’s spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said the governor is in the process of reviewing the details of a bill that would eliminate the 10-year statute of limitations on environmental crimes, The Times reports. The package of bills was sparked by the asbestos contamination of W.R. Grace & Co.’s Zonolite factory. The Assembly has approved the bill. It is the third of six bills proposed by Assembly members Linda Greenstein and John McKeon in the wake of the discovery of asbestos contamination at the former Industrial Drive plant to land on Gov. Corzine's desk. "The W.R. Grace fiasco unmasked a weakness in our environmental protection system and underscored the fear in several communities that the company (has) knowingly hid contamination from state authorities," said Ms. Greenstein, who along with McKeon spearheaded a 2005 Assembly committee hearing on the plant, which has been the subject of an active cleanup by the Environmental Protection Agency for the past three years. "The culture of indifference that has given some corporate polluters a free pass on being held responsible for their actions must be changed." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Workplace Standards Hit for Botched Inquiry ---------------------------------------------------------------- Workplace Standards Tasmania is again under fire, accused of bungling a major asbestos investigation, ABC News Online reports. It has been found that Workplace Standards did not take samples from a Huon Valley demolition site, believed to have contained asbestos. The bottle shop in the Huon Valley, south of Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, was demolished in 2005. Workplace Standards investigated, but internal memos obtained through Freedom of Information have revealed samples were not taken at the site. Bill White from the Construction Union says it highlights under-resourcing within Workplace Standards. Roy Ormerod from Workplace Standards concedes that a mistake was made, but says the site was secured and cleaned promptly. He said, "The important point is that the site was secured within one hour of the demolition commencing, and no one sustained any ongoing injury or damage to their health." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Grants 3 Firms’ Summary Judgment Move ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, granted the summary judgment motions filed by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., DaimlerChrysler Corp., and Delmarva Power and Light over the asbestos-related claims filed by John Helm, Joseph Pennington, Robert Stymerski, and Harry Toy. Judge Slights handed down the decision of Civil Action Nos. 01C-11-239, 02C- 03-219, 01C-06-151, and 02C-08-093 on May 31, 2007. From 1973 to present, Mr. Helm has been a member of the Local 100 of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades. He worked as a painter in several buildings at the DuPont Louviers facility in January 1974 and February 1974 doing renovation work. He believed he was exposed to asbestos while working near drywallers, pipe fitters and insulators who were also on the job. Mr. Helm worked at the DuPont Newport facility from March 1974 to June 1974 as an apprentice painter doing maintenance and new construction. He also worked at the DuPont Nemours Building in March 1976 and April 1976 as an apprentice painter doing maintenance work. Mr. Pennington has sued both DuPont and Delmarva over his alleged exposure to asbestos while working on their premises. DuPont and Delmarva sought summary judgment on all claims. He alleged exposure to asbestos when he worked at the Hotel DuPont from September 1966 to April 1967. He was an apprentice ironworker/welder for Steel Suppliers when he was sent to the Hotel DuPont to work on a new construction project followed by renovation and maintenance. Mr. Stymerski alleged that he was exposed to asbestos at the DuPont Brandywine Building while he was working as an ironworker on a new construction project for Cornell & Co. Inc. from November 1969 to January 1970. Mr. Toy was a sheet metal worker out of the Local 19 Sheet Metal Workers union and worked in that capacity on seven different occasions at several DuPont locations. At each DuPont facility, Mr. Toy performed various tasks in proximity to other trades who were working with various products such as pipe covering, block, cement, gaskets, packing, and plaster. The Court has determined that the Plaintiffs have not developed sufficient facts upon which a reasonable fact-finder could determine that the Plaintiffs and their employers did not know of the asbestos hazard on the Defendants' properties before the Plaintiffs' exposures. Accordingly, the Defendants' motions for summary judgment with respect to the Plaintiffs' claims were granted. The record did not contain facts that would allow a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that Chrysler exercised active control over the means and methods by which Mr. Toy performed his work on Chrysler's property or that Chrysler undertook responsibility to implement safety measures with respect to such work on the job site. Chrysler's motion for summary judgment as to these theories of Liability was also granted. Kathleen D. Hadley of Peter G. Angelos, P.C., Wilmington, Del., represented the plaintiffs. John C. Phillips, Jr. of Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A., Wilmington, Del., represented E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. Robert S. Goldman and Lisa C. McLaughlin of Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A. of Wilmington, Del. represented Delmarva Power & Light Co. Somers S. Price, Jr. and James M. Kron of Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP in Wilmington, Del. represented DaimlerChrysler Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Workers Exposed at Calif. Plant, ATSDR Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to a report by the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, former workers who processed vermiculite from a mine in Libby, Mont., at a Glendale, Calif., plant were exposed to asbestos, The Student Operated Press reports. Located at 5440 West San Fernando Road in Glendale, the former California Zonolite/W.R. Grace & Co. processed vermiculite from Libby between 1950 and 1977. ATSDR estimates that from 70 to 150 former workers were exposed during the time the plant operated. Most people who work or live near the site are not at risk for asbestos exposure from the site. Not enough information exists to determine if people, workers included, took asbestos-contaminated waste rock from the plant to their homes and used it in gardens, in children’s play areas, and for fill or paving material. The vermiculite from Libby contained asbestos. While exposure to asbestos does not mean a person will develop health problems, ATSDR has linked some exposures to Libby vermiculite to respiratory illnesses. When Libby vermiculite was being processed at the plant between 1950 and 1977, emissions containing asbestos dust and fibers might have reached the downwind residential area. The California Department of Health Services completed a review of existing health statistics for the community surrounding the site and found no evidence of increased cancer incidence or mortality for asbestos-related diseases. ATSDR and CDHS cannot establish that the surrounding community was not exposed to Libby asbestos from the site or the extent of the exposure. ATSDR, a public health agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, evaluates the human health effects from exposure to hazardous substances. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Public Schools to be Checked for Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Public schools in New South Wales, Australia, numbering to 2,000, would be checked for asbestos, amid concerns that people could be at risk if the potentially deadly material is disturbed, The Daily Telegraph reports. The Department of Education and Training would call tenders in July 2007 for a multi-million-dollar contract to audit every school building built before 1988. More than AUD19 million has been spent in the last four years on asbestos safety measures at 287 schools across NSW. A register showing the location of asbestos material at primary and secondary schools will be created so teachers, parents or trades people do not hammer or drill into it unwittingly. The Daily Telegraph reported that more than AUD3 million has been allocated in the NSW Budget for the asbestos inspections. However, remedial works are expected to cost tens of millions of dollars extra. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Remands Bessire Action v. Defendants ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, N.D. California, remanded an asbestos-related action to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, in favor of plaintiffs Jack Bessire and Geraldine Bessire. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong handed down the decision of Case No. C 07 1563 SBA on June 12, 2007. On March 22, 2006, Jack and Geraldine Bessire filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California for the City and County of San Francisco against defendants, alleging injuries from exposure to asbestos and asbestos- containing products. The claim against removing Union Carbide Corp. alleged that Mr. Bessire was para-occupationally exposed to asbestos when he handled the dirty work clothes of his father, who worked at a mine owned by Union Carbide in Rifle, Colo. Union Carbide was served with the summons and complaint on April 4, 2006. The Bessires propounded discovery to Defendants which included requests for admissions that asbestos was contained in the vanadium and uranium ore tailings from Union Carbide’s mine. These requests for admissions were deemed admitted on Dec. 26, 2006. On March 23, 2007, Union Carbide removed the matter to federal court based on concerns about potential allegations of injuries related to nuclear materials at its plant. The Bessires sought remand arguing that Union Carbide’s removal was untimely. Union Carbide opposed remand, or alternatively, argued for dismissal, on the grounds that no viable state court claim exists because the claim arises out of a "nuclear incident" over which federal courts have original jurisdiction. The Bessires sought remand on procedural grounds, and do not concede that the action arose out of a "nuclear incident" or was removable. The 30-day clock started on Dec. 26, 2006, but Union Carbide’s Notice of Removal was served to the Bessires on March 19, 2007. The motion for removal was therefore untimely, and based on this defect, the District Court granted remand. The clerk is directed to terminate any pending matters and to close the file. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Mulls Palermo Certiorari Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Louisiana considers granting Jake Palermo’s application for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, 4th Circuit, Parish of Orleans, in an asbestos related-action filed against The Port of New Orleans and other defendants. Chief Justice Calogero would grant the writ application and assign reasons. The Supreme Court would grant Mr. Palermo’s writ application to consider Mr. Palermo’s and the other plaintiffs’ assignments of error. The District Court had found that the ship repair companies were liable for plaintiffs’ damages because they failed to warn of dangers of asbestos exposure, failed to segregate their activities from the plaintiffs' decedents, and failed to provide a safe workplace. Although the Appeals Court found evidence that the plaintiffs' decedents might have been exposed to asbestos because of the fault of the ship repair companies, it reversed the district court's finding of liability, stating that the record contained no evidence that such exposure was "substantial." Since Chief Justice Calogero said he believed that the Appeals Court may not have given proper deference to the district court's factual findings on this issue, he would grant the plaintiffs' writ to review the evidence on the liability of the ship repair companies. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks THAN’s Appeal in Insurance Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, affirmed a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, and dismissed an appeal filed by TH Agriculture & Nutrition LLC, in an asbestos-related insurance action filed against various defendants. The Panel, comprised of Circuit Judges Tacha, Baldock, and Lucero, handed down the decision of Case No. 06-3105 on June 12, 2007. THAN is a subsidiary of Philips Electronics North America Corp. ("PENAC"), which in turn is a subsidiary of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. ("Philips"), a Dutch corporation. The Insurers subscribed to primary and excess general liability insurance policies known as the World-Wide Liability Insurance Programme. A Dutch insurance broker, AON Nederland, placed the insurance policies under the Programme with individual insurers, and the Defendant-Insurers subsequently issued the policies to Philips in the Netherlands. The Programme provides worldwide insurance coverage to Philips, the named insured, and its unnamed direct and indirect subsidiaries for the period from Dec. 31, 1997, through Dec. 31, 2001. THAN is insured under the Programme. Under the Programme, the Insurers agreed to indemnify the insured against product liability claims involving "personal or bodily injury, including death." From at least 1961 to 1981, THAN's predecessor and a Philips subsidiary, Thompson Hayward Chemical Co. of Kansas City, Mo., distributed raw asbestos. Most of company's operations were sold to third parties before 1985. THAN has been named as a defendant or co-defendant in more than 14,000 claims filed in state and federal courts across the United States alleging bodily injury and wrongful death for exposure to asbestos allegedly distributed by Thompson Hayward. One claim was filed in Kansas, and THAN's regular business activities with respect to the asbestos claims take place in Lenexa, Kans. Philips first provided notice of the asbestos claims to the Programme on Nov. 21, 2002. Thereafter, the Insurers purportedly rescinded their policies, claiming Philips failed during negotiations over the Programme to disclose relevant information known to it regarding the asbestos claims. On Aug. 10, 2005, 12 of the 13 Insurers (all but XL Insurance Co. Ltd.) sued Philips, PENAC, and THAN in the Netherlands, seeking declaratory relief and confirmation of their rescission of the Programme. On Sept. 29, 2005, THAN brought the instant action in the District Court, seeking damages for breach of contract and a declaratory judgment that the Insurers are obligated to indemnify THAN for losses resulting from the asbestos claims and to pay the costs of defending against these claims. The District Court granted the Insurers' motions to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction over the Insurers and improper venue. THAN appealed. Because it concluded that the District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Insurers, the Appeals Court affirmed the District Court's ruling and dismissed THAN’s appeal. The Appeals Court also granted the Insurers' motion requesting that this Court take judicial notice of the "Statements of Defence" filed on April 26, 2006, in the District Court for Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Kenneth H. Frenchman, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, New York, N.Y. (Robin L. Cohen, Dorothy A. Thomas, and Andrew N. Bourne, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, New York, N.Y., and Michael J. Abrams, Lathrop & Gage, LLC, Kansas City, Mo., with him on the briefs), represented TH Agriculture & Nutrition LLC. Thomas W. Brunner, Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, Washington, DC (Richard A. Ifft and Karalee C. Morell, Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, Washington, DC; Dan Biles, Gates Biles Shields & Ryan P.A., Overland Park, Kansas; Norman C. Kleinberg, Derek J.T. Adler, William J. Beausoleil, Hughes Hubbard & Reed, New York, N.Y., with him on the brief), represented the Defendants. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ark. Local Sues 96 Companies in Ill. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mesothelioma sufferer Tammy Schwartz of Arkansas, on June 14, 2007, sued 96 defendants in Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois, alleging she was exposed to airborne asbestos from family members’ clothing, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Mrs. Schwartz claims that her current husband, Joseph Schwartz, was self- employed from 1989 to 2007 as a pipefitter and electrician at various locations and her former husband performed his own automotive maintenance on family vehicles. Mrs. Schwartz also claims her father was employed as a heavy machine operator from 1954 through 1995. She alleges that family members worked with and around asbestos-containing products. Mrs. Schwartz claims family members would carry the asbestos dust on their clothing home with them where it would again become airborne. From 1982 through 2006, Mrs. Schwartz worked as a machine operator and cashier at various locations. She also claims she was exposed to asbestos during non-occupational work projects including home and automotive repairs, maintenance and remodeling. Mrs. Schwartz said she was diagnosed with mesothelioma on April 18, 2006, and subsequently became aware her illness was wrongfully caused, the suit claims. Schwartz claims the 96 defendant corporations: -- Included asbestos in their products, when the defendants knew or should have known that the asbestos fibers would have a toxic, poisonous and highly deleterious effect upon his health; -- Included asbestos in their products when adequate substitutions were available; -- Failed to provide adequate warning to people working with and around the products of the dangers of inhaling, ingesting or otherwise absorbed fibers in them; -- Failed to provide adequate instruction concerning the safe methods of working with and around asbestos products; and -- Failed to conduct tests on the asbestos-containing products, manufactured, sold or delivered by the defendants to determine the hazards to which workers might be exposed. Mrs. Schwartz 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. Mrs. Schwartz 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. Mrs. Schwartz seeks compensatory damages in excess of US$200,000, plus punitive damages. Trent Miracle, John Barnerd, Perry Browder, and John Foley of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mrs. Schwartz. Circuit Judge Dan Stack has been assigned Case No. 07 L 542. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Motion for Leave in Anderson Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, E.D. Wisconsin, granted Christopher John Anderson’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, in a pro se asbestos-related action filed against Owens Corning, John Mansville Corp., W.R. Grace & Co., and other defendants. However, the Court denied Mr. Anderson’s motion to appoint counsel. U.S. Magistrate Judge Aaron E. Goodstein handed down the decision of Case No. 07-C-203 on June 13, 2007. Mr. Anderson is detained at Racine Correctional Institution. He alleged that that, before his incarceration, he was injured by on-the-job exposure to asbestos manufactured by the defendants. Mr. Anderson is required to pay the statutory filing fee of US$350 for this action. In this case, he has filed a certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint. He has been assessed and paid an initial partial filing fee of US$12.54. He has also made additional payments of US$36.10. Mr. Anderson alleged that between May 1, 1999 and July 30, 1999, he was employed by Schauer and Associates Inc. to remove asbestos materials through abatement of the defendants' products from sites in Wisconsin. Mr. Anderson has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. He has stated that he has been unsuccessful in his attempts to obtain legal counsel on his own. On June 11, 2007, this case was reported to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Asbestos Products Liability Litigation. The Panel will notify Mr. Anderson and this court whether this action is subject to transfer at a later date, not sooner than 90 days from the date the action was reported to the Panel. If the case is accepted, it will be transferred to the Panel for all pretrial processing, thus making moot Mr. Anderson’s request for appointment of counsel by this court. Pending notification from the Panel, Mr. Anderson’s motion for appointment of counsel will be denied without prejudice. Christopher John Anderson of Sturtevant, Wis., pro se. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Study Says Payout Recipients Remain “Poor” ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to an Asbestos Relief Trust study, even after getting payout for asbestos-related diseases, claimants remain poor and many have already exhausted their lump sum compensation, according to Business Report. The fund was set up after investment holding company Gencor and British multinational Cape plc settled litigation for damages by paying ZAR587.5 million. They did not accept liability. The ART study found that with an average-sized household of seven members and an income of ZAR2,000 a month, individuals in claimants' families survived off an average of less than ZAR300 per person per month, or as low as ZAR185 in one area. Nearly 20 percent of claimants said their families suffered food shortages daily. The compensation provided immediate short-term relief for many claimants. The study found that 60 percent of claimants invested no part of their awards. An average of 12 percent, or ZAR6,000, was formally invested per claimant, although in fairly short-term banking products. While more than 80 percent of claimants still required medical treatment, very few - and none in one area - made provisions for future medical costs. Two-thirds accessed public medical care, while a surprising 25 percent could afford private medical attention, at least temporarily. The majority of potential claimants were found to have non-compensable asbestos-related illnesses. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Mining Town Closed Over Health Risks ---------------------------------------------------------------- The asbestos mining town of Wittenoom, Western Australia has finally been closed with the site de-gazetted by the government, The Sunday Times reports. The announcement coincided with the release of the latest report into asbestos contamination. Regional Development Minister Jon Ford said the report indicated that the risks for most types of land users in and around Wittenoom were in a medium-to-high risk. Mr. Ford said, “The Department of Health has independently examined the report and indicated that these levels of risk of exposure to asbestos contamination represent an unacceptable public health risk.” However, eight residents who still live in the Pilbara ghost town have vowed to stay. The State Government turned off electricity in 2006. Mr. Ford said the removal of townsite status would help the Shire of Ashburton progress the closure of the town including closing all roads into the area. The government announced in 2006 that it was pressing ahead with the closure. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Richland, Ga. Faces Contamination Crisis ---------------------------------------------------------------- The town of Richland, Ga. is facing a contamination crisis, with asbestos found in the town’s water pipes, American Chronicle reports. In the 1950s and 1960s, cement and asbestos mixtures were commonly used to strengthen water pipes and generally pose no health risk if properly maintained. However, the town’s naturally acidic water scours the pipes causing asbestos fibers to flake into the water. In 1997, workers with the state’s Environmental Protection Division tested the water supply after asbestos fibers began clogging water filters and meters. The initial tests indicated the presence of asbestos but that it posed no potential harm. Nearly 300 water systems in Georgia may contain asbestos laden pipes but records are not kept and the state does not require regular testing for asbestos in water supplies. After the initial testing community officials applied for funding to replace the pipes but their request was denied. Since then the pipes have begun to crumble and when another round of testing was conducted in 2002 the results showed the concentration of asbestos exceeded seven times the safe limit for drinking water. In a December 2003 test, results showed asbestos levels were 3,132 times the Environmental Protection Agency’s standards for safe drinking water. A sample taken in February 2007 showed contamination at 5.1 billion fibers per liter nearly 728 times the maximum EPA level. Despite these results, mayor Adolph Mclendon says the state has ignored his pleas during the 24 years as mayor. Funding has been approved to replace the estimated two miles of asbestos lined pipe still used in Richland but the lasting effects of the contamination may not be known for years to come. Once a bustling railroad hub south of Columbus, Ga., Richland is now one of Georgia’s poorest communities with nearly 25 percent of its 1,700 residents living in poverty. According to the American Water Works Association, around 15 percent of water pipes in the United States contain asbestos. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belluck & Fox Supports Bill to Ban Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law firm Belluck & Fox LLP strongly supports Senator Patty Murray's efforts to ban asbestos and fully endorses the "Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007" bill, according to the firm’s press release dated June 15, 2007. Scientists have known since the 1930s how deadly asbestos can be to those who work with it and to those who live with asbestos workers. Yet asbestos continues to be a scourge to the welfare of all Americans. Asbestos is still a major component in multiple products, so many workers and their families are continually at risk for the terrible diseases it can cause: lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis. While Europe and most of South America have already banned asbestos, the U.S. continues to put people at risk by building products with asbestos and by importing large amounts of it. According to Sen. Barbara Boxer's opening statements to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works EPW Hearing on the Health Effects of Asbestos, in 2005 the United States, "... imported 2,530 metric tons of asbestos, and ... more than 90,000 metric tons of products that may contain asbestos." These products include cement and gaskets, as well as brakes and clutch parts for automobiles. Sen. Murray's "Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007" is an important step in protecting the lives of Americans and their families. Congress has the responsibility to protect American lives and turning this bill into law is a strong statement that it takes this responsibility seriously. A copy of this release can be found at: http://www.belluckfox.com/recent- news/2007/06/belluck-fox-llp-strongly-supports.html ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Inks $10.5M Deal w/ Insurers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federal-Mogul Corp. has reached a US$10.5 million deal with two of its insurers, Everest Reinsurance Co. and Mt. McKinley Insurance Co., ending a nearly six-year long legal battle over asbestos coverage, Associated Press reports. In a June 19, 2007 court filing, the settlement calls for Everest and Mt. McKinley to collectively pay US$10.5 million into a trust in exchange for the Company’s release of rights for asbestos claim coverage under the insurers' policies. The two insurers will pull out of all pending litigation with the Company and drop their opposition to various matters in the Company’s bankruptcy case, under way since October 2001. Federal-Mogul said that the settlement results from several months of negotiations with the insurers, Cooper Industries LLC, the asbestos claimants committee and the legal representative for future asbestos claimants. As part of the deal, the insurers will receive a release from any asbestos claims that Cooper might be able to assert against them. In the 1990s, Cooper sold a brake-pad division to Federal-Mogul and some of its asbestos damage claims stem from that unit. In asking the bankruptcy court to approve the settlement, Federal-Mogul said that the deal provides for a "substantial payment" to the asbestos trust while limiting further litigation costs. The Company is asking U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald to hold a July 9, 2007 expedited hearing on the settlement. Judge Fitzgerald began hearings in Pittsburgh on the Company's Chapter 11 reorganization proposal. The plan would shift billions of dollars in asbestos damage claims off the Company's balance sheet and into a trust to be funded with half the equity in the Company and the proceeds of insurance policies. One of the Company's other insurers, The Travelers Indemnity Co., has been vocal in protesting the plan, as have a few of the Company's creditors, including Ford Motor Co., DaimlerChrysler Corp. and Volkswagen of America Inc. Headquartered in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. makes components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. The Company's products include chassis and engine parts, pistons, and sealing systems sold under brand names like Federal-Mogul, Glyco, and Signal-Stat. The Company has manufacturing and distribution facilities in the Americas and Europe. The Company also distributes auto parts to aftermarket customers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: S.C. Court Favors 7 Firms in Henderson Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of South Carolina upheld the ruling of the Greenville County Circuit Court, which granted summary judgment in favor of seven defendant companies, in an asbestos-related action filed by James W. Henderson, Jr. and Betty Lee Henderson. The seven firms are: Allied Signal Inc., DaimlerChrysler Corp., Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp., North American Refractories Co., Pneumo Abex Corp., and Uniroyal Holding Inc. The Panel, comprised of Judges Burnett, Toal, Moore, Pleicones, and Edward B. Cottingham, handed down the decision of Case No. 26322 on April 30, 2007. The Hendersons, of North Carolina, filed a complaint in 1997 arising out of Mr. Henderson's exposure to asbestos containing products while working as a boilermaker, pipefitter, and sheet metal worker for many years at various industrial sites in South Carolina. Mrs. Henderson's claims arose out of her loss of consortium and enjoyment of life. According to the complaint, Respondents "mined, manufactured, processed, imported, converted, compounded and/or retailed substantial amounts of asbestos and asbestos-related materials" and caused those materials to be placed in the stream of interstate commerce with the result that the materials were sold, distributed and used in South Carolina. The Hendersons alleged that Mr. Henderson "used, worked with, was in the vicinity of, and was exposed to asbestos and asbestos containing products" during the course of his employment and, as a result, contracted mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses. He was diagnosed in North Carolina. After dismissing certain defendants and granting summary judgment in favor of others the trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict for remaining defendant. The Hendersons appealed. Mr. Henderson died shortly after trial, and Mrs. Henderson, as personal representative of his estate, proceeded with this appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that the Hendersons failed to produce evidence of regular and frequent exposure to foreign manufacturers' asbestos-containing products in South Carolina, as required under Door Closing Statute, and evidence of asbestos-related diseases other than mesothelioma was cumulative of evidence showing a link between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment to Respondents based on the Door Closing statute. The Supreme Court also affirmed the decision of the trial court excluding certain affidavits as cumulative. Mona Lisa Wallace, of Wallace and Graham, P.A., of Salisbury, N.C., represented James W. Henderson, Jr. and Betty Lee Henderson. C. Mitchell Brown and W. Thomas Causby, of Nelson, Mullins, Riley, & Scarborough, LLP, of Columbia, S.C.; James H. Elliott, Jr., of Pritchard & Elliot, LLC, of Charleston, S.C.; W. David Conner, James B. Pressley, Jr., and Moffatt G.McDonald, all of Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd, P.A., of Greenville, S.C.; Daniel B. White, of Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A., of Greenville, S.C.; and G. Mark Phillips, of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, of Charleston, S.C., represented the Respondents. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrician’s Mate Gets GBP102,500 Payout ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ken McDonald, a former electrician’s mate, has been awarded GBP102,500 in compensation for his exposure to asbestos while working at Vickers shipyard in Barrow, U.K., in the 1960s North-West Evening Mail reports. Mr. McDonald was awarded the GBP102,500 compensation after contacting the Barrow Asbestos Related Disease Support group. Mr. McDonald, now 67 years old, who worked on the U.K.’s first nuclear submarine, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in October 2006. Working on HMS Dreadnought from 1961 to 1963, Mr. McDonald used to carry bags of asbestos for the electricians to use when lagging pipes on the sub. He would come home covered in asbestos dust. BARDS put Mr. McDonald in touch with his former union, the GMB and their legal experts Thompsons Solicitors. He urged anyone who suspects they have mesothelioma to contact BARDS. Client representative at Thompsons Solicitors, Andrew Venn, said, “We are pleased we have finalized this case quickly. It is important Mr. McDonald knew his family would be financially secure.” ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. School District OKs Asbestos Probe ---------------------------------------------------------------- Trustees of the Fullerton Joint Union High School District in California, on June 19, 2007, approved an investigation into allegations that Troy High School’s asbestos abatement was improperly handled during modernization, The Orange County Register reports. School employees prompted the inquiry into potential health risks linked to asbestos removal, pesticide spraying and unauthorized paint from 2005 to 2007 and from carpeting removal from 1997 to 1999. The Air Quality Management District is also investigating. On June 18, 2007, during a parent/staff forum at Troy, Superintendent George Giokaris repeatedly conceded the district mistakenly failed to properly notify parents and teachers of the abatement schedules. The district also brought environmental attorney Curtis Coleman and board certified occupational medicine Dr. Robert Maurer of St. Jude Medical Center on board to answer questions. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Seeks Reorganization Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federal-Mogul Corp. urges U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald to approve a reorganization plan that would resolve as much as US$9.41 billion in health claims using insurance proceeds and stock, The Detroit News reports. The Company, on June 18, 2007, made its request at the start of a three-day hearing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Pittsburgh. At least 10 major insurance companies and three carmakers oppose the plan, claiming it would increase their asbestos liability. Peter Van. N. Lockwood, who represents asbestos victims supporting the plan said that the insurance companies "are trying to blow up the reorganization plan based on the idea that their rights are being violated." The Company and 156 affiliates filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. and the U.K. in 2001 to resolve at least 114,000 asbestos-related suits. According to court records, the Company has proposed a victims' trust fund that would be granted 50.1 percent of the stock in the reorganized company and the right to pursue insurance payments. Under the reorganization plan, billionaire investor Carl Icahn and other creditors would gain 49.9 percent of the Company's new stock and control of its board of directors in exchange for abandoning their claims. Headquartered in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. makes components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. The Company's products include chassis and engine parts, pistons, and sealing systems sold under brand names like Federal-Mogul, Glyco, and Signal-Stat. The Company has manufacturing and distribution facilities in the Americas and Europe. The Company also distributes auto parts to aftermarket customers. New Securities Fraud Cases NYSE: Two Law Firms Commence Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firms of Becker Meisel, LLC and Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who placed market orders to purchase or sell securities on the New York Stock Exchange through the New York Stock Exchange's Super Designated Order Turnaround System between October 17, 1998 and the present. The Complaint alleges securities fraud claims against: -- the New York Stock Exchange; -- Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; -- Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists, LLC; -- Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing, L.P.; -- Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.; -- Bear Waggner Specialists, LLC; -- Bear, Stearns Securities Corporation; -- Bank of America Corporation; -- Fleet Specialists, Inc.; -- Bank of America Securities LLC; -- LaBranche & Co, Inc.; -- LaBranche & Co, LLC; -- Susquehanna International Group, LLC; -- SIG Specialists, Inc.; -- Van der Moolen Holding, N.V.; -- Van der Moolen Specialists USA, LLC; -- Merrill Lynch, Pierece, Fenner & Smith, Inc.; -- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.; -- Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.; -- Citigroup, Inc.; -- Morgan Stanley Co., Inc.; -- UBS Securities LLC; -- Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; -- Credit Suisse Group, Inc.; -- Jeffries Execution Services, Inc.; -- Jeffries Group, Inc.; -- Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.; -- Fidelity Investments; -- Fidelity Management & Research Co.; and -- National Financial Services, Inc. Additional claims for violation of federal antitrust law and breach of fiduciary duty were also filed against certain of these Defendants. In its securities fraud claims, the Complaint alleges that Defendants violated federal securities laws by employing manipulative or deceptive devices or contrivances with regard to the market for trade execution services on the New York Stock Exchange and the costs of those executions. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants exploited their control over order execution and publication of the data relating to order execution to create, maintain and conceal the existence of two distinct submarkets on the New York Stock Exchange: a dominant "insider" submarket comprised of trades executed for the benefit of those members of the New York Stock Exchange who operated on the floor of the exchange and an inferior, "outsider" submarket comprised of SuperDOT trades. The Complaint alleges that in order to accomplish the intentional, systematic subordination of SuperDOT trades, Defendants made material misrepresentations and concealed material information concerning the fairness and efficiency of trade executions on the New York Stock Exchange and used various other contrivances including: (1) filling floor orders ahead of simultaneously or previously placed SuperDOT orders; (2) allowing floor brokers to see incoming SuperDOT orders; and (3) routinely slowing or accelerating the execution of SuperDOT orders for the benefit of floor orders. The Complaint alleges that as a result of Defendants' illegal activity, members of the Class suffered approximately $1 billion in damages per year throughout the Class Period. Interested parties may move the court no later than August 20, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Martin L. Borosko Becker Meisel LLC Phone: (973) 422-1100 E-mail: info@beckermeisel.com - and - Seth R. Klein Schatz Nobel Izard PC Phone: (800) 797-5499 E-mail: firm@snilaw.com STERLING FINANCIAL: Schiffrin Files Penna. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all common stock purchasers of Sterling Financial Corporation (Nasdaq: SLFI) between April 27, 2004 and May 24, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges Sterling Financial and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that alleged "irregularities" at EFI were in fact a deliberately orchestrated and sophisticated loan scheme which materially misstated Sterling Financial's financial statements; (2) that the sophisticated loan scheme concealed credit delinquencies, falsified financing contracts and related documentation, and subverted established internal controls and reporting systems; (3) as a result of the above, the Company's net income and earnings were materially overstated by as much as $165 million; (4) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 30, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it announced that it would restate its previously issued financial statements for the years of 2004 through 2006, and that it was postponing its 2007 annual shareholder meeting "as a result of information obtained from an internal investigation." The Company announced that it had received information suggesting "irregularities" in financing contracts at EFI. In connection with the investigation, two senior EFI executives were placed on leave, and a new Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and Chief Operating Officer were installed. On this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $4.07 per share, or 19.6 percent, to close on April 30, 2007 at $16.65 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. The following day, shares of the Company's stock declined an additional $2.00 per share, or 12 percent, to close on May 1, 2007 at $14.65 per share. Then on May 24, 2007, the Company further revealed that Sterling Financial's shareholders were subjected to a "sophisticated loan scheme ... to conceal credit delinquencies, falsify financing contracts and related documents, and subvert Sterling's established internal controls and reporting systems." As a result of the scheme, the Company stated that it would record a charge of up to $165 million on its financial statements, it would have to restate multiple years of financial results, and it would have to suspend its dividend payments to shareholders. On this news, shares of the Company's stock fell an additional $6.19 per share, or 38.3 percent, to close on May 25, 2007 at $9.97 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than July 24, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. Sterling Financial, through its subsidiaries, provides banking and financial services to individuals and businesses in the U.S. One of the Company's affiliates is Equipment Finance LLC ("EFI"). EFI specializes in financing the purchases of income producing equipment for companies and owner/operators in the forestry, land clearing, and construction industries. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com Website: http://www.sbtklaw.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 * * *