C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, October 19, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 207 Headlines ATLAS COLD: Securities Suit Certification Hearing Set January BEAR STEARNS: Cal. Court Okays McKesson Merger Suit Settlement BEST BUY: Former Worker Files Suit in Pa. Over Unpaid Work Time CBOCS DIST: Recalls Art Sets for Lead Paint Standard Breach DOMINO'S PIZZA: Settles Calif. Ex-Employee's Lawsuits for $5M DOMINO'S PIZZA: Settles Ex-General Manager's Suit for $500T FREMONT GENERAL: Cal. Court Consolidates ERISA Violations Suit HAMILTON HEALTH: Settles Lawsuit Over Tompkins Metroplasty HOME DEPOT: Faces Fraud Suit Over Hot Water Installation Permits KERRY INC: September 2008 Trial Set for “Kassa” Lawsuit in Minn. KFC CORP: To Seek Dismissal of FACTA Violations Lawsuit in N.J. KIPP BROTHERS: Recalls Bendable Dinosaur Toys for Excessive Lead MEDICAL SOCIETIES: Faces Lawsuit in Cal. Over ‘Egg Sharing’ NAVTEQ CORP: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over $8.1B Sale to Nokia Corp. NEW YORK: City Seeks Settlement Talks for 9/11 Health Litigation OCCAM NETWORKS: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Calif. POSSIS MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Still Appealing Minn. Suit's Nixing PROCYCLE GROUP: Recalls Bicycles with Head Tube that can Detach SOUTH & ASSOC: Faces Suit in Mo. Over Alleged Fraud, Overcharges SOUTHLAND TITLE: Cal. Suit Alleges Illegal “Email, Notary Fees” TACO BELL: Faces Calif. Suit Alleging Violations of Labor Laws TACO BELL: Nov. 2008 Hearing Set in Cal. ADA Violations Suit TACO BELL: To Seek Dismissal of FACTA Violations Suit in Ill. T-MOBILE: Cal. High Court Allows “Termination Fees” Lawsuit TWENTIETH CENTURY: Settles Suit Over Santa Barbara Music for $1M WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Wheat Rolls Containing Undeclared Milk Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dewalt’s Appeal to Remand Order Dismissed ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSK Auto Corp. Has Product Liability Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $8.56M Liabilities at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rulings on Congoleum Claims Issued in July ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Coverage Case Decided Last May 18 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Records $10.54M Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,415 Claims at June ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Senior Citizen Sues 48 Firms in Tex. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Laborer’s Daughter Sues 42 Firms in W.Va. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in 2 EU Parliament Buildings ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Pensioner’s Death to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bribery Ruling Upheld in D.C. Appeals Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Creditors Object to Dana Corp.’s Statement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Cleanup Head Pleads Guilty to Bribes ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defendants Will Get Appeal, Ohio Court Says ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pittsburgh Dept. Sees $1M Cost for Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Reverses Motion in Sparks Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Reversed in Favor of Safety National ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at U.K. Leisure Center Costs GBP66T ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Seeks Disclosure on Vessel’s Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Court Denies $29M Compensation Award ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Teacher’s Widow Seeks Help in Payout Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Over GBP30M Paid to H&W Employees Since ‘01 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Probe in U.K. Leisure Center Urged ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Court Orders Joint Trial for 2 Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Still Present at Australian Schools ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sheet Metal Worker’s Death Linked to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: High Hazard Level Found at Calif. City Hall ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Experts Called in to Assess Risk at School ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Has $1.388B for Claims at Sept 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cayuga County Sued for Wrongful Termination ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pleural Plaque Sufferers Lose Payout Battle ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lorry Driver Finds Asbestos at Public Tip ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fly-tippers Dump Hazard Near Primary School ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard in Canada Health Unit Poses Low Risk ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Atlantic Express Mulls Cleanup Liabilities ********* ATLAS COLD: Securities Suit Certification Hearing Set January ------------------------------------------------------------- A certification hearing for a suit over alleged breaches of the Securities Act against Atlas Cold Storage Holdings Inc. is set to begin Jan. 14, 2008 in Toronto. The law firms of Groia & Company, Koskie Minsky LLP and Sutts, Strosberg LLP are counsel in a class action against Atlas Cold, certain directors and officers of Atlas Holdings, certain trustees of Atlas Cold Storage Income Trust, Ernst & Young LLP and BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. The claim is on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired units of Atlas between March 1, 2002 and August 29, 2003, and held them at the close of trading on the TSX on August 29, 2003 excluding the defendants, members of the immediate family of each of the individual defendants, any officers or directors of Atlas Holdings, any subsidiary or affiliate of Atlas or Atlas Holdings, any entity in respect of which any excluded person has a controlling interest, and the legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of any excluded person. The amended fresh statement of claim alleges that Atlas' net income for the fiscal years ended 2001 and 2002 was overstated and thereby causing the units of Atlas to trade at artificially high prices. The amended fresh statement of claim also alleges that some of the defendants breached section 130 of the Securities Act and that the defendants were negligent. The Honourable Madam Justice Hoy has been assigned as the class action case management judge. On August 16, 17 and 18, 2006, Madam Justice Hoy heard preliminary motions. The plaintiffs' motion was granted. Certain claims against the defendant, Michael H. Wilson, were struck. The remaining motions brought by the defendants were dismissed. The motion for certification is scheduled for five days beginning on January 14, 2008 in Toronto. For more information, contact: Sutts, Strosberg LLP Web site: http://www.atlasclassaction.com/ Toll Free Line: 800.229.5323, ext. 8296 BEAR STEARNS: Cal. Court Okays McKesson Merger Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted preliminary approval to a proposed settlement of the purported class action, “In Re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 99-CV- 20743.” Previously, The Bear Stearns Cos., Inc. appealed the final order approving a proposed settlement in the matter. The suit arises out of a merger between McKesson Corp. and HBO & Co. resulting in an entity called McKesson HBOC, Inc. Beginning on June 29, 1999, 53 purported class actions were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. These actions were subsequently consolidated, and the plaintiffs proceeded to file a series of amended complaints. On Feb. 15, 2002, plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated complaint, which alleges that Bear Stearns violated Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading disclosures contained in a joint proxy statement/prospectus that was issued with respect to the McKesson/HBOC merger. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of all persons who either: -- acquired publicly traded securities of HBOC between Jan. 20, 1997 and Jan. 12, 1999; or -- acquired publicly traded securities of McKesson or McKesson HBOC between Oct. 18, 1998 and April 27, 1999, and who held McKesson securities on Nov. 27, 1998 and Jan. 22, 1999. Named defendants include McKesson HBOC, certain present and former directors and/or officers of McKesson HBOC, McKesson and/or HBOC, Bear Stearns and Arthur Andersen LLP. Compensatory damages in an unspecified amount are sought. On Jan. 6, 2003, the court granted Bear Stearns' motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim asserted in the third amended complaint, and denied Bear Stearns' motion to dismiss the Section 14(a) claim. On March 7, 2003, Bear Stearns filed an answer to the third amended complaint denying all allegations of wrongdoing and asserting affirmative defenses to the claims in the complaint. On Jan. 12, 2005, McKesson HBOC announced that it had reached a settlement with the plaintiff class, which settlement required court approval. Bear Stearns' engagement letter with McKesson in connection with the merger of McKesson and HBOC provides that McKesson cannot settle any litigation without Bear Stearns' written consent unless McKesson obtains an unconditional written release for Bear Stearns and, under certain circumstances, is required to provide indemnification to Bear Stearns. By Order dated May 23, 2005, the court denied preliminary approval of the proposed settlement between McKesson HBOC and the plaintiff class. On July 12, 2005, the plaintiff and McKesson HBOC submitted a revised proposed settlement, purporting to address the issues identified by the court in its order denying preliminary approval, to which Bear Stearns objected. The revised proposed settlement provides, among other things, that Bear Stearns' rights under its engagement letter are preserved for future resolution. McKesson HBOC's claims in connection with the letter are also preserved. On Feb. 24, 2006, the district court granted final approval of the revised proposed settlement. Bear Stearns has appealed the final approval order to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, seeking to reverse the final approval of the settlement on the ground that consummation of the settlement may deprive Bear Stearns of certain rights and remedies provided for in its engagement letter. On Sept. 24, 2007, the parties in the Federal Class Action entered into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement provides that, subject to final approval by the District Court, the claims asserted on behalf of the settlement class against Bear Stearns will be dismissed with prejudice and that Bear Stearns denies any wrongdoing in connection with the claims asserted against it in the Federal Class Action. Under the stipulation of settlement, promptly following preliminary approval of the settlement by the District Court, Bear Stearns will withdraw its appeal of the District Court's approval of McKesson's settlement of the Federal Class Action. The District Court granted preliminary approval on Sept. 28, 2007, according to The Bear Stearns Cos., Inc.'s Oct. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 31, 2007. Settlement Terms The defendants in the McKesson settlement have agreed to pay a total of $960 million, plus interest, to the class. Arthur Anderson LLP has agreed to pay a total of $72.5 million, plus interest, and the Bear Stearns settlement creates a settlement fund of $10 million, plus interest, for a total settlement amount of $1,042,500,000. The suit is "In Re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 99-CV- 20743," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte. A January 4, 2008 fairness hearing has been set. The settlement on the Net: http://www.mckessonhbocsettlement.com/status.html Representing the plaintiffs are: Barrack, Rodos & Bacine 170 E. 61st Street, Second Floor New York, NY, 10021 Phone: 212.688.0782 Fax: 212.688.0783 E-mail: info@barrack.com - and - Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: 858.793.0070 Fax: 858.793.0323 E-mail: blbg@blbglaw.com Representing the company are: James E. Lyons, Esq. Jonathan J. Lerner, Esq. Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom Four Embarcadero Ctr., Ste. 3800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 984-6400 BEST BUY: Former Worker Files Suit in Pa. Over Unpaid Work Time --------------------------------------------------------------- Best Buy Co., Inc. faces a purported class action in Pennsylvania over its alleged failure to pay employees for thousands of hours they spent undergoing security searches and working through breaks, The Associated Press reports. The suit was specifically filed in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, alleging violations of Pennsylvania state labor laws. It is seeking class-action status to cover anyone who worked at 25 Best Buy stores in Pennsylvania since October 2003. Attorney Gerald Lawrence filed the purported class action on behalf of plaintiff Jason Hall, who worked at a Best Buy store in North Wales in July and August 2006. In general, the suit charges that workers sometimes wait 15 minutes or more to be searched after each shift, time that can add up to an hour or more each week per person. Additionally, the suit also accuses Best Buy of forcing employees to work through meal and rest breaks without pay. For more details, contact: Gerald Lawrence, Esq. Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, P.C. Four Tower Bridge, 200 Bar Harbor Drive, Suite 400 West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428 Phone: 610-941-2760 Fax: 610-862-9777 Web Site: http://www.lowey.com CBOCS DIST: Recalls Art Sets for Lead Paint Standard Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- CBOCS Distribution, Inc., of Lebanon, Tennessee, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 7,800 Princess Magnetic travel art set lap desks. The company said the surface paint on the zipper pull of the lap desk contains lead in excess of the federal lead paint standard. No injuries have been reported. The recalled Travel Art Set Lap Desk is a zippered case that opens into a lap desk with markers, crayons, and magnetic pieces. The lap desk is 10 3/4- inches wide and is pink colored. “Made in China” and item number 266822 are printed on a sticker located on the product’s packaging. These recalled travel art sets were manufactured in China and are being sold at Cracker Barrel Old Country Store locations nationwide from April 2007 through August 2007 for about $20. Pictures of recalled travel art sets: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08021.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using these art sets immediately, and contact the firm or return the product to any Cracker Barrel location for a full refund. For additional information, contact Cracker Barrel toll-free at (888) 296- 2721 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.crackerbarrel.com DOMINO'S PIZZA: Settles Calif. Ex-Employee's Lawsuits for $5M ------------------------------------------------------------- A $5,000,000 settlement was reached for two purported class actions against Domino's Pizza, LLC that were coordinated in Orange County Superior Court. The suits are related to employment practices and wage and hour complaints brought by former employees. On June 10, 2003, a suit, "Vega v. Domino's Pizza LLC," was filed, in Orange County Superior Court, alleging that the company failed to provide meal and rest breaks to the company's employees. On Aug. 2, 2006, "Roselio v. Domino's Pizza LLC," was filed, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging similar claims as set out in the Vega lawsuit. On Feb. 14, 2007, the two actions were coordinated in Orange County Superior Court. No determination with respect to class certification has been made. Settlement On Sept. 11, 2007, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, subject to the court’s approval, in which all claims in both “Vega v. Domino’s Pizza LLC,” and “Rosello v. Domino’s Pizza LLC” will be dismissed. As part of the conditional settlement, the company agreed to pay $5.0 million to plaintiffs and their attorneys to resolve the disputes. Domino's Pizza, LLC -- http://www.dominos.com/-- is a pizza delivery company in the U.S. The Company operates through a network of 8,366 Company- owned and franchise stores, located in all 50 states and in more than 50 countries. DOMINO'S PIZZA: Settles Ex-General Manager's Suit for $500T ----------------------------------------------------------- Domino's Pizza LLC reached a $500,000 settlement for a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by a former general manager. Filed on Aug. 19, 2004 in Orange County Superior Court, the suit, "Jimenez v. Domino's Pizza LLC," is alleging that the company misclassified the position of general manager. The suit also alleges that the company did not provide meal/rest periods and overtime pay as required by state law for hourly employees. It was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 17, 2004 and the motion for class certification was heard on June 5, 2006. On Sept. 26, 2006, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification. On Oct. 4, 2007, the Company reached an out-of-court settlement with Jimenez and the ten other individual plaintiffs in which all claims will be dismissed. As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay $500,000 to the plaintiffs and their attorneys to resolve the disputes, without admitting any liability. The suit is "Wilber Jimenez v. Dominos Pizza, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:04-cv- 01107-JVS-RC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge James V. Selna with referral to Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman. Representing the plaintiffs are: Matthew Roland Bainer, Esq. Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Scott Cole and Associates World Savings Tower, 1970 Broadway, Suite 950 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510-891-9800 E-mail: mrbainer@scalaw.com scole@scalaw.com - and - Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq. Isam C. Khoury, Esq. Kimberly Dawn Neilson, Esq. Michael D. Singer, Esq. Coheland and Khoury 605 C. Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-595-3001 Fax: 619-595-3000 E-mail: kneilson@ck-lawfirm.com msinger@californiaclassactions.com Representing the defendants are: Timothy M. Freudenberger, Esq. Ursula R. Kubal, Esq. Jehan N. Jayakumar, Esq. Carlton DiSante and Freudenberger 2600 Michelson Dr., Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949-622-1661 Fax: 949-622-1669 - and - Jennifer White-Sperling, Esq. Morgan Lewis and Bockius 300 South Grand Ave., 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-612-7205 E-mail: jwhite-sperling@morganlewis.com FREMONT GENERAL: Cal. Court Consolidates ERISA Violations Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted on Aug. 17, 2007 plaintiff's motion to consolidate a lawsuit filed on behalf of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Fremont General Corp. and Affiliated Cos. Investment Incentive Plan and/or the Fremont General ESOP, between January 1, 2005 and the present and whose accounts included investments in Fremont General common stock. Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs and the Class members by: * failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plans’ assets; * failing to monitor fiduciaries; * failing to provide complete and accurate information to the Class; and * co-fiduciary liability. The suits consolidated are: -- "Johannesson, et al. v. Fremont General Corp. et al. No. SACV07-00531 FMC" filed May 9, 2007; -- "McCoy v. Plan Committee et al. No. CV07-02693 FFMx,” filed April 24, 2007; -- "Anderson v. Fremont General Corp. et al., No. SACV07- 00554 FFMx," filed May 15, 2007; -- "Sullivan et al. v. Fremont General Corp. et al., No. SACV07-0622 FMCx” filed May 30, 2007; -- "Salas v. Plan Administrator, et al. No. SAVV073449 FFMx,” filed May 25, 2007; and -- "Hopkins et al. v. Fremont General Corp. et al. No. CV07-04233 JFW (MANx)” filed June 27, 2007. Interim Lead Plaintiffs are: Marcy Johannesson, Wendy Horvat, Robert Anderson, Linda Sullivan, Armando Salas and James K. Hopkins. Keller Rohrback LLP was appointed Interim Lead Counsel. Braund Law Group PC is appointed Interim Liaison Counsel. The suit is now docketed as "In re Fremont General Corp. Litigation, Master File No. CV07-02693 FMM" filed before Judge Florence-Marie Cooper. For more information, contact: Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Cari campen Laufenberg, Esq. David Y. Chen, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Phone: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com dchen@kellerrohrback.com HAMILTON HEALTH: Settles Lawsuit Over Tompkins Metroplasty ---------------------------------------------------------- A Nov. 27, 2007 settlement hearing is set in a class action that claims Dr. Salim Daya and Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation were negligent in their care and treatment of women who underwent a surgical procedure known as a Tompkins metroplasty between January 1, 1990 and March 31, 2004. The suit claims that women who underwent the outdated Tompkins metroplasty procedure in that time frame are entitled to damages. The parties to the action participated in a mediation in Toronto on three occasions in an attempt to resolve the action. As a result of the mediation, the parties have entered into a proposed settlement which will only take effect if it receives court approval. The court will consider whether to approve the settlement at a hearing to be held on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 at the Courthouse, 361 University Avenue, Toronto, ON. The plaintiffs and their counsel believe that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and will ask the court to approve it. If the proposed settlement is not approved, the class action will continue. For more information, contact: Harvey T. Strosberg , Q.C. Sutts, Strosberg LLP Phone: 519.561.6231 800.229.5323 ext. 231 Fax: 519.561.6203 866.316.5308 E-mail: dayaclassaction@strosbergco.com HOME DEPOT: Faces Fraud Suit Over Hot Water Installation Permits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Home Depot USA, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego alleging it charges customers for “required” municipal permits to install the hot water heaters it sells, but never files for the permits, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Lead plaintiff Richard Stanford claims Home Depot defrauds its customers, breaches contract and engages in deceptive trade to unjustly enrich itself. This is a class action for damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief on behalf of a class of all California residents who paid defendant monies for a bundles package of goods and services, including but not limited to a "permit fee", that was supposed to include both the purchase, delivery and installation of a hot water heater, and any and all "required" municipal permits relating to the installation of the hot water heater in the class members' residences, but actually did not include the municipal permit. Allegedly, as a result of this conduct, Home Depot has been and continues to be unjustly enriched at the expense of plaintiff, and others similarly situated. Specifically, defendant has received and retained a substantial excess profits earned from charging the class members for a service that was never provided: the acquiring and filing of any and all "required" municipal permits relating to the installation of a hot water heater in the class members' residences. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 and the Civil Code Sections 1781(b) and (c)(1) on behalf of all persons in California who purchased hot water heaters from defendant for delivery and installation and paid a municipal permit fee from Oct. 15, 2003 to the date of trial. He wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendant misrepresented that the class members were required to obtain municipal permits relating to the installation of the hot water heater in the class members' purchase for their residences; (b) whether defendant misrepresented that the class members would receive any and all "required" municipal permits relating to the installation of the hot water heater in the class members' residences when they paid a "permit fee"; (c) whether defendant failed to obtain, acquire, prepare, file, apply for, or otherwise caused to record with the applicable municipal governments in California all "required" municipal permits relating to the installation of the hot water heater in class members' residences when they paid a "permit fee"; (d) whether defendant's conduct was deceptive in violation of the Civil Code Section 1750 et seq.; and (e) whether defendant's conduct was unlawful, fraudulent and/or unfair constitution violations of the Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. Plaintiff requests the court for the following relief: -- that this action be certified as a class action on behalf of the proposed plaintiff class and plaintiff be appointed as the representative of the class; -- injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains and awarding plaintiff and the class full restitution of all monies wrongfully acquired by the defendants by means of such unlawful, fraudulent and unfair conduct, plus interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to, inter alia, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5; -- injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring defendants to adopt procedures to: (1) identify and refund all fees paid by plaintiffs for obtaining municipal permits that were not required or never actually obtained; (2) stop the business practice of charging an additional fee to obtain municipal permits that are not required or never actually obtained; (3) create a policy to timely refine all additional charges for municipal permits that are not acquired or never obtained, when they do occur; (4) publicize corrective notice of these wrongful practices and the corrective action taken to stop these wrongful practices to all of defendant's customers, at defendant's expense; (5) remit the charges or fees collected from plaintiffs to the municipal governments that are responsible for issuing the "required" municipal permits, and otherwise take all necessary steps to ensure that plaintiff and others similarly situated actually receive the "required" municipal permits relating to the installation of a hot water heater in the plaintiff's residences; and (6) cease from engaging, or, within a reasonable time, agree to cease to engage, in the illegal, unlawful, fraudulent and unfair methods, act, or practices as set forth in the complaint; -- damages as provided by statute; -- general damages according to proof; -- special damages according to proof; -- compensatory damages according to proof; -- consequential damages accroding to proof; -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interests as provided by statute; -- attorneys' fees, expenses and costs of this action pursuant to statute; and -- such further relief as the court deems necessary, just and proper. The suit is "Richard Stanford et al. v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Case No. 37- 2007-00077691-CU-BC-CTL," filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego. Representing plaintiffs are: Patrick N. Keegan, Esq. Brent Jex, Esq. Keegan & Baker, LLP 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 640 San Diego, California 92122 Phone: (858) 552-6750 Fax: (858) 552-6749 KERRY INC: September 2008 Trial Set for “Kassa” Lawsuit in Minn. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A September 2008 trial is scheduled for the purported class action, “Kassa et al. v. Kerry Inc.,” which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Sarah Light of The Albert Lea Tribune reports. The suit was filed by 25 former Albert Lea Kerry Specialty Ingredients workers back in Feb. 28, 2006, for alleged unpaid time on the job. It specifically alleges that Kerry did not pay its workers for time spent putting on and taking off —- also known as “donning and doffing” —- protective gear before and after shifts. Bill Gengler of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, is one of the workers’ attorneys. He explains that the lawsuit began with two employees from the Albert Lea plant and has since expanded to include employees in Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Ohio. Up to 800 workers could be covered the case, says Mr. Gengler. Though Kerry Specialty Ingredients no longer exists in Albert Lea, in 2005 it employed 85 employees. Another company, Merricks, Inc., bought out Kerry in July of 2006. Under a court order, authorized notices were recently mailed to Kerry employees who worked in production, maintenance or sanitation jobs any time on or after Feb. 1, 2003 in: -- Albert Lea, Minn.; -- Covington, Ohio; -- Fredericksburg, Iowa; and -- Beloit, Jackson, Owen, and Vesper, Wis. The notices require the workers to fill out and return a consent form by Oct. 29, 2007 to join the lawsuit as plaintiffs. The case is scheduled to go to trial in September of 2008. The suit is “Kassa et al. v. Kerry Inc., Case No. 0:06-cv-00904-PJS-JJG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Patrick J. Schiltz with referral to Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Representing the plaintiffs are: William A. Gengler, Esq. Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP 100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179 Phone: 612-339-6900 Fax: 612-339-0981 E-mail: wagengler@locklaw.com - and - Clayton D. Halunen, Esq. Halunen & Associates 220 South 6th Street Ste 2000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 605-4098 Fax: (612) 605-4099 E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com Representing the defendant are: Robert H. Brown, Esq Laner, Muchin, Dombrow, Becker, Levin & Tominberg, Ltd 515 N State St Ste 2800 Chicago, IL 60610 Phone: 312-494-5327 Fax: 312-467-9479 E-mail: rbrown@lanermuchin.com - and - Bradley J. Lindeman, Esq. Meagher & Geer, PLLP 33 S 6th St Ste 4400 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-338-0661 Fax: 612-877-3030 E-mail: blindeman@meagher.com KFC CORP: To Seek Dismissal of FACTA Violations Lawsuit in N.J. --------------------------------------------------------------- KFC Corp., a division of YUM! Brands, Inc., will seek for the dismissal of a purported class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging violations under the new federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act. On July 11, 2007, a lawsuit styled, “Melissa Peraria v. KFC Corp., et al.,” was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. It is a proposed class action and alleges that KFC failed to protect the private information of its customers under FACTA. Since the complaint alleges a violation of FACTA based on a transaction involving a franchised restaurant, the Company intends to seek dismissal from the action, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Oct. 16, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 15, 2007. The suit is “Peraria v. KFC Corp. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-03190-RMB-AMD,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Renee Marie Bumb with referral to Judge Ann Marie Donio. Representing the plaintiffs are: Edward W. Ciolko Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 E-mail: eciolko@sbtklaw.com - and - Evan J. Smith, Esq. Brodsky & Smith, LLC 1040 Kings Highway, North Suite 601 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Phone: (856) 795-7250 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com Representing the defendant is: Todd Lawrence Schleifstein Greenberg Traurig, LLP 200 Park Avenue Florham Park, NJ 07932-5400 Phone: (973) 360-7918 Fax: (973) 301-8410 E-mail: schleifsteint@gtlaw.com KIPP BROTHERS: Recalls Bendable Dinosaur Toys for Excessive Lead ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kipp Brothers, of Carmel, Indiana, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 10,000 bendable dinosaur toys. The company said the recalled toys pose a risk of lead exposure to young children. No injuries have been reported. The bendable dinosaur toys are about three inches long and come in brown, green or orange/green colors. While the toys were sold in boxes of 36, consumers may have received these products as a giveaway or promotional item from schools, libraries, churches, community groups, etc. These recalled bendable dinos were manufactured in China and are being sold in The Kipp Brothers’ showroom, catalog and Web site from October 2006 through August 2007 for about $10 per box of 36. Pictures of the recalled bendable dinos: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08020a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08020b.jpg Consumers are advised to take the recalled toys away from children immediately. Consumers can return the toy to the place of receipt for a free replacement toy. For additional information, contact Kipp Brothers at (800) 428-1153 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the Web site: http://www.kipptoys.com MEDICAL SOCIETIES: Faces Lawsuit in Cal. Over ‘Egg Sharing’ ----------------------------------------------------------- The American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology is accused of fraud, conversion and tortious interference for distributing the ova of registered members to unknown and unauthorized women without consent, CourtHouse News Service reports. The suit was filed by the Options National Fertility Registry as a purported class action on Oct. 12, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It alleged the abuse is “an industry-wide practice...known as ‘egg sharing.’” Both defendants are headquartered in Birmingham, Ala., and do business in California. Plaintiffs claim the defendants cannot account for missing ova, and their records are suspiciously inconsistent. Plaintiffs pray for relief from each defendant as follows: -- for an award of special damages, including lost income and medical costs and other costs, according to proof; -- an award of general damages for pain and suffering and loss of reputation -- an award of punitive damages against each defendant -- injunctive relief banning unauthorized and unconsented- to egg sharing by defendants -- an award of reasonable attorney fees incurred in bringing this action and -- an award of costs of suit. The suit is "Options National Fertility et al. v. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, et al., Case No. C07 05238," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing plaintiffs is: Stanley G. Hilton Law Offices of Stanley G. Hilton 580 California Street, Suite 500 Phone: (415) 439-4893 or (415) 786-4821 Fax: (415) 439-4963 E-mail: 4561414@gmail.com NAVTEQ CORP: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over $8.1B Sale to Nokia Corp. -------------------------------------------------------------- Navteq Corp. faces a purported shareholder class action in Illinois that seeks to block the Chicago-based digital mapmaker’s $8.1-billion sale to Nokia Corp., Brandon Glenn of The Crain's Chicago Business reports. The suit, which seeks class-action status, was filed by Karen Rosenberg, a New Jersey shareholder of Navteq Corp., in Cook County Circuit Court on Oct. 9, 2007. It generally alleges that Navteq executives breached their fiduciary duties by selling the company for an “unfair and grossly inadequate” price. In addition, the suit contends that the $250 million termination fee for the deal is “excessive” and a deterrent to other potential bidders. Plaintiffs claim that the deal “deprives Navteq’s shareholders of maximum value to which they are entitled.” Several Navteq executives were named as defendants in the case, including chief executive Judson Green and Chairman Christopher Galvin, former chief executive of Motorola Inc. The suit accuses them and other executives of putting their personal interests ahead of the interests of Navteq shareholders. Ms. Rosenberg is represented in the matter by two law firms, Krislov Associates Ltd. of Chicago, and Faruqi & Faruqi LLP of New York. According to a joint statement, it was announced that the deal was recently approved by Navteq and Nokia’s boards of directors and is subject to Navteq shareholders’ approval. For more details, contact: Krislov & Associates, Ltd. 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1350 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Phone: 312-606-0500 Fax: 312-606-0207 E-mail: mail@krislovlaw.com Web site: http://www.krislovlaw.com/ - and - Faruqi & Faruqi LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017-6531 Phone: (212) 983-9330 or (877) 247-4292 Fax: (212) 983-9331 Web site: http://www.faruqilaw.com/ NEW YORK: City Seeks Settlement Talks for 9/11 Health Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The City of New York wants to see if a settlement is possible in the purported class action, "In Re: World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation," which is claiming that city's negligence caused Ground Zero workers to breathe toxic air at the World Trade Center site. The suit generally alleges that the defendants violated certain laws by not providing adequate safety equipment to those involved in the rescue and clean-up efforts following the collapse of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. It alleges that that because of such violations the plaintiffs suffered respiratory injuries brought on by toxic fumes and dust from the collapsed towers According to a report by The Associated Press, an attorney for the ailing workers recently sent his clients a letter asking to authorize talks with the city regarding the matter. However, Mayor Michael Bloomberg was quick to point out that holding talks doesn't mean a settlement offer will be made. The mayor told The Associated Press, "I can only tell you this: Every time you get sued, you always take a look and see" whether there is a way "to come to a settlement which would be in everybody's interest." The mayor adds, "There's no reason to think that we can come to a settlement or reason to think that we can't come to a settlement. Plain and simple, we're just going to talk and explore." The complaint is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1150 The suit is "In Re: World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation, Case No. 1:21-mc-00100-AKH-THK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein with referral to Judge Theodore H. Katz. Representing the plaintiffs are: Marc Jay Bern, Esq. Paul Joseph Napoli, Esq. Napoli Bern Ripka, LLP 115 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 267-3700 Fax: (212)-513-7320 and (212) 587-0031 E-mail: mjbern@napolibern.com PNapoli@napolibern.com Web site: http://www.877wtchero.com/updates.jsp - and - Rita F. Aronov, Esq. Shestack & Young, LLP 233 Broadway, 50th Floor New York, NY 10279 Phone: (212) 766-1200 Fax: (212) 349-4911 E-mail: raronov@yahoo.com Representing the defendants are: Kenneth A. Becker, Esq. Corporation Counsel of the City of New York Assistant Corporation Counsel 100 Church Street--Rm. 4-214 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 788-051 - and - Judith Pearl Falk, Esq. Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer, LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 412-9554 Fax: (212) 964-9200 E-mail: jfalk@fzw.com OCCAM NETWORKS: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Occam Networks, Inc. faces a consolidated securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, according to its Oct. 16, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. On April 26, 2007 and May 16, 2007, two putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the company and certain of its officers. The complaints allege that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to the Company's financial statements and internal controls with respect revenue recognition. The complaints seek, on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock during the period from May 2, 2006 and April 17, 2007, damages of an unspecified amount. On July 30, 2007, Judge Christina A. Snyder consolidated these actions into a single action, appointed NECA-IBEW Pension Fund (The Decatur Plan) as lead plaintiff, and approved its selection of lead counsel. The lead plaintiff must file a consolidated complaint no later than Nov. 16, 2007. The suit is “Lauri S. Batwin, et al. v. Occam Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-02750,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Christina A. Snyder. Representing the plaintiffs are: Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY, 10022 Phone: 212.687.1980 Fax: 212.687.7714 E-mail: info@kaplanfox.com POSSIS MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Still Appealing Minn. Suit's Nixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action against Possis Medical, Inc., and two of its executive officers continue to appeal the dismissal of the matter. The company was served with a shareholder lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 3, 2005, alleging that Possis Medical, Inc. and named individual officers violated federal securities laws. The suit seeks class-action status and unspecified damages. It was dismissed with prejudice by order of the Court on Feb. 1, 2007. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal from the Court's order and the appeal is still pending. The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 15, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2007. The suit is "In re Possis Medical, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 0:05-cv-01084-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge James M. Rosenbaum with referral to Judge Franklin L. Noel. Representing the plaintiffs are: Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq. Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield 332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250 St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: 651-287-2100 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Schatz & Nobel, PC 20 Church St., Ste. 1700 Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: 860-241-6116 E-mail: nkulesa@snlaw.net - and - Andrei V. Rado, Esq. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone: 212-946-4474 E-mail: arado@milbergweiss.com Representing the defendants are: Michelle S. Grant, Esq. Bryan C. Keane, Esq. James K. Langdon, Esq. Roger J. Magnuson, Esq. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498 Phone: 612-340-5671 and 612-340-2600 Fax: 612-340-2807 and 612-340-8800 E-mail: grant.michelle@dorsey.com keane.bryan@dorsey.com langdon.jim@dorsey.com magnuson.roger@dorsey.com PROCYCLE GROUP: Recalls Bicycles with Head Tube that can Detach --------------------------------------------------------------- Procycle Group Inc., of Quebec, Canada is recalling about 45 Rocky Mountain- Solo Bicycles. The company said the head tube can detach from the rest of the frame, posing a fall hazard to consumers. Procycle Group Inc. has received two reports of head tubes detaching from the frames, resulting in shoulder and facial injuries. This recall involves the Rocky Mountain Bicycles brand of Solo bicycles. The models included in this recall are: 2006 SOLO CR50, 2006 SOLO CR70, and 2007 SOLO CR LTD. The bicycles have a full carbon Columbus frame. ?Rocky Mountain? and ?Solo? are printed on the head tube. The recalled Rocky Mountain-Solo Bicycles were manufactured in Taiwan and are being sold by independent bicycle dealers nationwide from August 2006 through July 2007 for between $2,000 and $5,850. Pictures of recalled Rocky Mountain-Solo Bicycles: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08506.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the bicycle immediately and return the frame to the bicycle store where purchased to receive a free replacement frame, a full refund, or credit. For additional information, please contact Procycle Group Inc. at (800) 663- 2512 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.bikes.com SOUTH & ASSOC: Faces Suit in Mo. Over Alleged Fraud, Overcharges ---------------------------------------------------------------- South & Associates is facing a class-action complaint filed Oct. 16 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri alleging it systematically overstates attorney’s fees and borrowers’ debts, Joe Harris of the Courthouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Randal Howland says South violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending letters to borrowers containing the amount owed on their mortgage when it has no records to support such charges, the suit states. Mr. Howland says South also overcharges for other services, such as certified mail, at prices well above those he incurs. Plaintiff seeks individual and class action relief for Debt Collectors' violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et. seq. This action is brought by Mr. Howland to recover for the class for violations of the FDCPA. He contends that South violates the FDCPA by failing to state the amount of the debt as required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(1), by giving a false impression of the character, amount and legal status of the debt in violation 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(2)(A), by engaging in unfair and unconscionable collection methods in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f, and by using false and deceptive collection methods in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10). Mr. Howland proposed to represent a plaintiffs' class consisting of all persons within the State of Missouri who, during the year prior to the filing of this lawsuit, were sent a letter by South in a form materially identical or substantially similar to the letter sent to Mr. Howland, for attempting to collect a debt and soliciting borrowers to pay off or reinstate the underlying mortgage and demanding fees and costs that it had not yet earned or expended by South and which was not returned by the postal service as undelivered. He wants the court to rule on: (a) whether South sent a letter attempting to collect a debt and soliciting borrowers to pay off or reinstate the underlying mortgage and demanding fees and costs that it had not yet earned or expended; (b) whether South acted as a debt collector when it solicited members of the plaintiff class to pay off or reinstate the underlying mortgages; (c) whether the practice of South lumping unaccrued with accrued fees and costs constitutes a "false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of a debt" in violation of the FDCPA; (d) whether this action is maintainable as a plaintiffs' class action; (e) whether the members of the plaintiffs' class are entitled to relief available under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k; and (f) whether South entitled to defenses provide under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(c). Plaintiff prays that the court grant the following relief: -- enter an order certifying this action as a plaintiffs' class action, and appointing the plaintiff as the representative of the plaintiff's class; -- enter an order appointing Green Jacobson & Butsch, P.C. as counsel for the plaintiffs' class; -- enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and the members of the plaintiffs' class and against defendant award actual and statutory damages to each member of the plaintiffs' class and attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs as provided under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(3); -- enter judgment awarding class counsel reasonable attorneys' fees and all expenses of this action to be paid by defendant and to require defendant to pay the costs and expenses of class notice and claim administration; and -- award plaintiffs prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, and any further and additional relief as to which they may be entitled. Representing plaintiffs are: Jonathan F. Andres David T. Butsch Matthew R. Fields 7733 Forsyth Blvd., Ste. 700 Clayton, MO 63105-2015 Phone: 314.862.6800 Fax: 314.862.1606 E-mail: andres@stlouislaw.com or butsch@stlouislaw.com or fields@stlouislaw.com SOUTHLAND TITLE: Cal. Suit Alleges Illegal “Email, Notary Fees” --------------------------------------------------------------- Southland Title Corp. and LandAmerica Financial Group are facing a class- action complaint filed Oct. 16 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging both companies charge illegal “email fees” of $200 and “notary fees” of up to $700 in nationwide violations of real estate law. This is a class action by consumers seeking relief from the predatory practices of a title company and title insurer which violate the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) of 1974, as amended, 12 U.S.C. Section 2601, et seq. and the California Business & Professional Code Section 17200, et seq. The "email fees" and "notary fees" are nothing more than a means for defendants to generate unearned fees from consumers at the time of the real estate settlement and closing. Southland's excessive and bogus fees and charges have thus injured all members of the proposed plaintiff classes in precisely the same way: by increasing its own profits and denying consumers critical information about the costs passed along to them, in a way calculated - to quote Congress' words from 1974 - "to increase unnecessarily the costs" of settlement services. By hyper-inflating the charges imposed consumers, and requiring consumers to pay junk "email fees" and "notary fees," Southland has engaged in unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices, in violation of California's Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq. (Unfair Competition Law). Plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants charged an "email fee;" (b) how defendants calculated the amount it charges for the "email fee," including what services defendants or any third party purportedly provided in connection with said fee; (c) whether defendants or any third party actually performed the services that were purportedly connected to the "email fee;" (d) whether defendants charged a "notary fee;" (e) how defendants calculated the amount it charges for the "notary fee," including what services defendants or any third party purportedly provided in connection with said fee; (f) whether the various state laws limit the charge for "notary fees;" (g) whether the services and costs purportedly connected to the "email fee" were duplicative of other services and costs; (h) whether the services and costs purportedly connected to the "notary fee" were duplicative of other services and costs; (i) whether the costs connected to the "email fee" were nominal; (j) whether the costs connected to the "notary fee" were nominal; (k) whether defendants violated RESPA; (l) whether defendants violated California Business and Professions Code Section 17203; and (m) whether plaintiffs and the other class members have been damaged as a result. Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows: -- for an order finding and declaring this action to be a proper class action and certifying plaintiffs as representatives of the class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- for injunctive relief ordering defendants to cease and desist from charging its consumers any real estate settlement and closing fee where no, nominal, or duplicative work is done in connection with said fee; -- for an order of restitution in an amount to be determined at trial to restore to all affected class members all money acquired by defendants or its successors in interest by means of its unlawful practices described and all interest and profit earned thereon; -- for actual damages; -- for treble damages under RESPA, 12 USC Section 2601, et seq.; -- for compensatory damages; -- for reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, and other expenses incurred in prosecuting this action, pursuant to 12 USC Section 2607(d)(5); -- for pre-judgment interest; and -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Peter Fernandes et al. v. Southland Title Corp., Case No. CV07- 06690DSF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Jonathan Weiss Law Office of Jonathan Weiss 10576 Troon Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90064-4436 Phone: (310) 558-0404 Fax: (310) 558-0100 E-mail: jw@lojw.com Richard S. Gordon Cory L. Zajdel Quinn, Gordon, & Wolf, CHTD 102 West Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 402 Towson, MD 21204 Phone: (410) 825-2300 Fax: (410) 825-0066 E-mail: rgordon@quinnlaw.com or czdjel@quinnlaw.com - and - Philip S. Friedman Law Office of Philip S. Friedman, PLLC 2401 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Suite 410 Washington DC 20037 Phone: (202) 293-4175 Fax: (202) 318-0395 E-mail: psf@consumerlawhelp.com TACO BELL: Faces Calif. Suit Alleging Violations of Labor Laws -------------------------------------------------------------- Taco Bell Corp., Yum! Brands, Inc. and other related entities face a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District California that was filed on behalf of all hourly employees who have worked for the defendants within the last four years. The suit, “Sandrika Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp.,” was filed on Sept. 10, 2007. It alleges numerous violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime, failure to pay wages on termination, denial of meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200. The suit is “Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01314-OWW- DLB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California under Judge Oliver W. Wanger with referral to Judge Dennis L. Beck. Representing the plaintiff is: Joseph Cho, Esq. Initiative Legal Group LLP 1800 Century Park East, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 556-5637 Fax: (310) 861-9051 E-mail: josephcho@initiativelegal.com Representing the defendants are: Heather Mactavish Freelin, Esq. Irell and Manella 840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949-760-0991 Fax: 949-760-5200 E-mail: hfreelin@irell.com TACO BELL: Nov. 2008 Hearing Set in Cal. ADA Violations Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ A Nov. 10, 2008 trial is slated for the matter, “Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp.,” which remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On Dec. 17, 2002, Taco Bell Corp. was named as the defendant in a class action, "Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On Aug. 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that alleges, among other things, that the company discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 220 company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class. Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility-related disabilities –- including parking spaces, ramps, counters, restroom facilities and seating -- do not comply with the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act. Plaintiffs have requested: -- an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing regulations; -- that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and -- monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA. Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of the class. They contend that there may be in excess of 100,000 individuals in the class. For themselves, the four named plaintiffs have claimed aggregate minimum statutory damages of no less than $16,000, but are expected to claim greater amounts based on the number of company outlets they visited at which they claim to have suffered discrimination. On Feb. 23, 2004, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The district court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) mandatory injunctive relief class of all individuals with disabilities who use wheelchairs or electric scooters for mobility who, at any time on or after Dec. 17, 2001, were denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis of disability, the full and equal enjoyment of the California Restaurants. The class includes claims for injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages. Pursuant to the parties' agreement, on or about Aug. 31, 2004, the district court ordered that the trial of this action be bifurcated so that stage one will resolve plaintiffs' claims for equitable relief and stage two will resolve plaintiffs' claims for damages. Parties are currently proceeding with the equitable relief stage of this action. During this stage, the company filed a motion to partially decertify the class to exclude from the Rule 23(b)(2) class claims for monetary damages. The district court denied the motion. Plaintiffs filed their own motion for partial summary judgment as to liability relating to a subset of the California Restaurants. The district court denied that motion as well. On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force. On Aug. 8, 2007, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion in part with regard to dining room seating. In addition, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion in part with regard to door opening force at some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard to queue lines. At a status conference on Sept. 27, 2007, the court set a trial date of Nov. 10, 2008 with respect to not more than 20 restaurants to determine the issue of liability and common issues. The suit is "Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp., Case No. 3:02-cv-05849," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins. Representing the plaintiffs are: Timothy P. Fox, Esq. Fox & Robertson, P.C. 910-16th Street, Suite 610 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-595-9700 Fax: 303-595-9705 E-mail: tfox@foxrob.com - and - Brad Seligman, Esq. The Impact Fund, 125 University Ave. Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: 510-845-3473 ext. 304 Fax: 510-845-3654 E-mail: bs@impactfund.org Representing the defendant are: Gregory A. Eurich, Esq. Jimmy Goh, Esq. Holland & Hart, LLP 555 17th Street, Suite 3200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-295-8000 E-mail: geurich@hollandhart.com jgoh@hollandhart.com - and - Gregory F. Hurley, Esq. Greenberg Traurig, LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1700 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714-708-6564 Fax: 714 708-6501 E-mail: sautters@gtlaw.com TACO BELL: To Seek Dismissal of FACTA Violations Suit in Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------- Taco Bell Corp., a division of YUM! Brands, Inc., will seek for the dismissal of a purported class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations under the new federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act. The suit, “Doran Phillips v. Taco Bell Corp., et al.,” was filed on July 5, 2007. It was delivered to Taco Bell’s agent for service of process in Illinois. It is a proposed class action and alleges that Taco Bell failed to protect the private information of its customers under FACTA. The complaint alleges a violation of FACTA based on a transaction involving a licensed restaurant. Since the complaint alleges a violation of FACTA based on a transaction involving a licensed restaurant, the Company intends to seek dismissal from the action, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Oct. 16, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 15, 2007. The suit is “Phillips v. Taco Bell Corp. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-03620,” filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois under Judge Mark Filip. Representing the plaintiffs is: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Zimmerman and Associates 100 West Monroe, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 440-0020 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com T-MOBILE: Cal. High Court Allows “Termination Fees” Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- The California Supreme Court blocked T-Mobile's bid to have a lawsuit that challenged the company's early termination fees and "locking" practice dismissed, reports say. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Ronald Sabraw had ruled at the trial- court level that the case could go ahead, and a San Francisco-based appellate court affirmed that decision in June. T-Mobile appealed, arguing that its terms of service agreement required customers to go through arbitration with a neutral mediator before going to court. The plaintiffs countered that their cases were not arbitrable under the Unfair Competition Law and the state's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. T-Mobile lost the motion to compel arbitration because the trial court felt that the request for injunctive relief was for the benefit of the public, and also that the clause to arbitrate the unlocking claim was unconscionable. T-Mobile appealed to the California Supreme Court. Last week, the state Supreme Court agreed that the case should be heard. Without comment, the high court's seven justices declined to review the lower-court decisions. The case could ultimately revamp the relationship between mobile-phone carriers and their customers. The plaintiffs in the suit are T-Mobile customers Bruce Gatton and Christina Nguyen. They are seeking an injunction that would prevent T-Mobile from collecting an early termination fee of about $200 from subscribers. Additionally, they are seeking an order that would require T-Mobile to allow its subscribers to unlock their cell phones if they choose to take them to another carrier. The case is “Gatton v. T-Mobile, S154947.” TWENTIETH CENTURY: Settles Suit Over Santa Barbara Music for $1M ---------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement worth $1,164,000 was reached in the purported class action, “Nathan East, et al., v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., et al., Case No. CV 04-4920 GAF (Shx),” which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit was brought on behalf of composers and others in connection with music allegedly used without permission in the television program Santa Barbara, according to a report by http://www.filmmusicmag.com. Plaintiffs Nathan East, Stanley M. Clarke, and The Music Force LLC commenced legal action on July 6, 2004, alleging they are owners of musical compositions or sound recordings that were used without authorization in the television series Santa Barbara and thereafter reproduced and distributed in episodes internationally. Named as defendants in the matter are: -- Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, -- Twentieth Century Fox Film International Television, Inc., -- New World Television Productions, Inc., and -- New World Entertainment, Ltd. Plaintiffs asserted claims for copyright infringement for themselves individually and on behalf of classes of owners of thousands of musical compositions and sound recordings, or portions thereof, that were embodied in Santa Barbara. The suit is “Nathan East, et al., v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, et al., Case No. CV 04-4920 GAF (Shx),” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Gary A. Feess. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeffrey L. Graubart, Esq. Law Offices of Jeffrey L. Graubart 350 West Colorado Boulevard, Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91105-1855 Phone: (626) 304-2800 Fax: (626) 304-2807 - and - Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. Blecher & Collins, P.C. 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 622-4222 Fax: (232) 689-1944 Web site: http://www.blechercollins.com Representing the defendant is: Xanath Owens Kirkland & Ellis LLP 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017-5800 Phone: (213) 680-8537 Fax: (213) 680-8500 E-mail: xowens@kirkland.com Web site: http://www.kirkland.com WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Wheat Rolls Containing Undeclared Milk ------------------------------------------------------------ Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is initiating a voluntary recall of 18 oz. Wegmans Food You Feel Good About Country Wheat Rolls with best-if-used-by date of October 10. This product is being recalled because the package may actually contain potato rolls, which contain a milk allergen not declared on the label. The bread was produced on Monday, October 1, and would have been available in Wegmans stores between Tuesday, October 2 and Wednesday, October 3. Product with the affected code date is no longer on store shelves. No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall of this product is of concern only to those individuals who have allergies to milk. Consumption may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction in persons with allergies to milk. Concerned customers should return the product to Wegmans for a full refund. Customers who have consumed the product and feel they are experiencing symptoms should contact their physician. 18 oz Wegmans Food You Feel Good About Country Wheat Rolls are sold exclusively at Wegmans Food Markets located in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, and Maryland. Wegmans’ customers who have questions or concerns about this recall should contact the consumer affairs department at 1-800-WEGMANS, ext. 4760. Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dewalt’s Appeal to Remand Order Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of North Carolina dismissed Alfred Thomas Daywalt’s appeal of the North Carolina Industrial Commission’s Sept. 19, 2006 ruling, which remanded his asbestos case to a deputy commissioner for a full evidentiary hearing. The Appeals Court dismissed this appeal as interlocutory. Judges Calbria, Martin, and Jackson entered judgment of Case No. COA06-1598 on Oct. 2, 2007. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeals on Sept. 17, 2007. In July 2001, Mr. Daywalt filed a workers' compensation claim against his employer Norandal USA Inc., seeking benefits for the occupational disease of asbestosis and pleural. Norandal and CIGNA/ACE USA ESIS (CIGNA) (collectively "defendants") denied liability. On March 1, 2004 and March 2, 2004, Deputy Commissioner George T. Glenn II, held a hearing on Mr. Daywalt’s claim. Later that month, Mr. Daywalt filed a "Motion for Post-Hearing Submission of Evidence and Motion for Sanctions" on the ground that defendants failed to disclose relevant information provided by defendants' consulting company, S & ME. Deputy Commissioner Glenn heard the motions on April 21, 2004. On June 21, 2004, Deputy Commissioner Glenn ordered S & ME's report to become part of the record and struck defendants' defenses to the compensability of Mr. Daywalt’s claim. On March 8, 2005, Deputy Commissioner Glenn entered an Opinion and Award in favor of Mr. Daywalt. Defendants appealed this decision to the Full Commission. The Full Commission heard defendants' appeal in February 2006. On Sept. 19, 2006, the Full Commission entered an "Interlocutory Order" finding that "the Deputy Commissioner improvidently allowed the submission of the S & ME report, which was not discoverable per N.C. Gen.Stat. s 1A-1, Rule 26" and "improvidently sanctioned the defendants for their withholding of non-discoverable material, and prejudiced the defendants by striking their defenses as to the plaintiff's exposure to asbestos." The Full Commission vacated the deputy commissioner's order and remanded the matter. Mr. Daywalt appealed. The Appeals Court dismissed Mr. Daywalt’s appeal. Wallace and Graham, P.A., by Edward L. Pauley, represented Alfred Thomas Daywalt. Hedrick, Eatman, Gardner & Kincheloe, L.L.P., by Harmony Whalen Taylor, represented Norandal USA and CIGNA/ACE USA/ESIS. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSK Auto Corp. Has Product Liability Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- CSK Auto Corp. is involved in litigation incidental to the conduct of its business, including but not limited to asbestos and similar product liability claims, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 12, 2007. The Company, currently and from time to time, also faces slip and fall and other general liability claims, discrimination and employment claims, vendor disputes, and miscellaneous environmental and real estate claims. The damages claimed in some of this litigation are substantial. Phoenix-based CSK Auto Corp., through it unit CSK Auto Inc., is a specialty retailer of automotive aftermarket parts and accessories. At Aug. 5, 2007, the Company operated 1,334 stores in 22 states, with its principal concentration of stores in the Western U.S. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $8.56M Liabilities at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Congoleum Corp.’s current asbestos-related liabilities totaled US$8,560,000 at June 30, 2007, compared with US$13,950,000 at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 11, 2007. The Company’s current asbestos-related liabilities, as of March 31, 2007, amounted to US$10,372,000. (Class Action Reporter, May 25, 2007) The Company’s asbestos reserves, at June 30, 2007, amounted to US$2,255,000, compared with US$7,800,000 at Dec. 31, 2006. Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corp. makes flooring products for residential and commercial use. Its products include resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it-yourself vinyl tile, and commercial flooring. The Company markets its products through a network of about a dozen distributors in more than 70 North American locations, as well as directly to large market retailers. American Biltrite Inc. owns about 66 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rulings on Congoleum Claims Issued in July ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Bankruptcy Court, on July 27, 2007, issued two decisions on the legal status of Congoleum Corp.’s settled asbestos-related claims, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 11, 2007. In 2003, the Company was one of many defendants in about 22,000 pending lawsuits (including workers' compensation cases) involving about 106,000 individuals, alleging personal injury or death from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. Claims involving about 80,000 were settled under the Claimant Agreement and litigation related to unsettled or new claims is presently stayed by the Bankruptcy Code. In December 2005, the Company commenced Avoidance Actions seeking to void the security interest granted to the Collateral Trust and such settlements. In March 2006, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment in the Avoidance Actions seeking to avoid the Claimant Agreement settlements and liens under various bankruptcy theories, which motion was denied in June 2006. In April 2007, the Company filed a new motion for summary judgment in the Avoidance Actions, seeking to avoid the security interests in insurance allegedly securing the Claimant Agreement settlements. On June 7, 2007, the Company filed the Omnibus Objection in the Bankruptcy Court requesting that the Settled Claims be disallowed and expunged. The Bankruptcy Court heard arguments on the Omnibus Objection on July 9, 2007. One decision held that the relief requested in the Omnibus Objection should be heard in the context of an adversary proceeding (a formal lawsuit) in order to insure that the Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction over all the affected claimants and that their due process rights are otherwise protected. In its other decision, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that the security interests in insurance collateral that were conveyed to the settled claimants pre-bankruptcy were ineffective and unenforceable against the Company’s insurance policies or the proceeds of those policies because the attempts to create security interests were outside the scope of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code; nor could such security interest be considered to be a common law pledge. The Bankruptcy Court therefore granted summary judgment in the Company’s favor on Counts V and VI of the Avoidance Actions, which counts sought to void the security interests and liens securing the pre-petition settlements of asbestos claims. Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corp. makes flooring products for residential and commercial use. Its products include resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it-yourself vinyl tile, and commercial flooring. The Company markets its products through a network of about a dozen distributors in more than 70 North American locations, as well as directly to large market retailers. American Biltrite Inc. owns about 66 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Coverage Case Decided Last May 18 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The New Jersey State Court, on May 18, 2007, ruled that the defendant insurers have no coverage obligations for the Claimant Agreement under New Jersey law, in an asbestos-related coverage action involving Congoleum Corp., according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 11, 2007. During the period that the Company produced asbestos-containing products, until claims for asbestos were excluded under insurance policies, the Company purchased primary and excess insurance policies providing in excess of US$1 billion of coverage for general and product liability claims. Through August 2002, substantially all asbestos-related claims and defense costs were paid through primary insurance coverage. In August 2002, the Company received notice that its primary insurance limits had been paid in full. The first phase of the trial began in August 2005. Phase 1 was limited to deciding whether the insurers are obligated to provide coverage under the policies at issue in this litigation for the asbestos claims settled under the terms of the global Claimant Agreement. Three months into the trial, in October 2005, a federal appeals court ruled that the law firm of Gilbert Heintz & Randolph, which had been acting as the Company's insurance co-counsel in the Coverage Action, had other representations which were in conflict with its representation of the Company. As a result of this ruling, with Bankruptcy Court approval, Congoleum retained the firm of Covington & Burling to represent it as co-counsel with Dughi & Hewit in the insurance coverage litigation and insurance settlement matters previously handled by GHR. In the middle of the Company presenting its case, in or about November 2005, and in December 2005, certain insurers filed motions for summary judgment on the grounds that the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit reversing the Bankruptcy Court's order approving the retention of GHR in In re Congoleum, 426 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 2005), and/or Congoleum's filing of the Avoidance Actions in the Bankruptcy Court, entitled them to judgment as a matter of law on the Phase 1 issues. Congoleum opposed the motions. The motions were argued in January 2006, and in March 2006 the State Court denied the motions for summary judgment. Congoleum completed the presentation of its case in April 2006. Certain insurers moved for a directed verdict in their favor during the first week of May 2006. Hearings of arguments on the directed verdict motion took place in June 2006. In July 2006 the State Court denied the motion for a directed verdict. The trial resumed in September 2006. Defendant insurers presented their case, for the most part, through documents and deposition designations. Post trial briefs were submitted by the parties in November 2006. The second phase of the trial will address all coverage issues, including but not limited to whether certain other trial listed settlements were fair, reasonable and negotiated in good faith and covered by insurance as well as trigger and allocation of asbestos losses to insurance policies. Any additional discovery, and scheduling of pre-trial motions and trial dates for Phase 2 will be addressed by the State Court at an appropriate time. The third and final phase of the trial will address bad faith punitive damages, if appropriate. Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corp. makes flooring products for residential and commercial use. Its products include resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it-yourself vinyl tile, and commercial flooring. The Company markets its products through a network of about a dozen distributors in more than 70 North American locations, as well as directly to large market retailers. American Biltrite Inc. owns about 66 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Records $10.54M Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Biltrite Inc.’s long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$10,540,000 as of June 30, 2007, compared with US$10,300,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 11, 2007. The Company’s insurance for asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$9,320,000 as of the periods ended June 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006. Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc. produces Congoleum-brand vinyl tile flooring and sheet-vinyl floors, and it distributes fashion jewelry through its K&M Associates supplier. The Company also makes industrial products like adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes used to protect materials during handling and for varied applications. The Company owns 66 percent of Congoleum Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,415 Claims at June ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Biltrite Inc. is a co-defendant in about 1,415 pending asbestos claims involving about 2,001 individuals as of June 30, 2007, compared with 1,332 claims as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 11, 2007. The Company, as of March 31, 2007, faced about 1,381 pending asbestos- related claims involving about 1,967 individuals. (Class Action Reporter, May 25, 2007) The claimants allege personal injury or death from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. For the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company recorded 281 new claims, 8 settlements, and 190 dismissals. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 625 new claims, 30 settlements, and 966 dismissals. The Company has primary and multiple excess layers of insurance coverage for asbestos claims. The total indemnity costs incurred to settle claims during the six months ended June 30, 2007 were US$500,000 (US$3.1 million during the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2006), all of which were paid by the Company’s insurance carriers under a February 1996 coverage-in-place agreement with the Company’s applicable primary layer insurance carriers, as were the related defense costs. The Company will seek reimbursement for asbestos claims under its excess layer coverage upon exhaustion of its primary insurance coverage. The amount of indemnity coverage limits remaining at June 30, 2007 under the Company’s primary insurance coverage relating to policies underwritten from 1961 to 1985 (Primary Layer) was about US$1.9 million to US$3 million, depending on the interpretation of the terms of the above-referenced coverage-in-place agreement. The Company is negotiating with the three insurance carriers currently providing coverage under the Primary Layer (the "Carrier Group") to determine the amount of coverage remaining under that coverage-in-place agreement. In 2006, the Company utilized an actuarial study to assist it in developing estimates of the Company's potential liability for resolving present and possible future asbestos claims. At Dec. 31, 2006, the estimated range of liability for settlement of current claims pending and claims anticipated to be filed through 2012 was US$10.3 million to US$35.3 million. At June 30, 2007, the Company has recorded US$10.5 million for the estimated minimum liability. The Company also believes that, based on this minimum liability estimate, the corresponding amount of insurance probable of recovery is US$9.3 million at June 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, which has been included in other assets. Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc. produces Congoleum-brand vinyl tile flooring and sheet-vinyl floors, and it distributes fashion jewelry through its K&M Associates supplier. The Company also makes industrial products like adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes used to protect materials during handling and for varied applications. The Company owns 66 percent of Congoleum Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Senior Citizen Sues 48 Firms in Tex. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Senior Citizen Buster Flanigan, on Oct. 9, 2007, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against A.O. Smith Corp. and 47 other corporations in Jefferson County District Court in Texas, the Southeast Texas Record reports. Although Mr. Flanigan had a 100-plus pack-year smoking history, Trinity Clinic physician Dr. Richard Kronenberg says Mr. Flanigan's lung cancer was caused by asbestos exposure. Trinity Clinic was paid by Provost Umphrey attorney Bryan Blevins to review Mr. Flanigan's medical history. Mr. Flanigan has already sued and received a settlement for his asbestos- related disease, but is now suing for a "different malignant asbestos- related injury." Mr. Flanigan's lawsuit claims the defendants knowingly and maliciously manufactured and distributed asbestos-containing products throughout Jefferson County. Mr. Flanigan’s original petition says the 48 defendants entangled in his lawsuit were negligent for failing to adequately test their asbestos-laced products before flooding the market with dangerous goods and warn the consumer of the dangers of asbestos exposure. After reviewing Mr. Flanigan's medical history, Dr. Kronenberg wrote, "The records indicate Mr. Flanigan had a significant occupational exposure to asbestos. Specifically, he worked as a longshoreman in cargo holds at refineries and chemical plants from 1960 to 1962. From 1964 to 1967, he was on active duty with the U. S. Navy. From 1969 to 1974, he worked aboard tugboats and was exposed extensively to asbestos insulation.” Some of the defendants listed in the suit include aerospace giant Lockheed Martin Corp., Viacom Inc., and iron supplier Zurn Industries Inc. In addition, the petition faults Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Corp. (3M Corp.) and American Optical Corp. for producing defective masks that failed to "provide respiratory protection." Although Mr. Flanigan has already sued and received a claim, the suit says, "Plaintiff now seeks damages against defendants not released in the previous actions pursuant to Pustejovsky v. Rapid-American Corp." Mr. Flanigan is suing for exemplary damages, plus physical pain and suffering in the past and future, mental anguish in the past and future, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, disfigurement in the past and future, physical impairment in the past and future, and past and future medical expenses. Judge Bob Wortham, 58th District Court, has been assigned to the Case No. A180-492. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Laborer’s Daughter Sues 42 Firms in W.Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Iona J. Cole, of Wood County, W.Va., filed an asbestos-related lawsuit on her behalf of her father, William G. Cole, against 42 companies in Kanawha Circuit Court on Sept. 28, 2007, The West Virginia Record reports. According to the suit, Mr. Cole died of mesothelioma on July 12, 2007. He worked 37 years at Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., Alcan Rolled Products, Pechiney, and Century Aluminum Co. at the Ravenswood, W.Va. facility. He was a furnace operator and laborer. As part of his job, Mr. Cole was exposed to various asbestos-containing materials. Due to the asbestos fibers and dust, he developed mesothelioma. According to the suit, after Mr. Cole contracted mesothelioma he suffered from associated pulmonary pathologies, which caused severe and disabling effects upon his body. He also suffered shock and nervous and emotional disorders. Ms. Cole claims her father incurred medical expenses for treatment, medication and great pain, embarrassment and inconvenience. After her father's death, Ms. Cole claims she incurred a funeral bill of US$5,000. In the 11-count suit, she seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of her father. Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-2089 will be assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in 2 EU Parliament Buildings ---------------------------------------------------------------- High levels of asbestos have been detected in two European Union Parliament buildings, the legislature said on Oct. 12, 2007, International Herald Tribune reports. The mineral has been found in larger quantities "in a limited number of technical facility rooms" in two parliament buildings at the legislature's seat in Strasbourg, France, which the assembly recently bought for EUR143 million (US$203 million) instead of continuing to rent them. A study presented to the European Parliament before it purchased the buildings showed there was asbestos in some rooms. However, it was later found out the levels were higher than originally estimated, the assembly said. It said the previous owner was responsible for removing it, but did not specify the cost. The European Commission headquarters in Brussels was closed for 13 years after dangerous levels of asbestos were found there in 1991. Asbestos was banned in 1999, and EU member states had until 2005 to remove from the market all white asbestos, otherwise known as chrysotile, which is still in use in pipes and roofing, brake and clutch linings for heavy vehicles and various specialist uses. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Pensioner’s Death to Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Preston Coroner’s Court inquest heard that the death of 85-year-old pensioner Edward Robinson was related to asbestos, Lancashire Evening Post reports. The Coroner’s Court heard that Mr. Robinson was a Heavy Goods Vehicle driver most of his working life and often transported asbestos. Mr. Robinson, of Bamber Bridge, U.K., suffered chest problems and diabetes and was taken to Chorley Hospital on May 19, 2007, where he was diagnosed with a chest infection. He died on June 12, 2007. Pathologist Dr. Caroline Nicholson told the hearing Mr. Robinson's work with asbestos may have caused fibrosis in his lungs. Mr. Robinson's wife Jean said her husband often worked with asbestos before their marriage in 1948, and also delivered cement. Coroner Nicola Mundy recorded a narrative verdict, saying, “Edward Robinson died following exposure to asbestos during his employment. He developed pneumonia and suffered a fall in hospital. This, together with diabetes, contributed to his death.” ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bribery Ruling Upheld in D.C. Appeals Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, upheld the U.S.