/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070803.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 3, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 152 Headlines BURLEY STABILIZATION: Tobacco Farmers File Lawsuit in Tenn. CNA FINANCIAL: Oct. Trial Set in Health Care Policyholders’ Suit CNA FINANCIAL: Parties Reach Tentative Settlement in “Himmelman” CUMULUS MEDIA: Faces Lawsuit Over $1.3B Merrill Lynch Merger EASTLAND FINANCIAL: Workers Seek to Recoup Demutualization Money EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Continues to Face Sorbates Antitrust Lawsuits FINISH LINE: Calif. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Compensation FISHER-PRICE: Recalls Character Toys Due to Lead Poisoning Risk HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Discovery Ongoing in N.J. Suit Over LDW Charges HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Faces Suit in Kans. Alleging TCPA Violations HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeals Certification of Suit Over Service Charges HERTZ GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Okla. Consumer Suit Over FSC HERTZ GLOBAL: Seeks Dismissal of Concession Fee Recoveries Suit HERTZ GLOBAL: Seeks to Junk Nev. Suit Over Fuel, Service Charge INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: N.C. Court Dismisses Securities Suit ITT CORP: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Suit Over Radar Products LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Faces Lawsuits Over Manganese-Induced Illness MICROSOFT CORP: 55T Iowans File Claims in Antitrust Suit Deal MORGAN STANLEY: Settles Race, Color Suit by Financial Advisors NEW YORK: Clubs Face Discrimination Suit Over “Ladies' Night” NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Settles “Goldsmith” Lawsuit Over WorldPerks NOVARTIS AG: Female Employees’ Sex Discrimination Suit Certified OK INDUSTRIES: Circuit Court Revives Poultry Farmers’ Lawsuit PEOPLE’S CHOICE: Motion to Lift Stay Filed in FCRA Lawsuit SUPPORTSOFT INC: Sept. 28 Trial Set for Calif. Securities Suit TOBACCO LITIGATION: Calif. High Court Dismisses "Daniels" Case WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Dark Choco Bars with Undeclared Almonds Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Steel Has 300 Active Suits at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Cleared in Most Miss. Court Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Reserves $51M at June for Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Has $512.5M Liability at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Md. Court Denies Dismissal of O’Connor Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling in Guesnard Case Set Aside, Remanded ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Cites $296M Liability at June ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACandS Suits v. Travelers Property Ongoing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Reserves $3.6B for Claims at June ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions v. Sensus Metering Ongoing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Fin’l. Reserves $2.145B at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Records 117,500 Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. BorgWarner Drop to 42T at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA’s Coverage Action v. BorgWarner Ongoing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Continues to Face Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Co. Receives $24Mil for Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese’s Units Face 674 Cases at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits v. Corning Surge to 11,500 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Holdings Accrues $188Mil at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Faces Suits in Tex. Courts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Faces Suits in Pa. Courts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $1.071B Liability at June ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 104,240 Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Records $42Mil Defense Costs ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $478M Receivable at June ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int’l. Records 10,800 Cases at May 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. PPG Remain at 114,000 at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich Still Faces Claims as “Successor” ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT Corp., Unit Still Face Liability Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Has 31,420 Claims at June ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $714M Recoverable for T&N ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abex & Wagner Liability Still at $213.6Mil ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Still Deals w/ Fel-Pro Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Corp. Has $1.393Bil Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eastman Chemical Still Faces Exposure Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Fin’l. Carries $1.366B Reserves at June ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Suit Parties Await Court Confirmation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Disputes Coverage in Keasbey Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Has Burns & Roe Coverage Disputes ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Fin’l. Still Faces Suits in Tex., Mont. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Employee Gets Jail Time For Removal Breach ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Felon Gets Jail Time for Removal Breaches New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICAN HOME: Glancy Binkow Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit AMERICAN HOME: Vianale & Vianale Files Securities Fraud Suit RAIT FINANCIAL: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Suit in Penn. ********* BURLEY STABILIZATION: Tobacco Farmers File Lawsuit in Tenn. ----------------------------------------------------------- Burley Stabilization Corp. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee claming that it owes tobacco farmers millions of dollars in profits from the 1982-2004 tobacco crops. The suit, which was originally filed in the Chancery Court for the State of Tennessee, Sixth Judicial District, at Knoxville, as brought as a putative class action allegedly involving class members located in Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia. It was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under the caption, “Lay et al. v. Burley Stabilization Corp., Case No. 3:07-cv-00259.” Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that “the purpose and function of the BSC was to administer the federal burley tobacco price support program, formerly codified at 7 U.S.C. Sections 1445 – 1445-3, in order to made (federal) price support available to producers of burley tobacco in Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia. They also allege that, in connection with its administrative functions under 7 U.S.C. Sections 1445 – 1445-3, BSC was required to distribute or refund certain “net profits” to its membership, and that BSC has failed to do so. The so-called “net profits” total “millions of dollars,” according to the complaint. Furthermore, plaintiffs allege, pursuant to the Fair & Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (FETRA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture, through Commodity Credit Corp, has “released 16.1 million pounds of burley tobacco to the BSC to be sold by the BSC on behalf of its producer/members.” According to the plaintiffs, “pursuant to FETRA, the producer/members of the BSC are entitled to a distribution of the net proceeds from the sale” of this tobacco. Thus in the long run, plaintiffs’ complaint includes several counts: declaratory judgment, conversion, negligent misrepresentations, breach of contract, and breach of constructive trust. In addition, plaintiffs demand an accounting of certain BSC funds and assets relating to the federal tobacco price support program. They are also seeking punitive damages. The suit is “Lay et al. v. Burley Stabilization Corp., Case No. 3:07-cv- 00259,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge Thomas W. Phillips with referral to Judge H. Bruce Guyton. Representing the plaintiffs is: Ronald T. Hill, Esq. Egerton, McAfee, Armistead & Davis, PC P.O. Box 2047 Knoxville, TN 37901-2047 Phone: 865-546-0500 Fax: 865-525-5293 E-mail: rhill@emadlaw.com Representing the defendant is: Russell S. Baldwin Bass, Berry & Sims 315 Deaderick Street, Suite 2700 Nashville, TN 37238-0002 Phone: 615-742-6200 Fax: 615-742-0407 E-mail: rbaldwin@bassberry.com CNA FINANCIAL: Oct. Trial Set in Health Care Policyholders’ Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- An Oct. 2, 2007 trial is slated for the purported class action, “Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Co., et al., Case No. CV06-2235 RGK,” which names as a defendant CNA Financial Corp. (CNAF), the parent of Continental Casualty Co. (CCC). The suit, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is a class action on behalf of certain California long term health care policyholders, alleging that CCC and CNAF knowingly used unrealistic actuarial assumptions in pricing these policies, which according to plaintiff, would inevitably necessitate premium increases. The plaintiff asserts claims for intentional fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of various California statutes. CCC and CNAF have denied the material allegations of the amended complaint and intend to vigorously contest the claims. On Jan. 26, 2007, the court certified the case to proceed as a class action. CCC and CNAF have appealed the grant of class certification to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit refused to hear the appeal on an interlocutory basis. In April 2007, the Court denied CCC’s and CNAF’s motions for summary judgment with the exception of the motion relating to plaintiffs’ claim under the California Legal Remedies Act, which was dismissed. The claim under CLRA involved a provision for claims of awards for attorneys’ fees and enhanced damages. In June 2007, CCC and CNAF filed a motion to reconsider the denial of summary judgment on the fraud claim. In July 2007, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration. Discovery has been proceeding and a trial is scheduled for Oct. 2, 2007, according to the company’s July 30, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Ralph Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Co. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02235-PSG-PJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Philip S. Gutierrez with referral to Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Representing the plaintiffs are: Wayne S. Kreger, Esq. Milstein Adelman & Kreger LLP 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North Santa Monica, CA 90405 Phone: 310-396-9600 E-mail: wkreger@maklawyers.com - and - Richard J. Arsenault, Esq. Neblett Beard and Arsenault 2220 Bonaventure Court, P.O. Box 1190 Alexandria, LA 71309-1190 Phone: 318-487-9874 Representing the defendants are: Brent R. Austin, Esq. Wildman Harrold Allen and Dixon 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606-1229 Phone: 312-201-2848 E-mail: austin@wildmanharrold.com - and - Stan Karas, Esq. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Phone: 213-443-3000 E-mail: stankaras@quinnemanuel.com CNA FINANCIAL: Parties Reach Tentative Settlement in “Himmelman” ---------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the purported class action, “W. Curtis Himmelman, et al. v. Continental Casualty Co., Case No. 06-166,” including CNA Financial Corp. have reached a tentative settlement in the matter, which remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case is a purported class action and representative action brought on behalf of present and former CNA environmental claims analysts and workers' compensation claims analysts asserting they worked hours for which they should have been compensated at a rate of one and one-half times their base hourly wage. The complaint was filed on Jan. 12, 2006. The claims were originally brought under both federal and New Jersey state wage and hour laws on the basis that the relevant jobs are not exempt from overtime pay because the duties performed are not exempt duties. On Aug. 11, 2006, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s New Jersey state law claims. Under federal law, plaintiff seeks to represent others similarly situated who opt in to the action and who also allege they are owed overtime pay for hours worked over eight hours per day and/or forty hours per workweek for the period Jan. 5, 2003 to the entry of judgment. Plaintiff seeks “overtime compensation,” “compensatory, punitive and statutory damages, interest, costs and disbursements and attorneys’ fees” without specifying any particular amounts (as well as an injunction). The Company denies the material allegations of the Complaint and intends to vigorously contest the claims on numerous substantive and procedural grounds. The parties recently reached a tentative agreement in principle to resolve this matter and are in the process of negotiating a formal settlement agreement, according to the company’s July 30, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Himmelman v. Continental Casualty Co., Case No. 3:06-cv-00166- GEB-JJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. with referral to Judge John J. Hughes. Representing the plaintiff is: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Locks Law Firm, LLC 457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Phone: (856) 663-8200 E-mail: slesser@lockslawny.com Representing the defendants is: Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. Sevfarth Shaw, LLP 1270 Avenue Of The Americas, Suite 2500 New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 218-5523 E-mail: clowe@ny.seyfarth.com CUMULUS MEDIA: Faces Lawsuit Over $1.3B Merrill Lynch Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that on July 27, 2007, a class action was filed on behalf of Cumulus Media Inc. shareholders against Cumulus, Merrill Lynch Global Private Equity and certain Cumulus officers and/or directors. The suit arises out of defendants’ efforts to sell Cumulus to a management- led buyout group that includes Cumulus' Chief Executive Officer Lewis W. Dickey, Jr. and Merrill Lynch in an unfair process. Earlier, Cumulus Media Inc., Lewis W. Dickey, Jr., Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Cumulus, and Merrill Lynch Global Private Equity disclosed the execution of a definitive merger agreement under which an investor group led by Lew Dickey and an affiliate of Merrill Lynch Global Private Equity will acquire Cumulus in a transaction valued at approximately $1.3 billion (Troubled Company Reporter, July 24, 2007). The complaint alleges defendants violated applicable law by breaching and/or aiding the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, candor, independence, good faith and fair dealing through this transaction, which the complaint alleges was unlawfully designed to divest Cumulus's public stockholders of a large portion of the valuable assets of the Company for grossly inadequate consideration. Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Cumulus Media, Inc. (NASDAQ-GS: CMLS) -- http://www.cumulus.com/-- owns and operates FM and AM radio station clusters serving mid-sized markets throughout the U.S. As of Dec. 31, 2006, directly and through its investment in Cumulus Media Partners LLC, it owned or operated 344 stations in 67 U.S. markets and provided sales and marketing services under local marketing, management and consulting agreements to one additional station. EASTLAND FINANCIAL: Workers Seek to Recoup Demutualization Money ---------------------------------------------------------------- Five former employees of the defunct Eastland Financial Corp. is asking permission from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Rhode Island Bankruptcy Court to pursue a class-action that could bring them and about 300 other former Eastland workers some unexpected proceeds tied to the bank's pension plan, The Providence Journal reports. The employees listed in the lawsuit -- represented by attorney Brian J. Lamoureux -- are: -- Nicholas E. Oliveri, of North Smithfield; -- Donat A. Fournier, of Beverly, Mass.; -- Arthur R. Gauthier, of South Kingstown; -- Ellen D. Miller, of Pawtucket; and, -- Sheila A. Tenney, of Attleboro. Eastland filed for bankruptcy afterwards and was sold to Fleet Financial Group, which itself was bought by Bank of America in 2004. In 1996, a bankruptcy court judge approved a settlement that terminated Eastland Financial's pension plan. Money in the plan was invested in a group annuity contract held by the Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co., of Des Moines, Iowa. Principal Mutual demutualized in 2001, becoming Principal Financial Inc. and resulting to an undetermined amount of money being assigned to the Eastland pension annuity. The employees claim the money belongs to them. The institution had about $555 million in assets when it was dissolved, and $2.77 million in debt to various creditors. EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Continues to Face Sorbates Antitrust Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in one case filed against Eastman Chemical Co. on behalf of purchasers of sorbates and products containing sorbates have filed an amended complaint. Eastman Chemical has been named in several putative class actions filed on behalf of purchasers of sorbates and products containing sorbates, claiming those purchasers paid more for sorbates and for products containing sorbates than they would have paid in the absence of the defendants’ price-fixing. Two civil cases relating to sorbates remain. In each case, the Company prevailed at the trial court, and in each case, the plaintiff appealed the trial court's decision. In one case, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of all claims, except the plaintiff's claim for civil penalties. In the other case, the court of appeals overturned the trial court's decision and ruled that the plaintiff could amend and re-file its complaint with the trial court. The Company appealed this decision to the state supreme court, which declined to review the decision. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint on July 9, 2007. Eastman Chemical Co. -- http://www.eastman.com-- is a chemical company engaged in the manufacture and sale of a portfolio of chemicals, plastics and fibers. Eastman has 16 manufacturing sites in 10 countries that supply chemicals, plastics, and fibers products to customers throughout the world. FINISH LINE: Calif. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Finish Line Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Named Kris Daniels alleges non-payment of overtime, a violation of the Labor Code. The suit is “Daniels v. Finish Line, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-01501-GEB-GGH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, under Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., with referral to Judge Gregory G. Hollows. Representing plaintiffs is: Alan R. Plutzik Schiffrin, Barroway, Topaz & Kessler, LLP 2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Phone: 925-945-0770-239 Fax: 925-945-8792 E-mail: aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com FISHER-PRICE: Recalls Character Toys Due to Lead Poisoning Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- Fisher-Price Inc., of East Aurora, New York, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 967,000 units of Sesame Street, Dora the Explorer, and other children’s toys. The company said the surface paints on the toys could contain excessive levels of lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects. No injuries have been reported. The recalled involves various figures and toys that were manufactured between April 19, 2007 and July 6, 2007 and were sold alone or as part of sets. The model names and product numbers for the recalled toys, which are all marked with “Fisher-Price,” are listed below. The toys may have a date code between 109-7LF and 187-7LF marked on the product or packaging. These recalled licensed character toys were manufactured in China and are being sold at retail stores nationwide from May 2007 through August 2007 for between $5 and $40. Pictures of recalled licensed character toys: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07257a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07257b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07257c.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away from children and contact Fisher-Price. Consumers will need to return the product and will receive a voucher for a replacement toy of the consumer’s choice (up to the value of the returned product). For additional information contact Fisher-Price at (800) 916-4498 anytime or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.service.mattel.com. HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Discovery Ongoing in N.J. Suit Over LDW Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery has commenced in a suit originally filed over Hertz Equipment Rental Corp.'s Loss Damage Waiver charge. On Aug. 15, 2006, Davis Landscape, Ltd. filed a suit individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against HERC in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The suit purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of all persons and business entities who rented equipment from HERC and who paid a Loss Damage Waiver charge. The complaint alleges that the LDW is deceptive and unconscionable as a matter of law under pertinent sections of New Jersey law, including the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of statutory damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, an unspecified amount of compensatory damages with the return of all LDW charges paid, declaratory relief and an injunction prohibiting HERC from engaging in acts with respect to the LDW charge that violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The complaint also asks for attorneys' fees and costs. In October 2006, the company filed an answer to the complaint. In November 2006, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding an additional plaintiff, Miguel V. Pro, an individual residing in Texas, and new claims relating to HERC's charging of an "Environmental Recovery Fee." Causes of action for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing were also added. In January 2007, the company filed an answer to the amended complaint. Discovery has now commenced, according to Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.’s June 12, 2007 Form S-1 Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The suit is "Davis Landscape, Ltd. v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corp., Case No. 2:06-cv-03830-DMC-MF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh with referral to Judge Mark Falk. Representing the plaintiffs is: Scott A. George, Esq. Sheller, Ludwig & Sheller, P.C. One Greentree Ctr., Rte. 73 & Greentree Rd., Suite 201 Marlton, NJ 08053 Phone: (856) 988-5590 E-mail: sgeorge@sheller.com Representing the defendant is: Alan E. Kraus, Esq. Latham & Watkins, LLP One Newark Center, 16th Floor Newark, NJ 07101-3174 Phone: (973) 639-7293 E-mail: alan.kraus@lw.com HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Faces Suit in Kans. Alleging TCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Hertz Equipment Rental Corp. faces a purported class action in Kansas, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On May 3, 2007, Fun Services of Kansas City, Inc., individually and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation was commenced in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas. Fun Services purports to be a class action on behalf of all persons in Kansas and throughout the U.S. who on or after four years prior to the filing of the action were sent facsimile messages of material advertising the availability of property, goods or services by HERC and who did not provide express permission for sending such faxes. The plaintiff asserts violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, and common law conversion and the plaintiff is seeking damages and costs of suit. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.hertz.com/ -- is an equipment rental business. The Company operates in three segments: car rental, equipment rental, and corporate and other. In its car rental business segment, Hertz Holdings and its independent licensees and associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately 7,600 locations in approximately 145 countries. The Company has a network of company-operated rental locations both in the U.S. and in all major European markets. In its equipment rental business segment, Hertz Holdings rents equipment through approximately 360 branches in the United States, Canada, France and Spain, as well as through its international licensees. HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeals Certification of Suit Over Service Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. is appealing the class certification order issued by the 214th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in the case, “Jose M. Gomez, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, v. The Hertz Corp.” The suit purports to be a class action filed alternatively on behalf of all persons who were charged a Fuel and Service Charge (FSC) by the company or all Texas residents who were charged a FSC by the company. The complaint alleges that the FSC is an unlawful penalty and that, therefore, it is void and unenforceable. In response to various motions by the company, the plaintiff has filed two amended complaints, which scaled back the putative class from a nationwide class to a class of all Texas residents who were charged a FSC by the company or by its Corpus Christi Licensee. A new cause of action was also added for conversion. After some limited discovery, the company filed a motion for summary judgment in December 2004. That motion was denied in January 2005. The parties are engaged in more extensive discovery. On August 3, 2006, a hearing was held on plaintiff's amended motion for class certification with no decision rendered to date. After the hearing, the plaintiff filed a fifth amended petition seeking to further refine the putative class as including all Texas residents who were charges a Fuel and Service Charge, or "FSC," in Texas after Feb. 6, 2000. In October 2006, the judge entered a class certification order, which certified a class of all Texas residents who were charged an FSC in Texas after Feb. 6, 2000. The company is appealing this order, according to the company’s June 12, 2007 Form S-1 Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.hertz.com/ -- is an equipment rental business. The Company operates in three segments: car rental, equipment rental, and corporate and other. In its car rental business segment, Hertz Holdings and its independent licensees and associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately 7,600 locations in approximately 145 countries. The Company has a network of company-operated rental locations both in the U.S. and in all major European markets. In its equipment rental business segment, Hertz Holdings rents equipment through approximately 360 branches in the United States, Canada, France and Spain, as well as through its international licensees. HERTZ GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Okla. Consumer Suit Over FSC --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is still ongoing in a class action filed against Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. in the District Court in and for Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, styled, "Keith Kochner, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. The Hertz Corp." The suit purports to be a class action, this time on behalf of Oklahoma residents who rented from the company and incurred the company's Fuel and Service Charge (FSC). The petition alleges that the imposition of the FSC is a breach of contract and amounts to an unconscionable penalty or liquidated damages in violation of Article 2A of the Oklahoma Uniform Commercial Code. In March 2005, the trial court granted the company's motion to dismiss the action but also granted the plaintiff the right to re-plead. In April 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended class action petition, alleging that the company's FSC violates the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act and that the company have been unjustly enriched, and again alleging that the company's FSC is unconscionable under Article 2A of the Oklahoma Uniform Commercial Code. In May 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action petition. In October 2005, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss, but allowed the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint by the end of October, which the plaintiff did. A third amended complaint was filed in November 2005 and the company answered the complaint. Discovery has now commenced, according to the company’s June 12, 2007 Form S- 1 Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.hertz.com/ -- is an equipment rental business. The Company operates in three segments: car rental, equipment rental, and corporate and other. In its car rental business segment, Hertz Holdings and its independent licensees and associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately 7,600 locations in approximately 145 countries. The Company has a network of company-operated rental locations both in the U.S. and in all major European markets. In its equipment rental business segment, Hertz Holdings rents equipment through approximately 360 branches in the United States, Canada, France and Spain, as well as through its international licensees. HERTZ GLOBAL: Seeks Dismissal of Concession Fee Recoveries Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a lawsuit filed on behalf of all persons who rented cars from the company or Enterprise Rent- A- Car Co. at airports in Nevada and who were charged airport concession recovery fees. On Oct. 13, 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan Ph.D., and Lydia Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a suit against Hertz and Enterprise Rent-A-Car in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. “Sobel” purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz or Enterprise at airports in Nevada and whom Hertz or Enterprise charged airport concession recovery fees. The complaint alleged that the airport concession recovery fees violate certain provisions of Nevada law, including Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, restitution of any charges found to be improper and an injunction prohibiting Hertz and Enterprise from quoting or charging any of the fees prohibited by Nevada law. The complaint also asks for attorneys' fees and costs. In November 2006, the plaintiffs and Enterprise stipulated and agreed that claims against Enterprise would be dismissed without prejudice. In January 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. reported no development in the case at its June 12, 2007 Form S-1 Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The suit is "Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD., and Lydia Lee, et al. v. The Hertz Corp. and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., Case No. 3:06-cv-00545-LRH-VPC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Larry R. Hicks with referral to Judge Valerie P. Cooke. Representing the plaintiffs is: G. David Robertson, Esq. Robertson & Benevento 50 W. Liberty St., Suite 600 Reno, NV 89501 Phone: 775-329-5600 Fax: 775-348-8300 E-mail: gdavid@nvlawyers.com Representing the defendants are: Dan C. Bowen of Lionel, Esq. Sawyer & Collins 50 W. Liberty St., Suite 1100 Reno, NV 89501 Phone: 775-788-8666 E-mail: dbowen@lionelsawyer.com - and - Matthew K. Narensky, Esq. Heller Ehrman, LLP 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415 772-6000 E-mail: matthew.narensky@hellerehrman.com HERTZ GLOBAL: Seeks to Junk Nev. Suit Over Fuel, Service Charge --------------------------------------------------------------- Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of suit filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada over its Fuel and Service Charge. On Jan. 10, 2007, “Marlena Guerra, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, v. The Hertz Corp.” was filed. The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of all individuals and business entities who rented vehicles at Las Vegas McCarran International Airport and were charged a FSC. The complaint alleged that those customers who paid the FSC were fraudulently charged a surcharge required for fuel in violation of Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The plaintiff also alleged the FSC violates the Nevada Uniform Commercial Code, or "UCC," since it is unconscionable and operates as an unlawful liquidated damages provision. Finally, the plaintiff claimed that the company breached its own rental agreement-which the plaintiff claims to have been modified so as not to violate Nevada law-by charging the FSC, since such charges violate the UCC and/or the prohibition against fuel surcharges. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, including the return of all FSC paid or the difference between the FSC and its actual costs, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In March 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss, according to the company’s June 12, 2007 Form S-1 Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The suit is "Guerra v. Hertz Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00023-PMP- GWF," filed in the U.S. District Court of Nevada under Judge Philip M. Pro with referral to George W Foley, Jr. Representing plaintiffs are: Richard L. Kellner, Esq. Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP 350 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 217-5000 Fax: (213) 217-5010 E-mail: rlk@kbklawyers.com - and – Austin Tighe, Esq. Feazell & Tighe LLP 6300 Bridgepoint 1, Suite 220 Austin, TX 78730 Phone: (512) 372-8100 Fax: (512) 372-8140 E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com Representing defendants are: Denise Barton, Esq. Morris Pickering & Peterson 900 Bank Of America Plaza, 300 S. Fourth Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: (702) 474-9400 Fax: (702) 474-9422 E-mail: dab@morrislawgroup.com - and - Peter S. Hecker, Esq. Heller Ehrman, LLP 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-772-6000 INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: N.C. Court Dismisses Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina dismissed with prejudice a consolidated class action against Inspire Pharmaceuticals Inc. On Feb. 15, 2005, the first of five identical purported shareholder class action complaints was filed against the company and certain of its senior officers. Each complaint alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, and focused on statements that are claimed to be false and misleading regarding a Phase 3 clinical trial of the company's dry eye product candidate, ProlacriaTM (diquafosol tetrasodium). Each complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's securities between June 2, 2004 and Feb. 8, 2005. On March 27, 2006, following consolidation of the lawsuits into a single civil action and appointment of lead plaintiffs, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. The complaint asserts claims against the company and certain of its present or former senior officers or directors. It also asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 based on statements alleged to be false and misleading regarding a Phase 3 clinical trial of Prolacria, and also adds claims under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint also asserts claims against certain parties that served as underwriters in the company's securities offerings during the period relevant to the complaint. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's securities from May 10, 2004 to Feb. 8, 2005. In May 2006, the plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss their claims against the underwriters on the basis that they were time-barred. On June 30, 2006, the company and other defendants moved that the court dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and does not satisfy the pleading requirements under applicable law. On July 26, 2007, the court granted Inspire’s and the other defendants’ motion and dismissed the consolidated action with prejudice. The plaintiffs currently have a right of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which the plaintiffs may choose to exercise within the period established by rule. The suit is "Mirco Investors, LLC v. Inspire Pharma, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00118-WLO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina under Judge William L. Osteen. Representing the plaintiffs are: Leslie Bruce Mcdaniel, Esq. Mcdaniel & Anderson, L.L.P. P.O. Box 58186 Raleigh, NC 27658-8186 Phone: 919-872-3000 Fax: 919-790-9273, E-mail: mcdas@mcdas.com - and – Kristi Stahnke Mcgregor, Esq. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP 5200 Town Ctr. Cir., Ste. 600 Boca Raton, FL 33486 Phone: 561-361-5022 Fax: 561-367-8400 E-mail: kmcgregor@milbergweiss.com Representing the defendants are: William Mark Conger, Esq. Kilpatrick Stockton, L.L.P. 1001 W. Fourth St. Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Phone: 336-607-7309 Fax: 336-734-2633 E-mail: mconger@kilpatrickstockton.com - and - Barry m. Kaplan, Esq. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 5100 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-883-2500 Fax: 206-883-2699 ITT CORP: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Suit Over Radar Products --------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Corp. reached a tentative settlement in a suit that alleges that it failed to warn the plaintiffs of the dangers associated with exposure to x- ray radiation from radar devices. Originally, a complaint was filed by that named the company and four other firms as defendants. That suit was captioned, “Irwin Bast et al. v. ITT Industries et al., Sup. Ct., El Paso, Texas, C.A. No. 2002-4730.” Filed by both U.S. and German citizens, it sought the certification of a class of similarly injured persons. In September 2006, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and motion to amend the complaint. The Court also determined that the plaintiffs failed to identify any persons who had been injured by ITT products and dismissed ITT from the action. In September 2006, the same plaintiff attorneys behind the El Paso case filed a companion action in state court in California against the Company, alone, seeking certification of a class of persons who were exposed to ITT radar products but who have not, as yet, exhibited symptoms of injury. The parties have finalized a settlement within the Company’s expected range and, as a result, the matter is concluded, according to the company’s July 30, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. ITT Corp. -- http://www.ittind.com-- formerly ITT Industries, Inc., is a global multi-industry company engaged, directly and through its subsidiaries, in the design and manufacture of a range of engineered products and related services. LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Faces Lawsuits Over Manganese-Induced Illness --------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. continues to face litigation involving claims of manganese-induced illness, according to the company’s July 30, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Up to eight class actions seeking medical monitoring have been filed in state courts, six of which have been removed and transferred to the Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. In addition, plaintiffs filed a class action complaint seeking medical monitoring on behalf of current and former welders in eight states, including three states covered by the single-state class actions, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This case was also transferred to the MDL Court in Ohio. A motion to certify a medical monitoring class related to this case is pending. Cleveland, Ohio-based Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.lincolnelectric.com/-- is a full-line manufacturer and reseller of welding and cutting products. Welding products include welding power sources, wire feeding systems, robotic welding packages, fume extraction equipment, consumable electrodes and fluxes. The Company's welding product offering also includes regulators and torches used in oxy-fuel welding and cutting. MICROSOFT CORP: 55T Iowans File Claims in Antitrust Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- More than 55,000 people have filed claims in the Iowa antitrust laws violations suit filed against Microsoft Corp. in a Polk County District Court, The Age reports. According to information provided to attorneys by a neutral third-party claims administrator, 28,922 Iowans have filed by mail and 26,386 have filed on the Internet as of July 22. Businesses with multiple licenses for software that have filed for claims total 580, and 14 government agencies have filed. The suit was filed in 2000. It claimed that Microsoft engaged in illegal monopolization and anticompetitive conduct between 1994 and 2006 that caused customers to pay more for software. Plaintiffs claim that Microsoft violated Iowa antitrust laws. Because of this, the lawsuit claims that consumers and businesses paid more for Microsoft Software. Microsoft denies the claims and says it developed and sold high quality software products at fair and reasonable prices. The class includes all individuals and businesses that purchased a license for Microsoft software for use in Iowa from someone other than Microsoft between May 18, 1994, and June 30, 2006. The class also includes Iowa State and its local governments that purchased a license for Microsoft software for use in Iowa from someone other than Microsoft between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2006. Microsoft settled the case for about $179 million. Class members are entitled to receive: - $16 for each copy of Windows or MS-DOS; - $25 for each copy of Microsoft Excel; - $29 for each copy of Microsoft Office; and - $10 for each copy of Microsoft Word, Works and Home Essential software. Payment will be in the form of cash or vouchers that can be used towards the purchase of computers, peripheral computer hardware, and software from any manufacturer, not just Microsoft. Half of any funds that are not claimed will be provided as vouchers for hardware, software and technology services to Iowa public schools. One hundred percent of the volume license vouchers claimed but not redeemed will also be provided to Iowa public schools. Attorneys for Microsoft and the plaintiffs said that it's too early to determine how many will file. The class totals nearly 1 million members. Class members have until Dec. 14 to file a claim. Lead plaintiffs in the suit are Joe Comes of Riley Paint Inc., an Iowa corporation, Skeffington's Formal Wear of Iowa Inc., and Patricia Anne Larsen. The case is "Joe Comes, et al. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. CL82311" filed in Iowa District for Polk County. Claims may also be mailed to this address: Settlement Claims Administrator Microsoft - Iowa Settlement P.O. Box 128 Minneapolis, MN 55440-0128 Fairness hearing and the hearing for final approval of settlement are scheduled at 9:00 a.m. on August 31, 2007, at the Polk County Courthouse. For more information regarding the class action settlement and the legal rights of class members, including how to make a claim and to make a claim online, visit http://www.IowaMicrosoftCase.com Plaintiffs' lawyer information: Roxanne B. Conlin Roxanne B. Conlin and Associates, P.C. 319 7th Street, Suite 600 Des Moines, Iowa 50309-3826 Phone: 515-283-1111 Fax: 515-282-0477 Web Site: http://www.roxanneconlinlaw.com Representing the defendants is: David B. Tulchin, Esq. Sullivan and Cromwell LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004-2498 Phone: (212) 558-4000 Fax: (212) 558-3588 Web Site: http://www.sullcrom.com MORGAN STANLEY: Settles Race, Color Suit by Financial Advisors -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firms of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Outten & Golden LLP, and Altshuler Berzon LLP announces a settlement in principle with Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. f/k/a Morgan Stanley DW Inc., on behalf of approximately 1200 African American and Latino Financial Advisors and Registered Financial Advisor Trainees employed at Morgan Stanley at any time since October 12, 2002. This lawsuit challenged inequities in opportunities for African Americans and Latinos in the distribution of accounts and other business opportunities. The parties entered into a five year settlement agreement that is subject to Court approval. It includes comprehensive injunctive relief regarding recruiting and hiring, account distribution policies, partnership arrangements, promotions, retention, diversity training, and complaint processing, among other things. The settlement also provides that an independent Diversity Monitor will be appointed to effectuate the terms of the Agreement. In addition, the settlement establishes a significant class monetary settlement fund. A Special Master is expected to determine the allocation of monies among the class. The terms of the settlement are presently confidential and will be revealed in a public filing with Federal Judge Thelton Henderson of San Francisco in the near future. "This settlement commits Morgan Stanley to implementing policies and programs to ensure that African American and Latino Financial Advisors are able to compete and thrive on the same terms as their white colleagues. We commend Morgan Stanley for its decision to adopt the positive and innovative changes in the agreement," said Kelly M. Dermody, a partner at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Co-Lead Class Counsel. Co-Lead Class Counsel Adam Klein stated, "By agreeing to this ground breaking agreement, Morgan Stanley has demonstrated its strong commitment to being a market leader on Wall Street." Co-Lead Class Counsel Jim Finberg stated, "The injunctive relief in this agreement will be a win/win, because it will enhance employment opportunities for African Americans and Latinos, while enabling Morgan Stanley to benefit from the skills and talents of a diverse FA workforce." In a statement issued by Morgan Stanley, the Firm stated, "Morgan Stanley is committed to the success of our Financial Advisors, regardless of race or color, and we view this settlement as a positive step forward." The settlement was the result of intensive negotiations supervised by experienced neutral mediator Hunter Hughes, Esq., of Atlanta, Georgia. Plaintiffs' Class Counsel: Kelly M. Dermody Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Phone: 415-956-1000 Adam T. Klein Outten & Golden, LLP Phone: 212-245-1000 - and- James M. Finberg Altshuler Berzon LLP 415-421-7151 NEW YORK: Clubs Face Discrimination Suit Over “Ladies' Night” ------------------------------------------------------------- Several nightclubs and bars in New York are facing a purported sex discrimination class action over the practice of luring women to their establishments with lower fees and shorter waits, Brittney Pescatore of The National Law Journal reports. The suit, “Hollander v. Copacabana Nightblub et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-05873- MGC,” which is claming that the practice is unconstitutional, names Copacabana Nightclub, China Club, A.E.R. Nightclub and Sol as defendants. New York attorney Roy Den Hollander filed the suit on June 21, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The purported class action was filed against certain Manhattan nightclubs for “invidious discrimination” against men in their policies for admitting patrons. Mr. Hollander is seeking a declaratory judgment that would clarify whether nightclubs' policies consist of “state action” due to their regulation by the state's Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, and consequently are subject to liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, which allows civil action for deprivation of rights by persons acting under the color of state law. The attorney alleges that the clubs are violating the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law, and in addition to declaratory relief, he is seeking nominal damages and an injunction to halt the nightclubs' practice of admitting women at a lower price than men. Mr. Hollander is seeking to be named class representative for all men charged more money or burdened by stricter time restraints than women at these clubs over the last three years. The case seeks an injunction to end these policies. A case management and scheduling conference has been set for Oct. 11, 2007. The suit is “Hollander v. Copacabana Nightblub et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-05873- MGC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum. Representing the plaintiff is himself: Roy Den Hollander, Esq. Law Office of Roy D. Hollander 545 East 14th Street New York, NY 10009 Phone: (212) 995-5201 Fax: 212 995 5201 E-mail: rdhhh@yahoo.com NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Settles “Goldsmith” Lawsuit Over WorldPerks --------------------------------------------------------------- S.A. Goldsmith filed a purported class action complaint against Northwest Airlines in the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, Michigan, with respect to the company’s frequent flyer program, alleging that the company violated the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing by enacting unspecified policies and practices in the WorldPerks Program. The Class Action Complaint was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The District Court dismissed the Class Action Complaint in March 2003, on the merits as a matter of law. Ms. Goldsmith appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which was stayed when the company filed for bankruptcy. Subsequently, the Sixth Circuit returned the matter to the District Court for referral back to the Bankruptcy Court. Ms. Goldsmith filed Claim No. 9344 asserting an unsecured, nonpriority, and unliquidated claim on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated for $200,000,000. The company and its debtor affiliates (Debtorrs0 objected to the Claim; however, no hearing on the Objection has been set. To resolve their dispute, Ms. Goldsmith and the Debtors stipulate that in full and final satisfaction of Claim No. 9344, it is fixed and allowed as a general unsecured claim against the estate of NWA Corp., for $7,500, to be distributed as: * $1,000 for Ms. Goldsmith; and * $3,250 is to be distributed to each of Richard D. Greenfield and Gregory D. Hanley, attorneys for Ms. Goldsmith. All amounts in excess of the Allowed Amount are disallowed in their entirety with prejudice, without the requirement for any further action by any party. For her part, Ms. Goldsmith will cause the pending appeal to be dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorneys fees being awarded to any party. Except for the Allowed Amount, Ms. Goldsmith releases the Debtors from any further obligations. (Northwest Airlines Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 75/ http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000). NOVARTIS AG: Female Employees’ Sex Discrimination Suit Certified ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gerard E. Lynch of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted class-action status to a lawsuit brought against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. by 19 current and former employees in sales-related positions, the AP WorldStream reports. In 2004, U.S. female employees filed a $100 million federal class action against Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis, alleging discrimination against working mothers (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 21, 2005). The suit, which involves 12 women, who worked for Novartis in 12 states and the District of Columbia, was filed in New York on behalf of current and former female employees. The plaintiffs charge they were denied promotions, subjected to a hostile work environment, prevented from participating in management development programs, paid less than male employees and ordered by male supervisors to do work while out on family or other leave. The complaint is seeking at least $100 million in damages and back pay. The judge certified, as a class, women who hold or have held a sales-related job at the pharmaceuticals unit from July 15, 2002, to present, including sales representatives, sales consultants, sales associates and some district managers. In his order, the judge also granted a request to dismiss claims against Novartis Corp., the pharmaceutical unit's U.S. parent. The suit is “Velez et al. v. Novartis Corp. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-09194- GEL,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Gerard E. Lynch. Representing defendants are: Thomas G. Abram Aaron R. Gelb Sara Jeanine Kagay Charles B. Wolf Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz, P.C.,(Chicago) 222 N. Lasalle Street, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312)-609-7500 Fax: (312)-609-5005 E-mail: tabram@vedderprice.com or agelb@vedderprice.com or skagay@vedderprice.com Richard Schnadig Jonathan Alan Wexler Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz, P.C. 805 Third Avenue, Suite 2200 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 407-7700 or (212) 407 7732 Fax: (212) 407 7799 E-mail: rschnadig@vedderprice.com or jwexler@vedderprice.com Andrea S. Christensen Kaye Scholer, LLP (NYC) 425 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212)-836-8000 Fax: (212)-836-8689 E-mail: achristensen@kayescholer.com - and - Vincent R. Fitzpatrick Alison R. Kirshner Heather McDevitt Jack Pace White & Case LLP (NY) 1155 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212)-819-8569 or (212)-819-8606 or (212) 819- 8937 or (212) 819-8200 Fax: (212)-819-8113 E-mail: vfitzpatrick@whitecase.com or akirshner@whitecase.com or hmcdevitt@whitecase.com or jpace@whitecase.com Representing plaintiffs are: Angela Corridan Jeremy Heisler Steven Lance Wittels Sanford, Wittels & Heisler, L.L.P. 950 Third Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (646) 723-2947 or (646) 456-5695 Fax: (646) 723-2948 E-mail: jeremy.heisler@verizon.net or swittels@nydclaw.com - and - David W. Sanford Sanford, Wittels & Heisler, LLP ( D.C.) 2121 K Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20037 Phone: 202-742-7780 Fax: 202-742-7776 E-mail: dsanford@nydclaw.com OK INDUSTRIES: Circuit Court Revives Poultry Farmers’ Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a $30 million lawsuit filed by 400 Oklahoma poultry farmers against O.K. Industries Inc., The Daily Oklahoman reports. In 2002, about 400 Oklahoma poultry farmers sued the Arkansas chicken company for roughly US$30 million, alleging the Company made millions of dollars by luring the poultry farmers into a losing business deal (Class Action Reporter, June 04, 2002). The farmers contend that they invested about $200,000 or more in building each chicken house. The lawsuit alleges further that the chicken houses deteriorate quickly and the farmers are not told how their pay is tied to the condition of the buildings. The suit also alleges that the Company’s pay scale penalizes farmers based on factors they cannot control. The suit was filed in Muskogee, Oklahoma, and seeks $75,000 for each farmer who does contract work for the Fort Smith, Arkansas-based Company. The district court granted summary judgment and dismissed claims by poultry farmers that contracts they must sign with O.K. Industries to raise chickens were “unconscionable” under state law. In recent developments, the appeals court reversed the district court’s order to grant the summary judgment and sent the case back to U.S. District Court to consider claims that O.K. Industries violated a section of the federal Packers and Stockyards Act. But it affirmed the district court's dismissal of claims regarding the contract. "The Court of Appeals determined that there was evidence that O.K. Foods may have engaged in practices that violate the federal Packers and Stockyards Act and therefore a trial must be held on that claim," said Charles Goodwin, the attorney for the growers. According to the appeals court summary of the case, the growers alleged the following conduct by O.K. Industries: -- O.K. deducted from the growers' pay certain charges for medicine and supplies; -- O.K. sometimes delivered dead chicks to the growers and caused the growers to pay for them because O.K. counts chicks to be delivered at the hatchery, rather than at the growers' premises; -- O.K. has reduced the number of birds placed per year with the growers, causing a substantial decrease in the growers' income. The suit is “Been, et al. v. OK Industries Inc, et al., Case No. 6:02-cv- 00285-RAW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Representing plaintiffs is: Charles B. Goodwin Crowe & Dunlevy (OKC) 20 N Broadway, Ste 1800 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273 Phone: 405-239-6648 Fax: 405-272-5215 E-mail: charles.goodwin@crowedunlevy.com Representing defendants is: Don A. Smith Smith Maurass Cohen Redd & Horan PO Box 10205 Fort Smith, AR 72917-0205 Phone: (479) 782-1001 PEOPLE’S CHOICE: Motion to Lift Stay Filed in FCRA Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in “Asbury v. People's Choice Home Loan, Inc., docket no. 05-cv- 5483” is asking the court to lift an automatic stay to allow her to adjudicate the merits of her District Court case. On September 22, 2005, Lillie Asbury filed a class-action complaint against People's Choice Home Loan, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq. The action is currently pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, entitled, “Asbury v. People's Choice Home Loan, Inc., docket no. 05- cv-5483.” Ms. Asbury believes PCHLI has an insurance policy with Chubb Group of Insurance Cos. She wants the automatic stay under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code against PCHLI lifted to proceed against the Debtor with the express understanding that any settlement or judgment will be collected only against the insurance company. (People's Choice Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 12/ http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000). SUPPORTSOFT INC: Sept. 28 Trial Set for Calif. Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has scheduled a Sept. 28, 2007 hearing for the $10,700,000 settlement of the class action "In re SupportSoft, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-5222." The class consists of all persons who purchased SupportSoft, Inc. securities between January 20, 2004 through October 1, 2004. Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on September 7, 2007. Deadline to file claims is on October 24, 2007. Case Background Between Dec. 9, 2004 and Jan. 21, 2005, several purported securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against SupportSoft, Inc., the company's chief executive officer, Radha R. Basu, and former chief financial officer, Brian M. Beattie. These actions were consolidated on March 22, 2005 as "In re SupportSoft, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-5222 SI." The consolidated complaint alleges generally violations of certain federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock between Jan. 20, 2004 and Oct. 1, 2004. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the company's business and guidance for the third quarter 2004, purportedly violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On June 1, 2006, the action was certified to proceed as a class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of the company from Jan. 29, 2004 to Oct. 1, 2004 and who were allegedly damaged thereby. In May, SupportSoft, Inc. (Nasdaq: SPRT) reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities class action (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2007). The agreement does not contain any admission of fault or wrongdoing on the part of the Company or the individual defendants. The suit is "In re SupportSoft, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-5222 SI," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Susan Illston. Representing the plaintiffs is: Peter A. Binkow Glancy & Binkow, LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 Fax: 310-201-9160 E-mail: pbinkow@glancylaw.com Representing the company are: Sherry Hartel Haus David L. Lansky Peri Nielsen Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: (650) 493-9300 E-mail: sherry.haus@wilmerhale.com or dlansky@wsgr.com or pnielsen@wsgr.com TOBACCO LITIGATION: Calif. High Court Dismisses "Daniels" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- The California State Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a class action brought by Devin Daniels on behalf of all California resident minors who smoked one or more cigarettes between April 2, 1994, and Dec. 31, 1999, and who were exposed to the defendants' marketing and advertising activities in the state during that period. In its ruling, the State Supreme Court stated that the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment applies: "Defendants' cigarette advertising concerns lawful activity because it is addressed to adults who can legally purchase and use cigarettes ... ". The decision overruled a California Supreme Court decision from 1994. Originally heard in San Diego Superior Court, the case alleged that the defendants violated the Unfair Competition Law through deceptive advertising practices targeting youth. Summary Judgment was granted in favor of the Defendants Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard and Brown & Williamson on November 1, 2002. On Oct. 6, 2004, the California Court of Appeal, San Diego, affirmed the dismissal of this case (Class Action Reporter, May 28, 2007). In a 41-page opinion, the unanimous appeals panel ruled that U.S. Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act bar "...plaintiffs' essential claim that defendants' violated the UCL [California's Unfair Competition Law] by targeting children and teenagers with unfair and deceptive marketing programs and advertising..." The defendants' motion for summary judgment on First Amendment and preemption (Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act) grounds was granted. The decision was later upheld by the intermediate appellate court. "The Court's decision recognized that our advertising is protected by the First Amendment," says Martin L. Holton III, senior vice president and general counsel for R.J. Reynolds. "It is a guiding principle of our company that we do not want minors to smoke, and we advertise our brands only to adult smokers." The suit is "Daniels v. Philip Morris, Case No. 719446 (JCCP No. 4042) filed by in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego. WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Dark Choco Bars with Undeclared Almonds ------------------------------------------------------------- Whole Foods Market is recalling 365 Organic Everyday Value Swiss Dark Chocolate Bars because they may contain undeclared almonds. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to nuts run the risk of serious or life- threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. These products were distributed to and sold at Whole Foods Market stores in the following states: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington DC, and Wisconsin. 365 Organic Everyday Value Swiss Dark Chocolate Bars are sold in red and white wrappers with a picture of chocolate pieces and the Swiss countryside on the front. The recalled chocolate bars have a lot code that begins with the characters L71423 followed by a four digit time stamp between the times of 11:33 and 12:15, which is found on the back of the wrapper. If the coding on the package is illegible the product should also be returned. No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the product containing almonds was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of nuts. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the producer's packaging processes. Consumers who have purchased 365 Organic Everyday Value Swiss Dark Chocolate Bars can return it to Whole Foods Market for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at (512) 542-0656 or at E- mail: PrivateLabel.CustomerService@WholeFoods.com. Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Steel Has 300 Active Suits at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- United States Steel Corp. faced about 300 active asbestos-related cases with about 3,050 plaintiffs as of June 30, 2007, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2007. At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company was a defendant in about 300 active cases involving about 3,700 plaintiffs. As of March 31, 2007, the Company faced about 310 active asbestos-related cases involving about 3,300 plaintiffs. (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007) Almost 2,750, or about 90 percent, of these claims are pending in jurisdictions, which permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. During the 2007-2nd quarter, the Company paid about US$4 million in settlements. These settlements resulted in the disposition of about 350 claims. New case filings added about 100 claims. During 2006, the Company paid about US$8 million in settlements. These settlements resulted in the disposition of about 5,150 claims. New case filings added about 450 claims. The active cases and plaintiffs include cases involving subsidiary Lone Star Technologies Inc. Lone Star and its subsidiaries face fewer than 20 cases involving about 50 claimants. These asbestos cases allege a variety of respiratory and other diseases based on alleged exposure to asbestos. The Company is a defendant in cases in which a total of about 130 plaintiffs allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma. The Company does not accrue for unasserted asbestos claims. Among the reasons that the Company cannot estimate the number and nature of claims against it is that most of pending claims against it allege so-called “premises” liability-based exposure on the Company’s current or former premises. These claims are made by people like truck drivers, railroad workers, salespersons, contractors and their employees, government inspectors, customers, visitors and even trespassers. Pittsburgh-based United States Steel Corp. produces and sells steel mill products, including flat-rolled and tubular in the U.S. and Central Europe. Operations in the U.S. also include iron ore mining and processing to supply steel producing units, real estate management and development, and transportation services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Cleared in Most Miss. Court Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ladish Co. Inc. says that, as of July 25, 2007, it has been dismissed from most of the asbestos-cases it faces in Mississippi, according to the Company’s latest quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company has also been named a defendant in six asbestos cases in Illinois and one asbestos case in California. As of July 25, 2007, the Company has also been dismissed from four of the cases in Illinois. The Company has never manufactured or processed asbestos. Its exposure to asbestos involves products the Company purchased from third parties. The Company has notified its insurance carriers of these claims. It has not made any provision for the asbestos litigation. Cudahy, Wis.-based Ladish Co. Inc. designs and manufactures high-strength forged and cast metal components for aerospace and industrial markets. Jet engine parts, missile components, landing gear, helicopter rotors, and other aerospace products generate more than 80 percent of the Company’s sales. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Reserves $51M at June for Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corp.’s subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company LLC, has reserved about US$51 million for asbestos-related bodily injury claims at June 30, 2007, compared with US$48 million at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2007. In the 2005-2nd quarter, Generation engaged independent actuaries to determine if a reasonable estimate of future losses could be calculated associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by other Company units, Commonwealth Edison Co. and PECO Energy Co. Generation recorded an undiscounted US$43 million pre-tax charge for its estimated portion of all future asbestos-related personal injury claims to be presented through 2030. The US$43 million pre-tax charge was recorded as part of operating and maintenance expense in Generation’s Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income in 2005 and reduced net income by US$27 million after tax. As of June 30, 2007, about US$12 million of the US$51 million relates to 144 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining US$39 million of the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2030 based on actuarial assumptions and analysis. Chicago-based Exelon Corp. is a utility services holding company engaged, through its subsidiaries, in the generation, energy delivery and other businesses. Subsidiaries include Exelon Generation Company LLC, Commonwealth Edison Co., and PECO Energy Co. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Has $512.5M Liability at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corp.’s asbestos settlement liability amounted to US$512.5 million as of June 30, 2007, the same as for the period ended June 30, 2006, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2007. For the quarter ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded an asbestos settlement liability of US$512.5 million, the same as for the quarter ended March 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, April 27, 2007) The Company recorded US$18 million as effect of assumed issuance of asbestos settlement shares for the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2007, the same as for the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2006. Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corp.’s largest product segment, Food Packaging, produces Cryovac shrink films, absorbent pads, and foam trays used by food processors and supermarkets to protect meat and poultry. Its Protective Packaging segment produces Bubble Wrap, Instapak foam, Jiffy envelopes, and Fill-Air inflatable packaging systems. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Md. Court Denies Dismissal of O’Connor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, D. Maryland, denied the motion by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore to dismiss an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by John J. O’Connor. U.S. District Judge Frederick Motz entered decision of Civil No. JFM-06-704 on July 19, 2007. Mr. O'Connor filed this action against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore under the private enforcement provision of the Medicare Secondary Payer. Over the course of his 31-year career with the Baltimore City Fire Department, Mr. O'Connor often worked near products containing asbestos. Mr. O’Connor asserted that this exposure to asbestos caused his pleural malignant mesothelioma, which was diagnosed in January 2004. Since then, he has incurred significant medical expenses, paid by Medicare, in treating his disease. The Maryland Workers' Compensation Commission found in August 2004 that Mr. O'Connor's mesothelioma resulted from his employment and ordered the City, which is self-insured, to pay all of his related medical bills. Despite this order, the City has allegedly failed to fulfill its obligation, and as a result, Medicare has paid the costs attributable to Mr. O'Connor's condition. Mr. O'Connor attempted to recover these medical expenses by seeking damages from the City amounting to twice the proceeds expended on his behalf by Medicare. In its motion to dismiss, the City contended that Mr. O'Connor lacks standing, thereby depriving this Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. O'Connor sued on his own behalf as a Medicare beneficiary. Accordingly, the City's motion to dismiss was denied by the District Court. Richard P. Neuworth of Lebau and Neuworth PA, and William Beveridge, Jr. of Baltimore represented John J. O'Connor. Leslie W. Gawlik of Rollins Smalkin Richards and Mackie LLC, and Robert D. Anbinder, Baltimore City Law Department, Baltimore, represented Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling in Guesnard Case Set Aside, Remanded ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims set aside and remanded for further proceedings a Nov. 4, 2004 decision of the Board of Veterans Appeals in an asbestos-related case filed by Adolph E. Guesnard. Judge Davis entered decision of Case No. 05-0533 on July 13, 2007. Mr. Guesnard served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from March 1954 to March 1957. He was treated for pneumonia in May 1954 and contended that he was exposed to asbestos while in service. In August 1994, Mr. Guesnard filed a service-connection claim for residuals of asbestos exposure. In October 1995, Veterans Affairs denied his claim. After years of additional development, the Board issued its November 2004 decision. On March 14, 2007, the Court affirmed a Nov. 4, 2004, Board decision that denied Mr. Guesnard service connection for residuals of asbestos exposure. On April 3, 2007, Mr. Guesnard filed a motion for reconsideration, or in the alternative, a panel decision. After reviewing the parties' pleadings, the November 2004 Board decision, and the record on appeal, the Appeals Court granted Mr. Guesnard's motion for reconsideration, denied his panel request as moot, withdrew the Court's March 14, 2007, decision, set aside the November 2004 Board ruling and remanded the matter for further proceedings. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Cites $296M Liability at June ---------------------------------------------------------------- Union Pacific Corp. recorded an asbestos-related liability of US$296 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$306 million for the six months ended June 30, 2006. The Company’s current asbestos-related liability amounted to US$13 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with US#16 million for the six months ended June 30, 2006. The Company made asbestos-related payments of US$6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2006. The Company faces lawsuits in which current and former employees allege exposure to asbestos. Additionally, the Company has received claims for asbestos exposure that have not been litigated. The claims and suits (collectively referred to as “claims”) allege occupational illness resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products. In most cases, the claimants do not have credible medical evidence of physical impairment resulting from the alleged exposures. Additionally, most claims filed against the Company do not specify an amount of alleged damages. The Company has insurance coverage for a portion of the costs incurred to resolve asbestos-related claims, and, the Company has recognized an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at June 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006. Omaha, Nebr.-based Union Pacific Corp.’s subsidiary, Union Pacific Railroad Co., operates as a rail freight carrier in the U.S. Union Pacific Railroad transports coal, chemicals, industrial products, and other freight over a system of more than 32,300 route miles in 23 states in the western two-thirds of the U.S. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACandS Suits v. Travelers Property Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Travelers Property Casualty Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of The Travelers Companies Inc., continues to be involved in three asbestos-related proceedings (including a bankruptcy proceeding) relating to ACandS Inc. ACandS is formerly a national distributor and installer of products containing asbestos. The proceedings involve disputes as to whether and to what extent any of ACandS’ potential liabilities for current or future bodily injury asbestos claims are covered by insurance policies issued by TPC. On July 6, 2007, the Company said that it entered into a settlement to resolve fully all current and future asbestos-related coverage claims relating to ACandS. Under the settlement agreement, the Company will contribute US$449 million to a trust to be established pursuant to ACandS’ plan of reorganization. A hearing on the motion to approve the settlement is scheduled for Aug. 28, 2007. The Company expects to seek to recover about US$84 million of the US$449 million from reinsurers. In September 2002, ACandS filed for bankruptcy, In re: ACandS, Inc., pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. In its proposed plan of reorganization, ACandS sought to establish a trust to pay asbestos bodily injury claims against it and sought to assign to the trust its rights under the insurance policies issued by TPC. The proposed plan and disclosure statement filed by ACandS claimed that it had settled most asbestos-related bodily injury claims currently pending against it for about US$2.80 billion. ACandS asserted that TPC is liable for 45 percent of the US$2.80 billion. On Jan. 26, 2004, the bankruptcy court rejected confirmation of ACandS' proposed plan of reorganization. ACandS has appealed the bankruptcy court's decision and has objected to the bankruptcy court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in the U.S. District Court. TPC has moved to dismiss the appeal and objections and has also filed an opposition to ACandS' objections. In January 2001, arbitration was commenced to determine whether and to what extent ACandS' financial obligations for bodily injury asbestos claims are subject to insurance policy aggregate limits. On July 31, 2003, the arbitration panel ruled in favor of TPC that asbestos bodily injury claims against ACandS are subject to the aggregate limits of the policies issued to ACandS, which have been exhausted. In October 2003, ACandS commenced a suit seeking to vacate the arbitration award as beyond the panel's scope of authority (ACandS, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., U.S.D.Ct. E.D. Pa.). On Sept. 16, 2004, the district court denied ACandS' motion to vacate the arbitration award. On Jan. 19, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit reversed the district court's decision and declared the arbitration award void on procedural grounds. On May 22, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court denied TPC's petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the 3rd Circuit's decision. The matter has been remanded to district court and TPC has asked the district court to remand the arbitration to the panel that initially ruled in favor of TPC for further proceedings consistent with the 3rd Circuit's decision. ACandS has opposed that request. In the other proceeding, a related case pending before the same court and commenced in September 2000 (ACandS v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., U.S.D.Ct., E.D. Pa.), ACandS sought a declaration of the extent to which the asbestos bodily injury claims against ACandS are subject to occurrence limits under insurance policies issued by TPC. TPC moved to dismiss this action based on the July 31, 2003 arbitration decision. The district court found the dispute was moot as a result of the arbitration panel's decision and dismissed the case. As a result of the Jan. 19, 2006 ruling by the 3rd Circuit and the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari, this case has been reinstated. In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits (Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against TPC and other insurers in state court in West Virginia. These cases were consolidated into a single proceeding in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, W.Va. Plaintiffs allege that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade practices by inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims. The plaintiffs seek to reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on insurers. In November 2001, plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state court moved to amend their complaint to name TPC as a defendant, alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to certain users of asbestos products. In March 2002, the court granted the motion to amend. In August 2002, the bankruptcy court held a hearing on TPC's motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting further prosecution of the suits under the reorganization plan and related orders. On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York substantially affirmed the bankruptcy court's orders while vacating that portion of the bankruptcy court's orders that required all future direct actions against TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy court before proceeding in state or federal court. Judgment was entered on March 31, 2006. Five appeals from the March 29, 2006 ruling were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and TPC filed a cross- appeal. Two appellants dismissed their appeals and a motion to dismiss the cross-appeal was filed. Additionally, TPC appealed from a procedural order of the district court relating to the timeliness of the cross-appeal. On Jan. 17, 2007, the 2nd Circuit dismissed TPC's cross-appeal and denied TPC's appeal from the procedural order. The three remaining principal appeals have been consolidated for disposition and remain pending. The Travelers Companies Inc., based in St. Paul, Minn., offers commercial property-casual insurance and personal insurance. The Company provides commercial auto, property, workers' compensation, marine, and general and financial liability coverage to companies in North America and the U.K. The Company also offers surety and fidelity bonds as well as professional and management liability coverage for commercial operations. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Reserves $3.6B for Claims at June ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies Inc.’s net asbestos reserves totaled US$3.859 billion at June 30, 2007, compared with US$4.122 billion at June 30, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2007. The Company’s net asbestos-related reserves, at and for the three months ended March 31, 2007, amounted to US$3.926 billion, compared with US$4.280 billion at and for the three months ended March 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007) Net asbestos losses and expenses paid in the first six months of 2007 were US$192 million, compared with US$242 million in the same period of 2006. Net paid losses in the first six months of 2007 were lower primarily due to installment payments made during 2006 on settlements reached in prior years and increased reinsurance billings in 2007 on those prior settlements. As a result, about 40 percent, in the first six months of 2007, and 58 percent, in the first six months of 2006, of total net paid losses related to policyholders with whom the Company has entered into settlement agreements limiting the Company’s liability. Beginning in the first quarter of 2007, the Company supplemented its existing annual in-depth and quarterly asbestos review processes with additional aggregate quarterly reserve analyses. The Travelers Companies Inc., based in St. Paul, Minn., offers commercial property-casual insurance and personal insurance. The Company provides commercial auto, property, workers' compensation, marine, and general and financial liability coverage to companies in North America and the U.K. The Company also offers surety and fidelity bonds as well as professional and management liability coverage for commercial operations. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions v. Sensus Metering Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sensus Metering Inc. and other third parties continue to face several lawsuits filed related to illnesses from exposure to asbestos or asbestos- containing products, according to the Company’s quarterly report, on Form 10- Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2007. The complaints fail to specify which plaintiffs allegedly were involved with the Company’s products. Because the cases are in initial stages, it is uncertain whether any plaintiffs have asbestos-related illnesses or dealt with the Company’s products, much less whether any plaintiffs were exposed to an asbestos-containing component part of the Company’s product or whether such part could have been a substantial contributing factor to the alleged illness. Although the Company is entitled to indemnification for legal and indemnity costs for asbestos claims related to these products from certain subsidiaries of Invensys plc, under the stock purchase agreement pursuant to which the Company acquired Invensys Metering Systems, such indemnities, when aggregated with all other indemnity claims, are limited to the purchase price paid by the Company in connection with the acquisition of Invensys Metering Systems. Raleigh, N.C.-based Sensus Metering Systems Inc. provides advanced metering and related communications solutions to the worldwide utility industry. The Company is a global manufacturer of water, gas, heat and electric meters including comprehensive metering communications system solutions that include both automatic meter reading (“AMR”) and advanced metering infrastructure (“AMI”) systems. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Fin’l. Reserves $2.145B at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007, reserved a net of US$2.145 billion for asbestos-related claims, according to the Company’s quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2007. For the three and 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded US$2.242 billion as net asbestos-related liability. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 2, 2007) As of June 30, 2007, the Company recorded a gross of US$5.631 billion as all time paid asbestos reserves. For the same period, the Company recorded a gross of US$8.498 billion as all time ultimate asbestos reserves. As of June 30, 2007, the Company recorded a gross of US$2.867 billion as total asbestos reserves. Based in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. is a diversified financial services company, with 2006 revenues of US$26.5 billion. The Company provides investment products, life insurance and group benefits; automobile and homeowners products; and business property and casualty insurance. International operations are located in Japan, Brazil and the U.K. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Records 117,500 Claims at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., at June 30, 2007, recorded about 117,500 asbestos-related claims pending against it, according to the Company’s quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2007 During the 2007-2nd quarter, about 600 new claims were filed against the Company and about 3,300 were settled or dismissed. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages and other relief. The amount expended on asbestos defense and claim resolution by Goodyear and its insurance carriers during the 2007-2nd quarter amounted to US$6 million and, for the first six months of 2007 amounted to US$9 million. The Company faces lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to certain asbestos products manufactured by the Company or present in certain of its facilities. These suits have been brought against multiple defendants in state and Federal courts. To date, the Company has disposed of about 47,900 claims by defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into a settlement. The sum of the Company’s accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date, including legal costs, totaled about US$281 million through June 30, 2007 and US$272 million through Dec. 31, 2006. For the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company recorded 1,300 new claims filed and 7,800 claims settled or dismissed. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded US$3,900 new claims filed, 5,400 claims settled or dismissed, and paid US$19 million for settlement and defense. The Company had recorded liabilities for both asserted and unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$124 million at June 30, 2007 and US$125 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The portion of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims was US$73 million at June 30, 2007 and US$63 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The Company’s liability with respect to asserted claims and related defense costs was US$51 million at June 30, 2007 and US$62 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The Company said it believes that at June 30, 2007, it had at least US$180 million in aggregate limits of excess level policies potentially applicable to indemnity payments for asbestos products claims, in addition to limits of available primary insurance policies. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., which is based in Akron, Ohio, is the #3 tire maker in the world, behind Bridgestone Corp. and Michelin. The Company operates about 95 plants worldwide, and has nearly 1,800 retail tire and auto centers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. BorgWarner Drop to 42T at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- BorgWarner Inc., as of June 30, 2007, had about 42,000 pending asbestos- related product liability claims, according to the Company’s quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2007. Of these outstanding claims, about 34,000 are pending in three jurisdictions, where significant tort reform activities are underway. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company faced about 45,000 pending asbestos-related product liability claims. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2007) The Company (or parties the Company is obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. These claims relate to a few types of automotive friction products that were manufactured many years ago and contained encapsulated asbestos. In the first six months of 2007, of about 3,000 claims resolved, 97 claims (3.2 percent) resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In 2006, of about 27,000 claims resolved, 169 claims (0.6 percent) resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company. Before June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated with all claims were covered by the Company’s primary layer insurance coverage, and these carriers administered, defended, settled and paid all claims under a funding arrangement. In June 2004, primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the alleged exhaustion of their policy limits. This led the Company to access the next available layer of insurance coverage. Since June 2004, secondary layer insurers have paid asbestos-related litigation defense and settlement expenses under a funding arrangement. To date, the Company has paid US$21.2 million in defense and indemnity in advance of insurers’ reimbursement and has received US$6.6 million in cash from insurers. The outstanding balance of US$14.6 million is expected to be fully recovered. At Dec. 31, 2006, insurers owed US$11.7 million in association with these claims. At June 30, 2007, the Company has an estimated liability of US$41.5 million for future claims resolutions, with a related asset of US$41.5 million to recognize the insurance proceeds receivable by the Company for estimated losses related to claims that have yet to be resolved. At Dec. 31, 2006, the comparable value of the insurance receivable and accrued liability was US$39.9 million. Auburn Hills, Mich.-based BorgWarner Inc. (f/k/a Borg-Warner Automotive) makes power train products for the world’s major automakers. The Company’s power train products include four-wheel-drive and all-wheel-drive transfer cases (primarily for light trucks and sport utility vehicles), as well as automatic transmission and timing-chain systems. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA’s Coverage Action v. BorgWarner Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- A declaratory judgment action, filed by Continental Casualty Co. and related companies (CNA) in January 2004, against BorgWarner Inc. and certain of its other historical general liability insurers is ongoing in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill. CNA provided the Company with both primary and additional layer insurance, and, in conjunction with other insurers, is defending and indemnifying the Company in its pending asbestos-related product liability claims. The lawsuit seeks to determine the extent of insurance coverage available to the Company including whether the available limits exhaust on a “per occurrence” or an “aggregate” basis, and to determine how the applicable coverage responsibilities should be apportioned. On Aug. 15, 2005, the Court issued an interim order regarding the apportionment matter. The interim order has the effect of making insurers responsible for all defense and settlement costs pro rata to time-on-the-risk, with the pro- ration method to hold the insured harmless for periods of bankrupt or unavailable coverage. Appeals of the interim order were denied. However, the issue is reserved for appellate review at the end of the action. In addition to the primary insurance available for asbestos-related claims, the Company has substantial additional layers of insurance available for potential future asbestos-related product claims. Auburn Hills, Mich.-based BorgWarner Inc. (f/k/a Borg-Warner Automotive) makes power train products for the world’s major automakers. The Company’s power train products include four-wheel-drive and all-wheel-drive transfer cases (primarily for light trucks and sport utility vehicles), as well as automatic transmission and timing-chain systems. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Continues to Face Injury Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rockwell Automation Inc. and its subsidiaries still face lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components of its products many years ago, according to the Company’s annual report, on Form 10-Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2007. The great bulk of the complaints, however, do not identify any Company product or specify which of these claimants, if any, were exposed to asbestos attributable to the Company’s products. Past experience has shown that the majority of the claimants will never identify any of the Company’s products. In addition, when the Company’s products appear to be identified, in some cases they are from divested businesses, and the Company is indemnified for most of the costs. However, it has agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos claims associated with products manufactured or sold by its Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by the Company that occurred on Jan. 31, 2007. The Company has maintained insurance coverage that it believes covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured retentions, for most of these claims. The Company initiated litigation in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court on Feb. 12, 2004 to enforce the insurance policies against Nationwide Indemnity Co. and Kemper Insurance, the insurance carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to the Company’s former Allen-Bradley subsidiary. As a result, the insurance carriers have paid some past defense and indemnity costs and have agreed to pay the substantial majority of future defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims, subject to policy limits. In conjunction with the sale of the its Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, the Company agreed to indemnify Baldor Electric Co. for damages related to certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos matters of these businesses arising before Jan. 31, 2007. The Company estimates the potential future payments it could incur under these indemnifications may approximate US$32.5 million, of which US$27.1 million has been accrued as of June 30, 2007. Milwaukee-based Rockwell Automation Inc.’s control systems unit makes industrial automation products like motor starters and contactors, relays, timers, signaling devices, and variable speed drives. The Company also offers factory management software applications. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Co. Receives $24Mil for Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Halliburton Co., in the first six months of 2007, received cash payments of about US$24 million for asbestos-related claims, according to the Company’s quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2007. Several Company subsidiaries or former subsidiaries, particularly DII Industries LLC and Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, had been named as defendants in a large number of asbestos- and silica-related lawsuits. Effective Dec. 31, 2004, the Company resolved all open and future claims in the prepackaged Chapter 11 proceedings of DII Industries, Kellogg Brown & Root, and the Company’s other affected subsidiaries (which were filed on Dec. 16, 2003) when the plan of reorganization became final and non-appealable. During 2004, the Company settled insurance disputes with substantially all the insurance companies for asbestos- and silica-related claims and all other claims under the applicable insurance policies and terminated all the applicable insurance policies. Under the terms of its insurance settlements, the Company would receive cash proceeds with a nominal amount of about US$1.5 billion and with a then present value of about US$1.4 billion for its asbestos- and silica-related insurance receivables. At June 30, 2007, the remaining amounts that the Company will receive under the terms of the settlement agreements totaled US$238 million or US$220 million on a present value basis, to be paid in several installments through 2010. Of the US$220 million recorded at June 30, 2007, US$68 million was classified as current. Under the insurance settlements entered into as part of the resolution of its Chapter 11 proceedings, the Company has agreed to indemnify its insurers under certain historic general liability insurance policies in certain situations. At June 30, 2007, the Company has not recorded any liability associated with these indemnifications. Houston-based Halliburton Co.’s Energy Services Group provides production optimization, drilling evaluation, fluid services, and oilfield drilling software and consulting. The Company works in oilfields from the North Sea to the Middle East as well as in Southeast Asia and Africa. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese’s Units Face 674 Cases at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Celanese Corp.’s U.S. subsidiaries, Celanese Ltd. or CNA Holdings Inc., as of June 30, 2007, face about 674 asbestos cases, according to the Company’s quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2007. During the three months ended June 30, 2007, 23 new cases were filed against the Company and seven cases were resolved. Because many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the number of actual cases. The Company has reserves for defense costs related to claims arising from these matters. Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings Inc., as of March 31, 2007, faced about 658 asbestos-related cases. (Class Action Reporter, May 25, 2007) Dallas-based Celanese Corp. is an integrated global hybrid chemical company. The Company’s business involves processing chemical raw materials, such as methanol, carbon monoxide and ethylene, and natural products, including wood pulp, into value-added chemicals, thermoplastic polymers and other chemical- based products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits v. Corning Surge to 11,500 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corning Inc. is named in about 11,500 cases, with about 45,000 claims, alleging injuries from asbestos, according to the Company’s quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2007. The Company faced about 10,900 cases, involving about 42,300 claims, alleging injuries from asbestos. (Class Action Reporter, March 9, 2007) The Company and PPG Industries Inc. each own 50 percent of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corp. Over a period of more than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have been named in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As a result of PCC’s bankruptcy filing, the Company recorded an after-tax charge of US$36 million in 2001 to fully impair its investment in PCC and discontinued recognition of equity earnings. At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, there were about 12,400 claims pending against the Company in state court lawsuits alleging various theories of liability based on exposure to PCC’s asbestos products and typically requesting monetary damages in excess of US$1 million per claim. In the bankruptcy court in April 2000, PCC obtained a preliminary injunction against the prosecution of asbestos actions arising from PCC’s products against its two shareholders to afford the parties a period of time in which to negotiate a plan of reorganization for PCC (the PCC Plan). On May 14, 2002, PPG announced that it had agreed with certain of its insurance carriers and representatives of current and future asbestos claimants on the terms of a settlement arrangement applicable to claims arising from PCC’s products. On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the settlement of all current and future asbestos claims against it and PCC, which might arise from PCC products or operations. If the PCC Plan is approved and becomes effective, the proposed settlement would require the Company to relinquish its equity interest in PCC, contribute its equity interest in Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V., a Belgian corporation, and contribute 25 million shares of Corning common stock. The Company would also pay a total of US$140 million in six annual installments (present value US$131 million at March 2003), beginning one year after the PCC Plan becomes effective, with 5.5 percent interest from June 2004, and assign certain insurance policy proceeds from its primary insurance and a portion of its excess insurance at the time of settlement. The PCC Plan received a favorable vote from creditors in March 2004. Hearings to consider objections to the PCC Plan were held in the Bankruptcy Court in May 2004. In February 2006, the Bankruptcy Court requested that the PCC Plan proponents delete references to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and resubmit the PCC Plan. The final round of oral argument was held on July 21, 2006. On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying confirmation of the PCC Plan. Several parties, including Corning, filed motions for reconsideration. These motions were argued on March 5, 2007, and the Bankruptcy Court reserved decision. Two of Corning’s primary insurers and several excess insurers have commenced litigation for a declaration of the rights and obligations of the parties under insurance policies, including rights that may be affected by the settlement arrangement described above. Since March 31, 2003, the Company has recorded total net charges of US$1 billion to reflect the agreed settlement contributions and subsequent adjustments for the change in the fair value of the components. Corning, N.Y.-based Corning Inc. makes specialty glass and ceramics. The Company creates and makes keystone components that enable high-technology systems for consumer electronics, mobile emissions control, telecommunications and life sciences. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Holdings Accrues $188Mil at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings Inc.’s accrual for pending and future asbestos-related claims, as of June 30, 2007, amounted to US$188 million, according to the Company’s quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2007. The Company’s subsidiary Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., as of March 31, 2007, accrued US$194 million for pending and future asbestos-related claims. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007) Crown Cork faces lawsuits filed throughout the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These claims arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963. About 90 days after the stock purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork. Before 1998, the amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no remaining coverage for asbestos- related costs. During the six months ended June 30, 2007, Crown Cork received about 2,000 new claims, settled or dismissed about 2,000 claims for a total of US$4 million, and had about 79,000 claims outstanding at the end of the period. Historically (1977-2006), Crown Cork estimates that about one-quarter of all asbestos-related claims made against it have been asserted by claimants who claim first exposure to asbestos after 1964. However, because of Crown Cork’s settlement experience to date and the increased difficulty of establishing identification of the subsidiary’s insulation products as the cause of injury by persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964, the Company has not included in its accrual and range of potential liability any amounts for settlements by persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964. Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings Inc. produces commercial packaging. Metal food and beverage cans and related packaging are the Company’s main source of income. The Company’s product portfolio also includes aerosol cans and a variety of metal caps, crowns, and closures. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Faces Suits in Tex. Courts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings Inc.’s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits filed in various Texas courts. In June 2003, the State of Texas enacted legislation that limits the asbestos- related liabilities in Texas courts of companies like Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been involved with asbestos. The Texas legislation, which applies to future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor’s assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its predecessor’s assets. On Oct. 31, 2003, Crown Cork received a favorable ruling on its motion for summary judgment in two asbestos-related cases pending against it in the district court of Harris County, Tex. (in Re Asbestos Litigation No. 90- 23333, District Court, Harris County, Tex.), which were appealed. On May 4, 2006, the Texas 14th Court of Appeals upheld the favorable ruling in one of the two cases (Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, 14th Court of Appeals, Tex.). The Appeals Court decision has been appealed by the plaintiff. In addition, a favorable ruling for summary judgment in an asbestos case pending against Crown Cork in the district court of Travis County, Tex. (in Re Rosemarie Satterfield as Representative of the Estate of Jerrold Braley Deceased v. Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc. District Court Travis County, 98th Judicial District Cause No. GN-203572) has been appealed. Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings Inc. produces commercial packaging. Metal food and beverage cans and related packaging are the Company’s main source of income. The Company’s product portfolio also includes aerosol cans and a variety of metal caps, crowns, and closures. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Faces Suits in Pa. Courts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings Inc.’s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits filed in various Pennsylvania courts. In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the successor’s liability for asbestos to the acquired company’s asset value adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has already paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the adjusted asset value of the company that it acquired. On Feb. 20, 2004, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the June 11, 2002 order of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, in which the Court of Common Pleas ruled favorably on a motion by Crown Cork for summary judgment regarding 376 pending asbestos-related cases against Crown Cork in Philadelphia and remanded the cases to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (Ieropoli v. AC&S Corp. et. al., No. 117 EM 2002). The Court ruled that the new statute, as applied, violated the Pennsylvania Constitution because it retroactively extinguished the plaintiffs’ pre- existing and accrued causes of action. In November 2004, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted legislation amending the 2001 successor liability statute providing that the 2001 statute applies only to asbestos-related claims with respect to which the two-year statute of limitations for asbestos-related claims began to run after the statute was enacted on Dec. 17, 2001. On July 28, 2005, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granted Crown Cork’s global motion for summary judgment to dismiss all pending asbestos-related cases filed in the court after Dec. 17, 2003 (In re: Asbestos-Litigation October term 1986, No. 001). More cases have been dismissed subsequent to July 28, 2005 by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. These decisions remain subject to potential appeal by the plaintiffs and, in some cases, appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania have been filed by the plaintiffs in connection with these decisions. Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings Inc. produces commercial packaging. Metal food and beverage cans and related packaging are the Company’s main source of income. The Company’s product portfolio also includes aerosol cans and a variety of metal caps, crowns, and closures. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $1.071B Liability at June ---------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corp.’s non-current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$1.071 billion at June 30, 2007, compared with US$1.079 billion at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2007. At March 31, 2007, the Company's non-current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$1.063 billion. (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007) The Company’s current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$115 million at June 30, 2007, compared with US$129 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The Company’s non-current asbestos-related insurance receivables amounted to US$693 million at June 30, 2007, compared with US$725 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The Company is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past three decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos- containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that the Company sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on Company premises, and the Company’s responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former subsidiary, Amchem Products Inc. In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the Company’s products. Houston-based Union Carbide Corp. turns out turns out building-block chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are converted into the most widely used plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze. The Company is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Co. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 104,240 Claims at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corp. recorded 104,240 asbestos-related claims filed against it and a former subsidiary Amchem Products Inc. at June 30, 2007, compared with 121,128 claims at June 30, 2006, according to the Company’s latest quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2007. The Company, at March 31, 2007, recorded 112,747 unresolved asbestos-related claims filed against it and Amchem, compared with 143,806 claims at March 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007) At June 30, 2007, the Company recorded 5,839 claims filed; 13,486 claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved; 35,025 claimants with claims against both the Company and Amchem; and 69, 215 individual claimants. At June 30, 2006, the Company recorded 9,130 claims filed; 34,327 claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved; 42,096 claimants with claims against both the Company and Amchem; and 79,032 individual claimants. The Company is and has been involved in asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past three decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos- containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that the Company sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on Company premises, and the Company’s responsibility for asbestos suits filed against Amchem. In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the Company’s products. Houston-based Union Carbide Corp. turns out turns out building-block chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are converted into the most widely used plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze. The Company is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Co. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Records $42Mil Defense Costs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corp.’s defense costs for asbestos-related claims amounted to US$42 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$28 million for the six months ended June 30, 2006. The Company recorded US$17 million in asbestos-related defense costs for the three months ended March 31, 2007, compared with US$14 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007) The Company’s asbestos-related resolution costs amounted to US$28 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$73 million for the six months ended June 30, 2006. As of June 30, 2007, the aggregate costs to date for defense amounted to US$523 million and the aggregate costs to date for resolution amounted to US$73 million. The average resolution payment per asbestos claimant and the rate of new claim filings has fluctuated both up and down since the beginning of 2001. The pretax impact for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was US$25 million in the 2007-2nd quarter (US$14 million in the 2006-2nd quarter). Houston-based Union Carbide Corp. turns out turns out building-block chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are converted into the most widely used plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze. The Company is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Co. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $478M Receivable at June ---------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corp.’s receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability was US$478 million at June 30, 2007, compared with US$495 million at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2007. The Company’s receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability amounted to US$484 million at March 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007) At Dec. 31, 2002, the Company increased the receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to US$1.35 billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product liability coverage. The insurance receivable related to the asbestos liability was determined after a thorough review of applicable insurance policies and the 1985 Wellington Agreement, to which the Company and many of its liability insurers are signatory parties. The Wellington Agreement and other agreements with insurers are designed to facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of the Company’s insurance policies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise. In September 2003, the Company filed a comprehensive insurance coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds. This lawsuit was filed against insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and do not otherwise have agreements in place with the Company regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance policies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise. Although the lawsuit is continuing, through the end of the 2007-2nd quarter, the Company had reached settlements with several of the carriers involved in this litigation. At June 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, all of the receivable for insurance recoveries was related to insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and do not otherwise have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage. In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability, the Company had receivables for defense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers for reimbursement. At June 30, 2007, the Company’s total receivables for costs submitted to insurance carriers amounted to US$294 million, of which US$37 million related to defense costs receivables and US$257 million related to resolution costs receivables. At June 30, 2006, the Company’s total receivables for costs submitted to insurance carriers amounted to US$300 million, of which US$34 million relate to defense costs receivables and US$266 million related to resolution costs receivables. Houston-based Union Carbide Corp. turns out turns out building-block chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are converted into the most widely used plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze. The Company is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Co. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int’l. Records 10,800 Cases at May 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- RPM International Inc. recorded 10,824 active asbestos cases filed against its subsidiaries as of May 31, 2007, compared with 10,580 cases as of May 31, 2006, according to the Company’s annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2007. The Company’s subsidiaries had a total of 10,846 active asbestos-related cases as of Feb. 28, 2007, compared with a total of 10,175 cases as of Feb. 28, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, April 13, 2007) Certain of the Company’s wholly owned subsidiaries, principally Bondex International Inc. (collectively referred to as the subsidiaries), are defendants in various asbestos-related bodily injury lawsuits filed in various state courts with the vast majority of current claims pending in five states: Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Texas, and Florida. These cases generally seek unspecified damages for asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposures to asbestos-containing products previously manufactured by the Company’s subsidiaries or others. For the quarter ended May 31, 2007, the subsidiaries secured dismissals and settlements of 608 claims and made total payments of US$18.6 million, which included defense costs paid during the current quarter of US$7.4 million. For the comparable period ended May 31, 2006, dismissals and settlements covered 106 claims and total payments were US$12.9 million, which included defense costs paid during the quarter of US$7.1 million. For the year ended May 31, 2007, the subsidiaries secured dismissals and settlements of 1,900 claims and made total payments of US$67 million, which included defense costs paid during the year of US$27.7 million. For the comparable period ended May 31, 2006, dismissals and settlements covered 945 claims and total payments were US$59.9 million, which included defense costs paid during the year of US$24 million. The average costs to resolve a claim amounted to US$18,416 for the quarter ended May 31, 2007, compared with US$54,783 for the quarter ended May 31, 2006. The average costs to resolve a claim amounted to US$20,648 for the year ended May 31, 2007, compared with US$37,989 for the year ended May 31, 2006. At the end of fiscal 2006, the Company recorded a liability for asbestos claims in the amount of US$335 million, while paying out US$12.9 million for dismissals and settlements resulting in the Company’s reserve moving from US$99.2 million at Feb. 28, 2006 to US$421.3 million at May 31, 2006. As of May 31, 2007, total reserves were about US$354.3 million, of which US$269.3 million was reserved for unasserted potential future claims and US$85 million was reserved for pending known claims estimated to be paid in fiscal 2008. Medina, Ohio-based RPM International Inc.’s subsidiaries manufacture, market and sell various specialty chemical product lines, including high-quality specialty paints, protective coatings and roofing systems, sealants, and adhesives. As of May 31, 2007, Company subsidiaries marketed products in 149 countries and territories and operated manufacturing facilities in about 90 locations. For the fiscal year ended May 31, 2007, the Company recorded net sales of US$3.3 billion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. PPG Remain at 114,000 at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries Inc., as of June 30, 2007, was one of many defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving about 114,000 open claims served on it, according to the Company’s quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2007. Open asbestos-related claims against the Company remain at about 114,000 as of March 31, 2007, the same as for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007) Most of the Company’s potential exposure relates to allegations by plaintiffs that the Company should be liable for injuries involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corp. The Company and Corning Inc. are each 50 percent shareholders of PC. On Apr. 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania located in Pittsburgh. On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued a ruling denying confirmation of the second amended PC plan of reorganization. Several parties in interest, including the Company, filed motions for reconsideration and to alter or amend the Dec. 21, 2006 ruling. Final written submissions were filed on Jan. 26, 2007. Oral argument on the motions was held on March 5, 2007. Upon reconsideration, the Bankruptcy Court may adhere to its Dec. 21, 2006 decision, may alter that decision and confirm the plan or may amend the decision in a manner that may provide further guidance on how the plan could be modified and become confirmable in the Bankruptcy Court’s view. Pittsburgh-based PPG Industries Inc. supplies paints, coatings, chemicals, optical products, specialty materials, glass, and fiber glass. The Company employs more than 34,000 people and has 125 manufacturing facilities and equity affiliates in more than 25 countries. Sales in 2006 were US$11 billion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich Still Faces Claims as “Successor” ---------------------------------------------------------------- Goodrich Corp. still faces a limited number of asbestos-related claims as “successor” to Coltec Industries Inc. or one of its subsidiaries, according to the Company’s quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2007. In May 2002, the Company completed the tax-free spin-off of its Engineered Products (EIP) segment, which at the time of the spin-off included EnPro Industries Inc. and Coltec. At that time, two subsidiaries of Coltec were defendants in a significant number of personal injury claims relating to alleged asbestos-containing products sold by those subsidiaries. The Company and a number of its subsidiaries have been named as defendants in various actions by plaintiffs alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers in products, or which may have been present in its facilities. A number of these cases involve maritime claims, which have been and are expected to continue to be administratively dismissed by the court. These actions primarily relate to previously owned businesses. Charlotte, N.C.-based Goodrich Corp.’s largest unit, Engine Systems, makes aerostructures, engine and fuel controls, fuel systems, pumps, and turbine components. Next largest, Airframe Systems makes aircraft wheels, brakes, landing gear, and flight control and actuation systems. Electronic Systems makes interior products, de-icing and specialty systems, monitoring systems, lighting products, avionics systems, telemetry systems, sensors, and reconnaissance systems. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT Corp., Unit Still Face Liability Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Corp. and its subsidiary Goulds Pumps Inc. have been joined as defendants with numerous other industrial companies in product liability lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos, according to the Company’s quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2007. These claims stem from products sold before 1985 that contained a part manufactured by a third party, e.g., a gasket, which allegedly contained asbestos. The asbestos was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non- friable. In certain other cases, it is alleged that former ITT companies were distributors for other manufacturers’ products that may have contained asbestos. Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate any injury or do not identify any Company or Goulds product as a source of asbestos exposure. During 2006, the Company and Goulds resolved about 8,200 claims during 2006, 16,000 claims during 2005, and 4,200 claims during 2004. Nearly all of these claims were dismissed, with settlement on a small percentage of claims. The average amount of settlement per plaintiff has been nominal and substantially all defense and settlement costs have been covered by insurance. The Company is involved in two actions: -- Cannon Electric Inc. et al. v. Ace Property & Casualty Co. et al. Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC 290354, and -- Pacific Employers Insurance Co. et al., v. ITT Industries Inc., et al., Supreme Court, County of New York, N.Y., Case No. 03600463. The parties in both cases are seeking an appropriate allocation of responsibility for the Company’s historic asbestos liability exposure among its insurers. The California action is filed in the same venue where the Company’s environmental insurance recovery litigation had been pending since 1991. The New York action has been stayed in favor of the California suit. The Company and ACE and Nationwide Indemnity have successfully resolved the matter and the Company is working with other parties in the suit to resolve the matter as to those insurers. Utica National and Goulds have negotiated a coverage-in-place agreement to allocate the Goulds’ asbestos liabilities between insurance policies issued by Utica and those issued by others. The terms of the settlement will provide the Company with substantial coverage from Utica for asbestos liabilities. White Plains, N.Y.-based ITT Corp. has three primary segments: defense electronics (combat radios, night-vision devices, airborne electronic-warfare systems), fluid technology (pumps, mixers, heat exchangers, and valves for water and wastewater systems), and motion and flow control (connectors, boat pumps, shock absorbers, friction pads for communication and transportation applications). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Has 31,420 Claims at June ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc., at June 30, 2007, was a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos-induced illness involving claims by about 31,420 plaintiffs, according to the Company’s quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2007. In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified sums. At March 31, 2007, the Company was a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos- induced illness involving claims by about 31,440 plaintiffs. (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007) Since Jan. 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 23,763 of those claims were dismissed, 10 were tried to defense verdicts, four were tried to plaintiff verdicts (three of which were satisfied and one of which is subject to appeal), one was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 445 were decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment motions. The claimants allege that exposure to asbestos contained in welding consumables caused the plaintiffs to develop adverse pulmonary diseases, including mesothelioma and other lung cancers. Cleveland-based Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc. manufactures arc-weld and cutting products, as well as welding supplies that include arc-welding power sources, automated wire-feeding systems, and consumable electrodes for arc welding. The Company also makes coated manual electrodes, solid electrodes produced in coil form, and cored electrodes produced in solid form. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $714M Recoverable for T&N ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federal-Mogul Corp., as of June 30, 2007, recorded an asbestos-related recoverable of US$714 million for its U.K. subsidiary, T&N Ltd., and two U.S. subsidiaries, according to the Company’s quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2007. The Company, as of March 31, 2007, recorded an asbestos-related insurance recoverable of US$701 million for the T&N Companies. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007) The T&N Companies face court actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. T&N Ltd. and certain of its French subsidiaries are also subject to asbestos- disease litigation, to a lesser extent, in the U.K. and France. As of the Company’s Oct.1, 2001 Petition Date, T&N Ltd. was a defendant in about 115,000 pending personal injury claims. The two U.S. subsidiaries were defendants in about 199,000 pending personal injury claims. T&N Ltd. (formerly T&N plc), during the year ended Dec. 31, 1996, purchased for itself and its then defined global subsidiaries a GBP500 million layer of insurance which will be triggered should the aggregate costs of claims made or brought after June 30, 1996, where the exposure occurred prior to that date, exceed GBP690 million. The Company, during the year ended Dec. 31, 2000, concluded that the aggregate cost of the claims filed after June 30, 1996 would exceed the trigger point and recorded an insurance recoverable asset under the T&N policy of US$577 million. One of the three reinsurers, European International Reinsurance Company Ltd., in December 2001, filed suit in a London court to challenge the validity of its insurance contract with the T&N Companies. As a result of this suit, a claim was made against the broker (Sedgwick) that assisted in procuring this policy for breach of its duties as a broker. This trial commenced in October 2003. The parties were able to reach a settlement before the conclusion of the trial. As a result of this settlement, the Company recorded a US$38.9 million asbestos charge during 2003. Under the terms of the settlement, EIR would be liable for 65.5 percent of its one-third share of the reinsurance policy. By separate agreement, Sedgwick agreed to be liable for an additional 17.25 percent of the EIR share of the reinsurance policy. T&N Ltd. has also agreed to indemnify the insurer for sums paid under the policy for which the insurer is liable to T&N Ltd. for which the insurer has no recovery from the reinsurers or Sedgwick. A motion seeking the Bankruptcy Court’s approval of the settlement was filed on March 1, 2004. Subsequent to this motion, the other two reinsurers, Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG (“Munich Re”) and Centre Reinsurance International Co. (“CRIC”), a subsidiary of the Zurich Financial Services Group, notified the Company of their belief that the settlements with EIR and Sedgwick may breach one or more provisions of the reinsurance agreement. The parties were unable to resolve the issues raised by the two reinsurers and this prompted the U.K. Administrators to file an action in the High Court seeking a declaration that the settlements with EIR and Sedgwick do not breach provisions of the reinsurance agreement. A hearing was conducted during July 2005 and judgment was handed down on Dec. 21, 2005. The High Court held that the settlements did not breach the reinsurance agreement. Munich Re and CRIC have not appealed the judgment. As a result, the motion seeking the Bankruptcy Court’s approval was renoticed and the Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement in November 2006. Southfield, Mich.-based Federal-Mogul Corp. is a supplier, serving the world's foremost original equipment manufacturers of automotive, light commercial, heavy-duty, agricultural, marine, rail, aerospace, off-road and industrial vehicles, as well as the worldwide aftermarket. The Company employs 45,000 people in 35 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abex & Wagner Liability Still at $213.6Mil ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federal-Mogul Corp.’s asbestos-related liability for its Abex and Wagner businesses amounted to US$213.6 million, of which US$129.5 million related to Abex and US$84.1 million related to Wagner. The liability represented the Company’s estimate before Restructuring Proceedings for claims pending and those which were reasonably estimated to be asserted and paid through 2012. Formerly owned by Cooper Industries LLC, Abex and Wagner face court actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos or asbestos- containing products. These claims mainly involve vehicle safety and protection products. As of the Company’s Oct. 1, 2001 Petition Date, Abex was a defendant in about 66,000 pending claims and Wagner was a defendant in about 33,000 claims. The Wagner insurance recoverable amounted to US$47.6 million as of June 30, 2007. Southfield, Mich.-based Federal-Mogul Corp. is a supplier, serving the world's foremost original equipment manufacturers of automotive, light commercial, heavy-duty, agricultural, marine, rail, aerospace, off-road and industrial vehicles, as well as the worldwide aftermarket. The Company employs 45,000 people in 35 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Still Deals w/ Fel-Pro Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federal-Mogul Corp. continues to face asbestos-related claims concerning its Fel-Pro subsidiary, according to the Company’s quarterly report, on Form 10- Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2007. Before Restructuring Proceedings, the Company was sued in its own name as one of a large number of defendants in multiple lawsuits brought by claimants alleging injury from exposure to asbestos due to its ownership of certain assets involved in gasket making. As of its Oct. 1, 2001 Petition Date, the Company was a defendant in about 61,500 pre-petition pending claims. Over 40,000 of these claims were transferred to a federal court, where, before the Restructuring Proceedings, they were pending. Notices of complaints continue to be received post-petition and are in violation of the automatic stay. Before Restructuring Proceedings, the Company’s Fel-Pro subsidiary also was named as a defendant in a number of product liability cases involving asbestos, primarily involving gasket or packing products. Fel-Pro was a defendant with respect to nearly 2,000 pending claims as of Oct. 1, 2001. Fel-Pro had been named in a further 32,000 claims that had been dismissed without prejudice before the Petition Date. Southfield, Mich.-based Federal-Mogul Corp. is a supplier, serving the world's foremost original equipment manufacturers of automotive, light commercial, heavy-duty, agricultural, marine, rail, aerospace, off-road and industrial vehicles, as well as the worldwide aftermarket. The Company employs 45,000 people in 35 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Corp. Has $1.393Bil Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federal-Mogul Corp.’s asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$1.393 billion at June 30, 2007, compared with US$1.392 billion at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2007. The Company’s asbestos-related asset amounted to US$873.3 million at June 30, 2007, compared with US$859 million at Dec. 31, 2006. Southfield, Mich.-based Federal-Mogul Corp. is a supplier, serving the world's foremost original equipment manufacturers of automotive, light commercial, heavy-duty, agricultural, marine, rail, aerospace, off-road and industrial vehicles, as well as the worldwide aftermarket. The Company employs 45,000 people in 35 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eastman Chemical Still Faces Exposure Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eastman Chemical Co. continues to face, with numerous other defendants, lawsuits in various state courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to exposure to asbestos at the Company’s manufacturing sites. More recently, certain plaintiffs have claimed exposure to an asbestos- containing plastic, which the Company manufactured in limited amounts between the mid-1960s and the early 1970s. To date, the Company has obtained dismissals or settlements of its asbestos- related suits, and over the past several years, has substantially reduced its number of pending asbestos-related claims. The Company has also obtained insurance coverage that applies to a portion of certain of the Company’s defense costs and payments of settlements or judgments in connection with asbestos-related suits. Kingsport, Tenn.-based Eastman Chemical Co. has developed into a major producer of chemicals, fibers, and plastics. The Company’s products go into items like food and medical packaging, films, and toothbrushes. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Fin’l. Carries $1.366B Reserves at June ---------------------------------------------------------------- CNA Financial Corp. carried about US$1.366 billion of claim and claim adjustment expense reserves, net of reinsurance recoverables, for reported and unreported asbestos-related claims as of June 30, 2007, compared with US$1.452 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company recorded US$3 million of unfavorable asbestos-related net claim and claim adjustment expense reserve development for the six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2006. The Company paid asbestos-related claims, net of reinsurance recoveries, of US$89 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007 and US$50 million for the six months ended June 30, 2006. On Feb. 2, 2007, the Company paid US$31 million to the Owens Corning Fibreboard Trust. The payment was made under the Company’s 1993 settlement with Fibreboard. Chicago-based CNA Financial Corp. provides commercial coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation, general and professional liability, and other products for businesses and institutions. CNA also sells specialty insurance for doctors, lawyers, architects, and other professionals. Other services include risk and healthcare claims management, claims administration, and information services. Loews Corp. owns about 90 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Suit Parties Await Court Confirmation --------------------------------------------------------------- Parties of a lawsuit involving CNA Financial Corp. are awaiting a court ruling on confirmation of a bankruptcy plan with an injunction to protect the Company from any future asbestos and silica claims. On Feb. 13, 2003, the Company announced it had resolved asbestos-related coverage litigation and claims involving A.P. Green Industries, A.P. Green Services and Bigelow – Liptak Corp. Under the agreement, the Company is required to pay US$70 million, net of reinsurance recoveries, over a 10-year period commencing after the final approval of a bankruptcy plan of reorganization. The settlement resolves the Company’s liabilities for all pending and future asbestos and silica claims involving A.P. Green Industries, Bigelow – Liptak Corp. and related subsidiaries, including alleged “non-products” exposures. The settlement received initial bankruptcy court approval on Aug. 18, 2003. Chicago-based CNA Financial Corp. provides commercial coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation, general and professional liability, and other products for businesses and institutions. CNA also sells specialty insurance for doctors, lawyers, architects, and other professionals. Other services include risk and healthcare claims management, claims administration, and information services. Loews Corp. owns about 90 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Disputes Coverage in Keasbey Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- CNA Financial Corp. continues to be engaged in insurance coverage litigation in New York State Court with a defendant class of underlying plaintiffs who have asbestos bodily injury claims against the former Robert A. Keasbey Co. Filed in 2003 in New York County, the suit is styled Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau et al., No. 601037/03. Keasbey, a dissolved corporation, was a seller and installer of asbestos- containing insulation products in New York and New Jersey. Thousands of plaintiffs have filed bodily injury claims against Keasbey. However, under New York court rules, asbestos claims are not cognizable unless they meet certain minimum medical impairment standards. Since 2002, when these court rules were adopted, a small portion of such claims have met medical impairment criteria under New York court rules and as to the remaining claims, Keasbey’s involvement at a number of work sites is a highly contested issue. The Company issued Keasbey primary policies for 1970-1987 and excess policies for 1972-1978. The Company has paid an amount substantially equal to the policies’ aggregate limits for products and completed operations claims in the confirmed Company policies. Claimants against Keasbey allege that the Company owes coverage under sections of the policies not subject to the aggregate limits, an allegation the Company contests in the suit. In the litigation, the Company and the claimants seek declaratory relief as to the interpretation of various policy provisions. On May 8, 2007, the Court in the first phase of the trial held that all of CNA’s primary policy products aggregates were exhausted and that past products liability claims could not be recharacterized as operations claims. On May 8, 2007, the Court also found that while operations claims would not be subject to products aggregates, such claims could be made only against the policies in effect when the claimants were exposed to asbestos from Keasbey operations. These holdings limit the Company’s exposure to those instances where Keasbey used asbestos in operations between 1970 and 1987. Keasbey largely ceased using asbestos in its operations in the early 1970s. The Company has noticed an appeal to the Appellate Division to challenge certain aspects of the Court’s ruling, and CNA expects other parties to file cross appeals. Chicago-based CNA Financial Corp. provides commercial coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation, general and professional liability, and other products for businesses and institutions. CNA also sells specialty insurance for doctors, lawyers, architects, and other professionals. Other services include risk and healthcare claims management, claims administration, and information services. Loews Corp. owns about 90 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Has Burns & Roe Coverage Disputes ---------------------------------------------------------------- CNA Financial Corp. continues to be involved in insurance coverage disputes related to asbestos bodily injury claims against a bankrupt insured, Burns & Roe Enterprises Inc. These disputes are part of coverage litigation (stayed in view of the bankruptcy) and an adversary proceeding in In re: Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc., pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 00-41610. Burns & Roe provided engineering and related services in connection with construction projects. At the time of its bankruptcy filing, on Dec. 4, 2000, Burns & Roe asserted that it faced about 11,000 claims alleging bodily injury resulting from exposure to asbestos as a result of construction projects in which Burns & Roe was involved. The Company allegedly provided primary liability coverage to Burns & Roe from 1956-1969 and 1971-1974, along with certain project-specific policies from 1964-1970. The litigation involves disputes over the confirmation of the Plan of Reorganization in bankruptcy, the scope and extent of coverage, if any, afforded to Burns & Roe for its asbestos liabilities. On Dec. 5, 2005, Burns & Roe filed its Third Amended Plan of Reorganization. A confirmation hearing relating to that Plan is anticipated in 2007 or 2008. Coverage issues will be determined in a later proceeding. Chicago-based CNA Financial Corp. provides commercial coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation, general and professional liability, and other products for businesses and institutions. CNA also sells specialty insurance for doctors, lawyers, architects, and other professionals. Other services include risk and healthcare claims management, claims administration, and information services. Loews Corp. owns about 90 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Fin’l. Still Faces Suits in Tex., Mont. ---------------------------------------------------------------- CNA Financial Corp., its subsidiaries, and numerous other insurers continue to face lawsuits filed directly against them in two jurisdictions: Texas and Montana. About 80 suits were filed in Texas beginning in 2002, against two CNA companies and numerous other insurers and non-insurer corporate defendants asserting liability for failing to warn of the dangers of asbestos (e.g. Boson v. Union Carbide Corp., filed in Nueces County, Tex. During 2003, several of the Texas suits were dismissed as time-barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. In other suits, the carriers argued that they did not owe any duty to the plaintiffs or the general public to advise the world generally or the plaintiffs particularly of the effects of asbestos and that Texas statutes precluded liability for such claims, and two Texas courts dismissed these suits. Certain of the Texas courts’ rulings were appealed, but plaintiffs later dismissed their appeals. A different Texas court denied similar motions seeking dismissal at the pleading stage, allowing limited discovery to proceed. After that court denied a related challenge to jurisdiction, the insurers transferred those cases to a state multi-district litigation court in Harris County charged with handling asbestos cases, and the cases remain in that court. In February 2006, the insurers petitioned the appellate court in Houston for an order of mandamus, requiring the multi-district litigation court to dismiss the cases on jurisdictional and substantive grounds, but the court has not yet acted on the petition. On March 22, 2002, a direct action was filed in Montana (Pennock, et al. v. Maryland Casualty, et al. 1st Judicial District Court of Lewis & Clark County, Mont.) by eight individual plaintiffs (all employees of W.R. Grace & Co.) and their spouses against the Company, Maryland Casualty and the State of Montana. This action alleges that the carriers failed to warn of or otherwise protect W.R. Grace employees from the dangers of asbestos at a W.R. Grace vermiculite mining facility in Libby, Mont. The Montana direct action is currently stayed because of W.R. Grace’s pending bankruptcy. Chicago-based CNA Financial Corp. provides commercial coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation, general and professional liability, and other products for businesses and institutions. CNA also sells specialty insurance for doctors, lawyers, architects, and other professionals. Other services include risk and healthcare claims management, claims administration, and information services. Loews Corp. owns about 90 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Employee Gets Jail Time For Removal Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dylan Starnes, an employee of the Atlanta based Environmental Contracting Co., was sentenced to 33 months in prison and three years of probation for improperly removing asbestos from a low-income public housing project on St. Thomas, according to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency press release dated Aug. 1, 2007. In addition to the jail sentence, Mr. Starnes must also pay for the cost of medical surveillance required for any people who were exposed to the asbestos. Starnes was sentenced July 27, 2007. In 2002, Mr. Starnes, a licensed and certified asbestos contractor, was hired by the Virgin Islands Housing Authority to oversee the remediation of more than 220,000 sq. ft. of asbestos and to conduct air monitoring in the housing project. The evidence at trial established that Mr. Starnes and Cleve Allan George failed to follow applicable federal regulations for asbestos removal outlined in their work plan, a violation of federal law. Mr. George is the owner of the Virgin Island Asbestos Removal Co. Specifically, Mr. Starnes and Mr. George were convicted of failing to ensure that asbestos-containing material remained wet until contained, discharging visible asbestos emissions to the outside air, and failing to use one of the required emission control and waste treatment methods. The defendants were also found guilty of filing false air monitoring documents with the Virgin Islands Housing Authority and falsely labeling asbestos as non-friable when it was sent to Florida for disposal. Mr. Starnes, of Atlanta, and co-defendant Mr. George were convicted June 30, 2005, by a federal jury on 15 counts involving the illegal removal of asbestos-containing material at the housing project in 2001 and making materially false statements to federal agencies concerning air monitoring at the project. Mr. George has yet to be sentenced. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Felon Gets Jail Time for Removal Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Attorney’s Office and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency states that John Edward Callahan, a two-time convicted felon, has been sentenced to 21 months in prison for improperly removing asbestos from a government building in Roanoke, Va., without following federal environmental laws. Mr. Callahan also used homeless men to conduct the work, according to the U.S. EPA press release dated Aug. 1, 2007. "The defendant not only broke a law designed to protect the public from exposure to a known carcinogen like asbestos, but also used untrained and vulnerable homeless people to do the work for him," said Granta Nakayama, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. The City of Roanoke hired Mr. Callahan to remove asbestos-containing material from a building in March 2004. He hired three homeless men to do the work, knowing the men were not certified or properly trained to remove asbestos. Mr. Callahan paid each man US$10 per hour for over three days of work. Mr. Callahan did not provide the homeless men with adequate protective gear and instructed them to cut the asbestos-containing material with knives and hack saws without first wetting it, which is required by federal law to safely remove asbestos. By not wetting the materials first, the men created harmful asbestos dust which could be inhaled into their lungs. As part of the investigation, the EPA's forensic laboratory in Denver conducted sampling and analysis of the materials and confirmed the presence of asbestos. In this case, the asbestos containing material was placed in unmarked garbage bags and was neither properly sealed in leak-tight containers while wet nor labeled with the proper warning labels. Mr. Callahan hired a trash hauler to dispose of the asbestos waste at a landfill in Roanoke. Although the landfill had a special area for asbestos- containing material, the waste was improperly disposed of because Mr. Callahan failed to identify the waste. Another company had to be hired at a cost of US$12,000 to properly remove the asbestos from the Roanoke building after Mr. Callahan started the job. In February 2007, Mr. Callahan pleaded guilty to one count of violating the Clean Air Act by knowingly removing asbestos-containing materials without following environmental laws. The investigation of the case was conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency's Criminal Investigation Division, the City of Roanoke Police Department, and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennie Waering and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney David Lastra. New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICAN HOME: Glancy Binkow Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. between April 26, 2006 and July 30, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges American Home Mortgage and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial performance and prospects caused American Home Mortgage's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that the Company was operating without adequate reserves for delinquent loan repurchases or an adequate strategic plan in relation to the volatility of certain of American Home Mortgage's loan products. As a result of defendants' failure to fully disclose that the Company was operating without adequate reserves in relation to the Company's prior sales of certain of American Home Mortgage's loan products or an adequate strategic plan for the repurchase of delinquent previously sold loans, defendants materially misrepresented to investors the true facts concerning American Home Mortgage's financial performance and prospects. On June 28, 2007, American Home Mortgage announced that the Company "will take substantial charges for credit-related expenses in the second quarter. As a result, the Company's second quarter financial results are uncertain, and it is likely the Company will experience a second quarter loss." As result of this news, American Home Mortgage stock fell from $20.91 per share to $18.38 per share on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on July 27, 2007, after the close of the market, American Home Mortgage announced that its Board of Directors had determined to delay paying its dividend. Three days later, on July 30, 2007, the NYSE halted trading in American Home Mortgage stock. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than October 1, 2007, for lead plaintiff appointment. American Home Mortgage is in the business of investing in mortgage-backed securities and mortgage loans resulting from the securitization of residential mortgage loans that the Company's subsidiaries originate and service. For more information, contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (Toll Free) (888) 773-9224 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com Website: http://www.glancylaw.com AMERICAN HOME: Vianale & Vianale Files Securities Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP filed a class action in Florida on July 31, 2007 against American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. and certain officers and directors of AHM. The lawsuit charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by selling 4 million shares of common stock in a secondary public offering underwritten by Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. pursuant to a false and misleading prospectus. The offering took place on May 4, 2007. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated buyers of AHM stock in that offering. For more information, contact: Kenneth Vianale, Esq. Vianale & Vianale LLP 2499 Glades Road, Suite 112 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Phone: 561-392-4750 Fax:561-392-4775 RAIT FINANCIAL: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Suit in Penn. --------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. commenced a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of the securities of RAIT Financial Trust between January 10, 2007 and July 31, 2007, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. RAIT had an offering of 10 million shares of its common stock on January 10, 2007. The complaint charges RAIT and certain of its officers and trustees with violations of the Federal Securities Laws. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to disclose: (i) RAIT's financial relationship with American Home Mortgage ("AHM"); that (ii) the payment to RAIT by American Home Mortgage of the TruPS was in jeopardy, which could result in at least a net exposure of $95 million, or $1.56 per share of book value; and that (iii) RAIT had failed to adequately reserve for the risk of nonpayment of American Home Mortgage and the loss in value of the associated securities in an amount of approximately $95 million. On July 31, 2007, RAIT surprised the market by announcing that it did not receive payment from AHM of trust preferred securities due on July 30, 2007 from AHM, resulting in at least a net equity exposure of $95 million. The price of RAIT's common stock declined in reaction to this news from a close on July 30, 2007 of $16.06 to a close on July 31, 2007 of $10.36. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased the securities of RAIT Financial Trust between January 10, 2007 and July 31, 2007. Interested parties may move the court no later than September 30, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. RAIT is a real estate investment trust, providing comprehensive debt financing options to the real estate industry including bridge and mezzanine loans, preferred equity investments, trust preferred securities ("TruPS") and subordinated debt for private and corporate owners of commercial real estate, REITs and real estate operating companies and their intermediaries throughout the United States and Europe. For more information, contact: Susan R. Gross, Esq. Deborah R. Gross, Esq. Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. The Wanamaker Bldg. 100 Penn Sq. East, Suite 450 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600 E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com Website: http://www.bernardmgross.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 * * *