C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 16, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 228 Headlines AMERICAN EQUITY: Faces Suits Alleging Improper Sales Practices BALLY TECHNOLOGIES: Nev. Court OKs Securities Suit Settlement BASIC RESEARCH: Sued in Calif. Over “Akavar” Diet Supplement BASSETTBABY: Recalls Cribs with Bolts that can Come Loose BEAR STEARNS: Objects to Navigator Capital's Remand Request BIG 5: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Store Managers' Litigation BRUSH WELLMAN: Suit Over Beryllium Hazard Allowed to Proceed CAREMARK INC: Granted Summary Judgment in “Morrell” ERISA Suit COAST FINANCIAL: Response to Amended Securities Suit Due Dec. 3 COBY ELECTRONICS: Recalls DVD/CD/MP3 Players that can Overheat COMCAST INC: Accused of Blocking Customers' Internet Services COMMUNITY HEALTH: Class Yet to be Determined in Uninsured's Suit COMMUNITY HEALTH: Nixing of Ill. “Rix” Uninsured Suit Appealed COMMUNITY HEALTH: “Chronister” Uninsured's Suit in Discovery COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Cal. Suit Claims “Bait and Switch” Scheme COVAD COMMS: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Blackberry Merger COVAD COMMS: Settles Breach of Fiduciary Suit by Former Counsel DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Cavitron Suit Under Appeal DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron DENTSPLY INT'L: Continues to Face Multiple Trubyte-Related Suits DIGIMARC CORP: Ruling on Securities Suit Appeal Expected in 2008 GAP INC: Faces Suit Over Theft of Job Applicants' Personal Info MULTIPLEX GROUP: ASIC Told to Hand over Investigation Documents NEBRASKA: Black Workers Pay More for Health Insurance, Suit Says SAN DIEGO GAS: Accused of Negligence in Witch Creek Wildfire SOLUTIA INC: “Reiff” ERISA Suit Defendants Seek Case Dismissal TIGER BRANDS: Could Face South African Lawsuit Over Price-Fixing WAL-MART STORES: “Hummel” Plaintiffs Win Additional Award Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: No Removal Expense for Cleco Unit at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Has 1,993 Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Records $637M Liabilities ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Cos. Faces 102,663 Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Has N.J. Coverage Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Has $30.8M Charge at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Has $1.34B for Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sunoco Inc. Faces More Exposure Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Litigation Ongoing v. SCC Affiliates ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp.'s Liability Remains at $18.7M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Has 177 Pending Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Suit v. 2 Reynolds Units Still Stayed ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PepsiAmericas Awaits Ruling in Cooper Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 180 Lawsuits Still Pending v. Pepco in Md. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minerals Tech. Faces 26 Suits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Cleared in Miss. Cases, 5 Ill. Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Six Suits in Miss. Ongoing v. GlobalSantaFe ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GlobalSantaFe Unit Pursues Insurance Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GATX Units Record 1,303 Suits at Oct. 29 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flowserve Still Has Pending Exposure Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Faces 25,000 Claims in Six States ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Has Unresolved Exposure Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs Ruling in Garcia Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro’s Expenses Total $11.5Mil at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Still Has 106,500 Open Cases at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro’s Settlement Commitments Total $64M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Has $393M Reserve for Future Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Liability Totals $516.7M at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Losses & ALAE Total $320.7M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kelly-Moore Coverage Action Ongoing v. Crum ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Pending v. ConEd, Units ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Incurs $19Mil Costs for N.Y. Incident ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tube City IMS Has Claims from Old Ventures ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Cites $2.6M Removal Costs ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int’l. Units Still Face Miss. Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Product Lawsuits v. Mine Safety Rise to 260 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety in Dispute w/ Century Indemnity ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Manitowoc Continues to Face Asbestos Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Records $7M for Settlement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Pending v. Houston Wire ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Settlement Looming After ASARCO Mediation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. Mt. McKinley, Everest Proceeds ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Reverses Ruling v. Ford, Merck ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jambon Action v. Northrop Grumman Remanded ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Able UK Holdings to Pay GBP22T for Breaches ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liverpool Pays Over GBP250,000 in 18 Months ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Aftermath of London Fire ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wyo. Farmer Sues 98 Companies in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Urged to Reconsider Dana Settlement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Covers Asbestos at Ill. Dairy Farm Site ASBESTOS LITIGATION: More Asbestos Suits Filed v. Cayuga County ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawyer Files Class Action Lawsuit v. County New Securities Fraud Cases BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit FUWEI FILMS: Weiss & Lurie Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. WSB FINANCIAL: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit WYETH INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. ********* AMERICAN EQUITY: Faces Suits Alleging Improper Sales Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- American Equity Investment Life Holding Co. faces several purported class actions alleging improper sales practices, according to the company's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Companies in the life insurance and annuity business have faced litigation, including class actions, alleging improper product design, improper sales practices and similar claims. The company is currently a defendant in several purported class actions alleging improper sales practices. In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs are seeking returns of premiums and other compensatory and punitive damages. Des Moines, Iowa-based American Equity Investment Life Holding Co. -- http://www.american-equity.com-- develops, markets, issues and administers annuities and life insurance. BALLY TECHNOLOGIES: Nev. Court OKs Securities Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada gave final approval to a settlement of a consolidated federal securities class action filed in 2004 against Bally Technologies, Inc., f/k/a Alliance Gaming Corp., and certain current and former officers. In June and July 2004, putative class actions were filed against the Company and its officers, Robert Miodunski, Robert Saxton, Mark Lerner and Steven Des Champs, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The nearly identical complaints alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, stemming from revised earnings guidance, declines in the stock price and sales of stock by insiders. The complaints sought damages in unspecified amounts. The Federal District Court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motions to consolidate the cases and to appoint a lead counsel and a lead plaintiff, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, all as is customary in such cases. The Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Thereafter, activity in the case was stopped and the parties participated in a mediation process during which the parties agreed on the terms of a settlement. The parties negotiated and executed settlement documents settling the consolidated class action. Under the settlement, an aggregate of $16.0 million in cash, plus certain interest, was paid to settle the securities class action as well as a derivative litigation. The Company accrued $1.25 million related to the settlement during the year ended June 30, 2006, which was paid in late February 2007. In addition to certain governance actions the Company agreed to undertake in connection with the settlement, the Company's directors and officers insurer contributed approximately $14.75 million to the settlement. The court approved the settlement on Aug. 9, 2007, ending the case, according to the company's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. The suit is “In Re: Alliance Gaming Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-821,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Kent J. Dawson. Representing the plaintiffs are: Beckley Singleton, Chtd. 530 Las Vegas Boulevard South Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: 702.385.3373 Fax: 702.385.9447 E-mail: info@beckleylaw.com - and - Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619.231.1058 Fax: 619.231.7423 BASIC RESEARCH: Sued in Calif. Over “Akavar” Diet Supplement ------------------------------------------------------------ Basic Research LLC and Dynakor Pharmacal are facing a class- action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division alleging it defrauded consumers by pushing "Akavar" diet supplement as a "foolproof" way to lose weight without dieting or exercise, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Defendants Dennis Gay, Mitchell K. Friedlander and Daniel B. Mowrey Ph.D are violating a permanent FTC injunction by running the scam, and fraudulently represent Mowrey as a medical doctor, which he is not, the complaint states. The company's affiliate, Western Holdings LLC, of Cheyenne, Wyo., is also a defendant. Named plaintiffs Pamela Miller, Randy Howard and Donna Patterson bring this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased, not for resale or assignment, an Akavar 20/50 Fast Acting Caloric Restricting Compound. They want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants engaged in a pattern of fraudulent, deceptive and misleading conduct toward the public through their marketing, advertising, promotion and sale of Akavar; (b) whether defendants misrepresented the efficacy of Akavar to consumers' financial detriment; (c) whether the acts and omissions of defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961, et seq.; (d) whether the acts and omissions of defendants violated Section 76-10-1603(3) and (4) of UPUAA, Utah Code Ann. Section 76-10(3) and (4); (e) whether defendants should be enjoined from the continued unlawful marketing, advertising, promotion, distribution and sale of Akavar; (f) whether defendants were unjustly enriched by their acts and omissions, at the expense of plaintiffs and the class; (g) whether defendants made material misrepresentations of fact, or omitted to state material facts to plaintiffs and the class regarding the marketing, promotion and advertising of Akavar, which material misrepresentations or omissions operated as fraud and deceit upon plaintiffs and the class; (h) whether plaintiffs and the class have sustained damages and loss as a result of defendants' actions; and (i) whether the actions of defendants were willful and malicious, or manifested knowing and reckless indifference and disregard toward the rights of plaintiffs and the class; Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows: -- an order certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certifying plaintiffs as the representatives of the class, and designating their counsel as counsel for the class; -- on the first cause of action, against defendants jointly and severally in an amount equal to treble the amount of damages suffered by plaintiffs and members of the class as proven at trial plus interest and attorneys' fees and expenses; -- on the second cause of action, against defendants jointly and severally in an amount equal to treble the amount of damages suffered by plaintiffs and members of the class as proven at trial plus interest and attorneys' fees and expenses; -- on the third cause of action, against defendants jointly and severally in an amount to two times the amount of damages suffered by plaintiffs and members of the class as proven at trial plus interest and attorneys' fees and expenses; -- on the fourth cause of action, against defendants jointly and severally in an amount equal to two times the amount of damages suffered by plaintiffs and members of the class as proven at trial plus interest and attorneys' fees and expenses; -- on the fifth cause of action, against defendants jointly and severally, in an amount equal to the actual damages suffered by plaintiffs and members of the class as proven at trial plus interest, as well as punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish defendants and deter similar future conduct; -- on the sixth cause of action, against defendants jointly and severally, in an amount equal to the actual damages suffered by plaintiffs and members of the class as proven at trial plus interest, together with all allowable penalties and damage multipliers available under the UCSPA and other state consumer protection laws, and attorneys' fees and expenses; -- on the seventh cause of action, against defendants jointly and severally, for disgorgement of defendants' unjust enrichment and/or imposition of a constructive trust upon defendants' ill-gotten monies, freezing defendants' assets, and requiring defendants to pay restitution to plaintiffs and the class and to restore all funds acquired by means of any act or practice declared by the court to be unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent or unfair, and/or violation of laws, statutes or regulations; -- on all causes of action, such other civil penalties and punitive damages to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law; -- an order requiring defendants to immediately cease their wrongful conduct as set forth, as well as enjoining defendants from continuing to falsely market and advertise, conceal material information and conduct business via the unlawful and unfair business acts and practices complained of; an order requiring defendants to engage in a corrective notice campaign; and an order requiring defendants to refund to plaintiffs and all members of the class the funds paid to defendants for their fraudulent, defective product; -- for the reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs of prosecuting this action; -- for statutory pre-judgment interest; and -- for such relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Pamela Miller et al. v. Basic Research LLC et al. Case No. 2:07-CV-00871-TS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division. Representing plaintiffs is: Jan Graham 150 South 600 East, Suite 5B Ambassador Plaza Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Phone: (801) 596-9199 Fax: (801) 596-9299 E-mail: jan@grahamlawoffices.com BASSETTBABY: Recalls Cribs with Bolts that can Come Loose --------------------------------------------------------- Bassettbaby, of Bassett, Va., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 8,900 Wendy Bellissimo Collection Convertible Cribs. The company said the bolts connecting the top corners of the crib can come loose, creating a gap and posing a serious entrapment and strangulation hazard. Bassettbaby has 85 reports of bolts loosening, including one report of a 13 month-old child's hand becoming entrapped between the railings. This recall involves Wendy Bellissimo Collection convertible cribs, model numbers 5945-0521 and 5545-0521, sold in honey and cherry finishes. The full size cribs have a sleigh design and one of the following purchase order numbers at the bottom rail of the headboard: 272903, 272904, 273904, 276728, 276729, 291081, 323975, 324472, 320318, 323976, 332883 365620, 368466 in honey, and 338535, 338537 and 332884 in cherry. All other Wendy Bellissimo Collection cribs are not involved in this recall. The cribs were made by Goodbaby Child Products Company Ltd., of China. They were sold at Babies R Us stores nationwide from July 2005 through October 2007 for about $500. Consumers are advised to should stop using these cribs immediately and contact Bassettbaby for a free repair kit. For additional information, contact Bassettbaby at (888) 897-4689 between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m. ET daily, or visit http://www.bassettbaby.com. BEAR STEARNS: Objects to Navigator Capital's Remand Request ----------------------------------------------------------- Bear Stearns Asset Management, Bear, Stearns Securities Corp., The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., Ralph Cioffi, Raymond McGarrigal, and Matthew Tannin, and Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies, L.P., as nominal defendant, insist that a class action complaint filed by Navigator Capital Partners, L.P., is precisely the sort of litigation that belongs in federal court. Representing the Bear Stearns Entities, Peter K. Vigeland, Esq., at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, in New York, points out that Navigator's Complaint: (a) seeks to define the rights of citizens from more than 20 states and alleges fraud in connection with the trading of hundreds of millions of dollars in securities; (b) involves purchases and sales of securities on national markets as well as transactions with national and international financial institution; and (c) involves not only traditional equities, but an array of novel and complex financial products, most notably, tranches of mortgage-backed securities, including many hedging products and indices that are still evolving as ways to manage the risks of structured finance securities. Mr. Vigeland asserts that decisions made in the Navigator Litigation about liability and disclosure requirements may have substantial effects on the market for all of the products and on decisions that fund managers will make about whether to employ them at all. In addition, the sums at issue in the Complaint are of far more than local concern. The U.S. Congress, when it enacted the Securities Litigation Uniform Standard Acts of 1998 and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, recognized that cases like that asserted by Navigator belong in federal court. Case Background Navigator Capital Partners, L.P. on behalf of itself and a class consisting of all investors who held interests in Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies, L.P. at any time during the period August 1, 2006, through July 18, 2007, filed a class and derivative action against Bear Stearns entities. Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies, L.P., was organized under the laws of the state of Delaware on August 26, 2003. It commenced operations on October 1, 2003, and offered to sell Interests by way of offering document entitled "Confidential Private Placement Memorandum," dated August 31, 2004. Additional Interests were offered by way of a Confidential Private Placement Memorandum issued in August 2006. The primary objective of the Partnership was "to seek high current income and capital appreciation relative to LIBOR primarily through leveraged investments in investment-grade structured finance securities with an emphasis on triple-A and double-A rated structured finance securities," Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq., at Entistle & Cappucci, LLP, in New York, relates. Bear Stearns Asset Management, Inc., the general partner, invested the Partnership's funds into collateralized debt obligations backed by sub-prime mortgages. During the United States' recent housing boom, which occurred from late 2001 until mid-2006, CDOs backed by sub-prime loans became very common investments and generated high rates of return. However, beginning at least as early as August 1, 2006, as home prices leveled off and decline in parts of the country, more borrowers have fallen behind on their mortgage payments. This event has led to a decrease in the value of CDOs backed by those mortgage loans. Despite the deteriorating market conditions, Ralph Cioffi, Raymond McGarrigal and Matthew Tanin, managing directors of BSAM, continued to invest the Partnership's money in risky sub- prime mortgage-backed securities, while at the same time failing to implement hedging and other strategies to minimize risk effectively, Mr. Cappucci alleges. The Partnership invested substantially all of its assets through the Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund, Ltd., through a "master-feeder" arrangement. The Master Fund was formed under Cayman Islands law and commenced operations on September 12, 2003. As of December 31, 2006, the Partnership's beneficial ownership of the Master Fund's assets was 28.58%. In a report to investors for the month ended February 28, 2007, BSAM stated that the Partnership had returned an estimated 0.08%. For March 2007, the Fund returned an estimated 3.71%. As of April 30, 2007, the Fund returned an estimated 6.24%. However, on July 18, 2007, Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., parent of BSAM, informed investors that there was very little value left for the investors in the High-Grade Fund as of June 30, 2007, and that the High-Grade Fund will seek an orderly wind- down of the Funds over time. In this regard, Navigator Capital Partners, L.P., on behalf of itself and a class consisting of all investors who held Interests in the Partnership at any time during the period August 1, 2006, through July 18, 2007, filed a class and derivative action against: * the Partnership, * the Management, * Bear Stearns Companies, * Bear, Stearns Securities Corporation and * Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., in the U.S. Supreme Court in the state of New York, county of New York. Mr. Cappucci says Navigator invested more than $700,000 in the Partnership from August 25, 2004, through April 13, 2005. From January 1, 2007, through April 1, 2007, Navigator contributed $14,250,000 to the Partnership and withdrew $9,200,289. Navigator asserts a class and derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Management under Delaware law. Mr. Cappucci notes that under Delaware law, the Management owed to Navigator and the Class the highest obligation to due care, good faith, candor, loyalty and fair dealing. But notwithstanding the Management's obligation to adequately assess, monitor and hedge the credit risks of investment held by the Partnership, and their admitted ability to do so, they Management failed to do so, in breach of their fiduciary duties under Delaware law. In addition, the Management systematically and continuously failed to disclose to investors that they: (a) were not sufficiently monitoring and adequately assessing the credit risk inherent in the Partnership's investments; (b) were not determining the frequency and severity of defaults of the assets of each of the structured finance securities invested in by the Partnership; (c) were not developing and implementing credit enhancement mechanisms, which could cause cash flow to be diverted away from the Partnership's riskier investments under certain market conditions; and (d) were not otherwise adequately engaging in hedging techniques to maximize risk. Had the Management disclosed these facts, Mr. Cappucci says the investors would have taken steps to avoid the massive losses they suffered, like withdraw their funds from the Partnership, remove BSAM as General Partner, institute their own hedges and bring a lawsuit before the value of their investments plummeted. The Class has suffered damages caused by the Management's breaches of fiduciary duties and thus the Management are liable to pay the Class damages in an amount to be proven at trial, Mr. Cappucci asserts. Navigator also asserts a class and derivative claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Bear Stearns Companies, Bear Stearns Securities and BS&Co. under Delaware law. Mr. Cappucci asserts that these companies knowingly participated in the Management's breaches of fiduciary duties. Mr. Cappucci relates that the Partnership's daily mark-to-market was done in-house by Bear Stearns Companies' repo desk and the portfolio management team, which admittedly kept in touch with any price movements that could foretell problems in any one of the Fund's investments. Bear Stearns Companies' risk management department monitored the Fund's positions and things like as minimum rating requirements, overall and net leverage and any portfolio concentrations, and BSC's global credit department would meet with the portfolio management team to discuss their positions, risk management and hedging techniques. Mr. Cappucci further asserts that Bear Stearns Securities knowingly participated in the Management's breach of fiduciary duties in its role as custodian and prime broker to the Partnership and the High-Grade Fund. Moreover, the Class asserts a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Management under Delaware law Navigator asks the New York Supreme Court to: (a) declare that its action is a proper derivative and class action; (b) declare that it be the representative of the Class (c) declare that Management and each of them have violated their fiduciary duties to the Partnership and to the Investors; (d) declare that Bear Stearns Companies, Bear Stearns Securities and BS&Co. aided and abetted the Management's breaches of fiduciary duties; (e) direct Defendants, joint and severally, to accoun to the Investors for all damages suffered or to be suffered by them or by the Partnership as a result of the Defendants' actions; (f) award it, the Class and the Partnership damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including judgment interest; and (g) award it the costs and disbursements of the action, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees. (Bear Stearns Funds Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 10; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service Inc.; http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000. BIG 5: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Store Managers' Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. settled a purported class action filed in California Superior Court in the County of Orange over alleged violations of California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint, “Jack Lima v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp., et al., Case No. 06CC00243,” was served on the company on Dec. 1, 2006. It was brought as a purported class action on behalf of the company's California store managers. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the company improperly classified store managers as exempt employees not entitled to overtime pay for work in excess of forty hours per week and failed to provide store managers with paid meal and rest periods. Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, back pay for overtime allegedly not paid, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties including an additional thirty days' wages for each employee whose employment terminated in the four years preceding the filing of the complaint, an award of attorneys' fees and costs and injunctive relief to require the company to treat store managers as non-exempt. Subsequent to the third quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company and the plaintiff reached a confidential agreement providing for the full and complete settlement and release of all of the plaintiff’s individual claims and a dismissal of all claims purportedly brought on behalf of the class members in exchange for the Company’s payment of non-material amounts to the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s counsel. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. -- http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/ -- is a sporting goods retailer in the U.S., operating 343 stores in 10 states under the Big 5 Sporting Goods name at Dec. 31, 2006. BRUSH WELLMAN: Suit Over Beryllium Hazard Allowed to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------ A court has allowed a third-party complaint to proceed against Brush Wellman, Inc., in relation to the hazards of beryllium- containing products. “Anthony v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corp. d/b/a Small Tube Products Corp., Inc., et al., Case No. 000525” is a purported class action that Brush Wellman, Inc. faces in relation to beryllium. It was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania on Sept. 7, 2006. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Case No. 06-CV-4419, on Oct. 4, 2006. The only named plaintiff is Gary Anthony. The defendants are: -- Small Tube Manufacturing Corp., d/b/a Small Tube Products Corp., Inc.; -- Admiral Metals Inc.; -- Tube Methods, Inc.; and -- Cabot Corp. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a class of current and former employees of the U.S. Gauge facility in Sellersville, Pennsylvania who have ever been exposed to beryllium for a period of at least one month while employed at U.S. Gauge. The plaintiff has brought claims for negligence. Plaintiff seeks the establishment of a medical monitoring trust fund, cost of publication of approved guidelines and procedures for medical screening and monitoring of the class, attorneys' fees and expenses. Defendant Tube Methods, Inc. filed a third-party complaint against Brush Wellman Inc. in that action on Nov. 15, 2006. Tube Methods alleges that Brush supplied beryllium-containing products to U.S. Gauge, and that Tube Methods worked on those products, but that Brush is liable to Tube Methods for indemnification and contribution. The company moved to dismiss the Tube Methods complaint on Dec. 22, 2006. On Jan. 12, 2007, Tube Methods filed an amended third-party complaint, which Brush moved to dismiss on Jan. 26, 2007. However, the Court denied the motion on Sept. 28, 2007, according to Brush Engineered Materials Inc.'s Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 28, 2007. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/-- is the parent of Brush Wellman, Inc. Brush Engineered through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of engineered materials serving the global telecommunications, computer, data storage, aerospace and defense, automotive electronics, industrial components, and appliance markets. CAREMARK INC: Granted Summary Judgment in “Morrell” ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger ruled in favor of Caremark in a class action accusing the company of breach of fiduciary duties under 29 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. In July 2004, Caremark Rx and Caremark were served with a putative private class action filed by Robert Moeckel, purportedly on behalf of the John Morrell Employee Benefits Plan. The suit alleged defendants each acting as a fiduciary breached certain purported fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. It sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. The plaintiff was a participant in and beneficiary of the John Morrell Employee Benefits Plan (JM Plan), a prescription drug plan funded by contributions by the plan sponsors as well as co- insurance, deductibles, copayments, and other contributions made by the plaintiff and other plan participants and beneficiaries. John Morrell Plan’s prescription drug benefits were administered by defendant Caremark, a pharmacy benefits manager (PBM). According to the plaintiff, Caremark’s provision of PBM services pursuant to its contracts with Morrell & Co. rendered Caremark a fiduciary under ERISA. More specifically, Moeckel claims that Caremark exercised discretion or control over the pricing of prescription drugs through its control over the terms of its contracts with its network of retail pharmacies (which control the reimbursement rates for retail drugs) and with drug manufacturers (which control the actual cost of drugs dispensed through Caremark’s mail order pharmacies). The plaintiff alleges that Caremark manipulated the terms of its undisclosed contracts by creating hidden “pricing spreads” that yielded significant revenue to Caremark that it failed to pass through to the plans. By failing to disclose to the plans the discounted price it paid for drugs purchased by the plans’ participants and beneficiaries at retail pharmacies, Caremark allegedly was able to conceal from the plans the fact that Caremark secretly exercised its discretion to create a “spread” between the discounted price that Caremark paid retail pharmacies and the discounted price that Caremark contracted to be reimbursed by the plans, a “spread” it retained. Similarly, by buying drugs from drug manufacturers to stock mail order pharmacies, through which Caremark sold prescriptions to participants and beneficiaries, Caremark allegedly arranged significant discounts on those drugs but created a “spread” (which it retained) between the prices that Caremark agreed to pay the manufacturers and the prices that Caremark contracted to be reimbursed by the plans. Mr. Moeckel also contends that Caremark contracted with drug manufacturers in ways that enriched Caremark to the detriment of the plans. Plaintiff alleges that Caremark was delegated discretionary control and authority to decide which manufacturers’ drugs would be included in its formularies, including which would be included in its standardized formulary, which drugs on the formularies would be “preferred,” and which relative cost indicators would be placed next to each included drug. The plaintiff also alleges that Caremark was delegated discretionary authority and control to create “formulary compliance programs,” or drug-switching programs, which enabled Caremark to switch plan participants and beneficiaries from higher-cost therapeutically equivalent drugs to lower-cost therapeutically equivalent drugs. The plaintiff alleges that Caremark used the market power it gained from this level of control to enrich itself at the expense of the plans, by negotiating with manufacturers to favor more expensive therapeutically equivalent drugs, which increased the plans’ costs, in exchange for monies which Caremark retains and did not pass on to the plans. Having negotiated with a plan or a plan’s sponsor to share some of the rebates or other compensation, the plaintiff alleges that Caremark also engaged in self-dealing by characterizing (and sometimes intentionally mischaracterizing) payments, credits, or other compensation in ways to maximize its own profit at the expense of the plans. Mr. Moeckel also alleges that Caremark generated and retained interest on the “float” prior to disbursement of any rebates to the plans. In addition, the plaintiff alleges that Caremark violated its fiduciary duties by secretly and subversively conspiring with drug manufacturers to inflate the average wholesale price of prescription drugs, thereby evading the “best pricing” statute, the Omnibus Budge and Reconciliation Act. In granting the company summary judgment, Judge Trauger ruled that Caremark’s actions fell “outside ERISA’s regulatory framework.” Further, she pointed out that those actions “relate to the basic administration of Caremark’s own business, which is non-fiduciary in nature.” The suit is "Moeckel v. Caremark RX, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00633," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee under Judge Aleta A. Trauger. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Rebecca Cothran Blair and John A. Day of Branham & Day, P.C., 5300 Maryland Way, Suite 300, Brentwood, TN 37027, Phone: (615) 742-4880, E-mail: rblair@branhamday.com and jday@branhamday.com; and (2) Mike Miller of Solberg Stewart Miller & Tjon, 1129 Fifth Avenue South, P.O. Box 1897, Fargo, ND 58107- 1897, Phone: (701) 237-3166, E-mail: mmiller@solberglaw.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Paul Savage Davidson, Joseph A. Woodruff and Jennifer L. Weaver of Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, Nashville City Center, 511 Union Street, Suite 2100, Nashville, TN 37219, Phone: (615) 244-6380, Fax: (615) 244-6380 E- mail: pdavidson@wallerlaw.com, joseph.woodruff@wallerlaw.com and jennifer.weaver@wallerlaw.com; and (ii) Frank E. Pasquesi of Ungaretti & Harris, 3500 Three First National Plaza, Chicago, IL 60602-4283, Phone: (312) 977-4400. COAST FINANCIAL: Response to Amended Securities Suit Due Dec. 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- The remaining defendants in a consolidated securities suit pending against Coast Financial Holdings, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has until Dec. 3 to respond to an Amended Complaint. Coast Financial Holdings, Inc., and certain of its present and former officers face a consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Initially, defendants were named in three purported class action complaints, the first of which was filed with the Court on March 20, 2007. On June 22, 2007, the Court entered an order pursuant to which the Court: -- consolidated the Securities Actions, with the matter proceeding under the docket for “Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania v. Brian P. Peters, et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-429-T-26-EAJ,” and -- appointed Troy Ratcliff and Daniel Altenburg as lead plaintiffs pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Subsequently, on or about August 24, 2007, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. The Amended Complaint added as defendants -- the current members of the Holding Company's Board of Directors, -- one former member of the Holding Company's Board of Directors, -- the underwriters of the Holding Company's Oct. 5, 2005 public offering of common stock, and -- the Holding Company's external auditors. The Amended Complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Holding Company's common stock between Jan. 21, 2005 and Jan. 22, 2007. In general, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Holding Company's SEC filings and public statements contained misstatements and omissions regarding its residential construction-to-permanent lending operations and, more specifically, regarding CCI and its affiliates and that the Holding Company's financial statements violated GAAP. The Amended Complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under. On Aug. 30, 2007, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice with the Court voluntarily dismissing their claims against Anne V. Lee and Justin D. Locke without prejudice. The remaining defendants are due to respond to the Amended Complaint on or before Dec. 3, 2007, according to the company's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Coast Financial Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-00479,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge Richard A. Lazzara. Representing the plaintiffs are: Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619.231.1058 Fax: 619.231.7423 Saxena White PA 2424 North Federal Highway. Suite 307 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: 800.361.5096 Fax: 888.782.3081 Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com - and - Vianale & Vianale LLP The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town Center Road. Boca Raton, FL 33486 Phone: 561.391.4900 Fax: 561.368.9274 E-mail: info@vianalelaw.com COBY ELECTRONICS: Recalls DVD/CD/MP3 Players that can Overheat ------------------------------------------------------------- Coby Electronics Corp., of Maspeth, N.Y., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 12,000 portable DVD/CD/MP3 Players. The company said the portable DVD/CD/MP3 players can overheat, posing a fire hazard. Coby Electronics Corp. has received three reports of the units overheating, one of which involved minor property damage from a fire. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves two different portable DVD/CD/MP3 players: 5" TFT Portable DVD/CD/MP3 Player with TV Tuner and Digital AM/FM Tuner Model no. TF-DVD170 Product is spherical in shape with a 5" TV screen in front. The name "COBY" is written above the screen. The model number can be found on the bottom of the unit. (2) 5.6" TFT Portable DVD/CD/MP3 Player and NTSC TV Tuner Model no. TF-DVD176 Product is spherical in shape with a 5.6" TV screen in front. The name "COBY" is written above the screen. The model number can be found on the bottom of the unit. The DVD/CD/MP3 players were made in China and sold at discount, electronics, music, toy, and office supply stores, as well as distributors of electronics products, nationwide from May 2006 through October 2007 for between $140 and $170. Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the portable DVD/CD/MP3 players and contact the firm for information on returning the units and receiving a full refund. For additional information, contact Coby Electronics Corp. toll-free at (877) 231-9240 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.cobyusa.com COMCAST INC: Accused of Blocking Customers' Internet Services ------------------------------------------------------------- Comcast Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 1 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, accusing it of defrauding consumers by advertising its Internet services as "lightning fast" and "mind-blowing" speed, but intentionally slowing to crawl or blocking altogether some Internet applications, including file sharing and Lotus Notes, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff John Hart brings this suit as a class action on behalf of all persons in California who purchased the Service between Nov. 13, 2003, and the present and used or attempted to use peer-to-peer or Online file sharing applications and/or lotus notes. He wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants advertise and market the Service by promoting the speed at which its customers may download and upload data from the internet; (b) whether defendants promise that customers of the Service will be provided with unfettered access to the internet; (c) whether defendants block the Blocked Applications; (d) whether defendants impede the Blocked Applications; (e) whether defendants' blockage or impediment of the Blocked Applications constitutes a breach of the contract; (f) whether there is an enforceable written contract between defendants and the class; (g) whether defendants' blockage or impediment of the Blocked Applications results in aggregate loss by the class in excess of $5000; (h) whether defendants' blockage or impediment of the Blocked Applications constitutes a violation of CFAA; (i) whether defendants' blockage or impediment of the Blocked Applications while permitting unfettered use of other applications constitutes a violation of Federal Communications Commission Policy Statement, FCC 05151; (j) whether defendants' marketing and advertising is likely to deceive the class; and (k) whether members are entitled to compensatory, injunctive and other equitable relief. Plaintiff prays for judgment and relief as follows: -- that the court declare this a class action; -- that the court preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from conducting their business through the unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices, untrue and misleading advertising and other violations of law described in the complaint; -- that the court order defendants to conduct a corrective advertising and information campaign advising consumers that the Service does not have the characteristics, uses, benefits, and quality defendants have claimed; -- that the court order defendants to implement whatever measures are necessary to remedy the unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices, untrue and misleading advertising and other violations of law described in the complaint; -- that the court order defendants to notify each and every member of the class of the pendency of the claims in the action in order to give such individuals and businesses an opportunity to obtain restitution from defendants; -- that the court order defendants to pay restitution to restore to all affected persons all funds acquired by means of any act or practice, untrue or misleading advertising or a violation of the CLRA, CFAA and/or FCC Policy 05-151, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest thereon; -- that the court order defendants to disgorge all monies wrongfully obtained and all revenues and profits derived by defendants as a result of their acts or practices as alleged in the complaint; -- that the court award damages calculated as purchase price of the products at issue, plus any out-of-pocket costs associated with the replacement of such products, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest theron; -- that the court impose statutory, punitive and/or exemplary damages for defendants' acts constituting oppression, fraud or malice in an amount sufficient to punish and deter others from similar wrongdoing; -- that the court grant plaintiff his reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5, Civil Code Section 1780(d), the common fund doctrine and/or any other applicable legal theory; and -- that the court grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper. The suit is "Jon Hart et al. v. Comcast of Alameda, Inc. et al., Case No. PG 07355993," filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda. Representing plaintiffs are: Mark N. Todzo Eric S. Somers Howard J. Hirsch Lexington Law Group, LLP 1627 Irivng Street San Francisco, CA 94122 Phone: (415) 759-4111 Fax: (415) 759-4112 COMMUNITY HEALTH: Class Yet to be Determined in Uninsured's Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama, Eufaula Division has yet to rule on class determination issues in a purported class action filed against Community Health Systems, Inc. The suit was filed by Arleana Lawrence and Lisa Nichols against Eufaula Community Hospital, Community Health Systems, Inc., South Baldwin Regional Medical Center and Community Health Systems Professional Services Corp. The class action, previously, captioned, “Arleana Lawrence and Robert Hollins v. Lakeview Community Hospital and Community Health Systems, Inc.,” was brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and as the representatives of similarly situated uninsured individuals who were treated at the company's Lakeview Hospital or any of the company's other Alabama hospitals. Plaintiffs allege that uninsured patients who do not qualify for Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably high rates for services and materials and that the company use unconscionable methods to collect bills. They seek restitution of overpayment, compensatory and other allowable damages and injunctive relief. In October 2005, the complaint was amended to eliminate one of the named plaintiffs and to add Community Health's management company subsidiary as a defendant. In November 2005, the complaint was again amended to add another plaintiff, Lisa Nichols and another defendant, a hospital in Foley, Alabama, South Baldwin Regional Medical Center. Discovery has been concluded on the class determination issues and a hearing was held on June 13, 2007. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net-- through its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services in non-urban communities. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Nixing of Ill. “Rix” Uninsured Suit Appealed -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the purported class action, “Sheri Rix v. Heartland Regional Medical Center and Health Care Systems, Inc.,” which names Community Health Systems, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries as defendants, are appealing the dismissal of the case by the Circuit Court of Williamson County, Illinois. This class action, served against the company on March 3, 2005, was brought by the plaintiff on behalf of herself and as the representative of similarly situated uninsured individuals who were treated at the company's Heartland Regional Medical Center. Plaintiff alleges that uninsured patients who do not qualify for Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably high rates for services and materials and that the company uses unconscionable methods to collect bills. Plaintiff seeks recovery for breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, restitution of overpayment, and for unjust enrichment. It also seeks compensatory and other damages and equitable relief. The Circuit Court Judge recently granted company's motion to dismiss this case, but allowed the plaintiff to re-plead her case. The plaintiff elected to appeal the Circuit Court’s decision in lieu of amending her case. The parties are briefing their positions, according to the company's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net-- through its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services in non-urban communities. COMMUNITY HEALTH: “Chronister” Uninsured's Suit in Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------ Discovery is still ongoing in the purported class action, "Chronister, et al. v. Granite City Illinois Hospital Company, LLC d/b/aGateway Regional Medical Center," which was filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois and names Community Health Systems, Inc. as a defendant. The complaint, which was served against the company on April 8, 2005, seeks class-action status on behalf of the uninsured patients treated at Gateway Regional Medical Center and alleges statutory, common law, and consumer fraud in the manner in which the hospital bills and collects for the services rendered to uninsured patients. The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. The company’s motion to dismiss has been granted in part and denied in part and discovery has commenced. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Community Health Systems, Inc., -- http://www.chs.net-- through its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services in non-urban communities. COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Cal. Suit Claims “Bait and Switch” Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------- Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and affiliates, including Full Spectrum Lending, are facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging they defrauded customers with false promises of low mortgage rates. Named plaintiffs David E. Dorpat and Mary Ann Dorpat bring this action on behalf of all persons in the United States who, at any time between Jan. 1, 2003 and the present, obtained at least one residential mortgage loan from Countrywide and were subject to any of the unlawful lending practices described, including unfair, misleading and/or deceptive solicitation practices, excessive fees, unfair, abusive or undisclosed loan terms and deceptive steering. They want the court to rule on: (a) whether Countrywide's took "adverse action" against plaintiffs and the class and, if so, whether Countrywide provide notices of adverse action, as required by the ECOA; (b) whether Countrywide has been or is engaged in a "bait and switch" scheme, in which class members have been lured in with promises of a particular set of loan terms, and are then given different and far less beneficial terms; (c) whether documents, contracts, and practices relating to the transactions between members of the class and Countrywide were unfair, misleading, unconscionable, deceptive, untrue, misleading, or omitted material facts and disclosures; (d) whether Countrywide misrepresented, concealed, and/or failed to disclose loan terms; (e) whether Countrywide misled the plaintiffs and the class in connection with marketing, solicitation, sale, operation, and administration of the mortgage loans; (f) whether the plaintiffs and the class are entitled to the imposition of a constructive trust or other equitable or injunctive relief as a result of, among other things, Countrywide's unjust enrichment; (g) whether Countrywide has been or is engaged in unfair and unlawful business practices, and whether the alleged conduct violated the California Business and Professions Code and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (h) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to injunctive relief, and if, so, the nature of such relief; (i) whether plaintiffs and the class are entitled to damages and the appropriate measure of such damages; and (j) whether plaintiffs and the class are entitled to punitive damages. Plaintiffs request judgment and relief as follows: -- certification of this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, declaring plaintiffs as representatives of the class, as well as appointing plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the class; -- that the court decalre, adjudge and decree that Countrywide has committed the violations of federal and state law alleged; -- that Countrywide be enjoined from continuing the illegal course of conduct alleged; -- that the court award damages, as set forth, to plaintiffs and the class, in an amount to be determined at trial; -- that the court order disgorgement of Countrywide's ill- gotten gains and award plaintiffs and the class full restitution of all monies wrongfully acquired by Countrywide; -- that plaintiffs and the class be granted such other, further and different relief that is necessary to remedy the continuing harm caused by and prevent the recurrence of Countrywide's unlawful conduct described; -- that the court award plaintiffs their attorneys' fees, costs and prejudgment interest and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "David E. Dorpat et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corp. et al. Case No. CV07-07438AHM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Christopher Kim Lisa J. Yang George Busu Kim Ruger & Kim, LLP 1055 West SEventh Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone: (213) 955-9500 Joseph H. Meltzer Edward W. Ciolko Joseph A. Weeden Schiffrin Barroway Topz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (610) 667-7706 Fax: (610) 667-7056 - and - Guri Ademi Shpetim Ademi David J. Syrios Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Phone: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 COVAD COMMS: Faces Litigation in Calif. Over Blackberry Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Covad Communications Group, Inc. faces a purported class action in California over a merger agreement among the company, Blackberry Holding Corp. and Blackberry Merger Corp., according to the company's Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. On Oct. 31, 2007, the company and the members of its Board of Directors were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought by William Forte in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. Plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty by defendants in connection with the transaction contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of Oct. 28, 2007, by and among the company, Blackberry Holding Corp. and Blackberry Merger Corp. Plaintiff seeks certain equitable relief, including an injunction to prevent or unwind the transaction, attorney’s fees and other fees. Covad Communications Group, Inc. -- http://www.covad.com/-- provides voice and data communications products and services to consumers and businesses throughout the U.S. in approximately 235 major metropolitan areas in 44 states. Its products and services include high-speed, or broadband, data communications, Internet access connectivity, voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) telephony and a variety of related services. It primarily uses digital subscriber line (DSL) and DS-1, also referred to as T-1, technologies to deliver its services. COVAD COMMS: Settles Breach of Fiduciary Suit by Former Counsel --------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement was reached in a purported class action filed against Covad Communications Group, Inc.'s current and former directors by the company's former general counsel. The suit is pending in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, New Castle County. In June 2002, Dhruv Khanna was relieved of his duties as the company's general counsel and secretary. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Khanna alleged that, over a period of years, certain current and former directors and officers had breached their fiduciary duties to the company by engaging in or approving actions that constituted waste and self-dealing, that certain current and former directors and officers had provided false representations to the company's auditors and that he had been relieved of his duties in retaliation for his being a purported whistleblower and because of racial or national origin discrimination. Based on the events mentioned, in September 2003, Mr. Khanna filed a purported class action and a derivative lawsuit against the company's current and former directors. On Aug. 3, 2004, Mr. Khanna amended his complaint and two additional purported shareholders joined the lawsuit. In this action the plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of the company from the individual defendants for their purported breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs also seek to invalidate the company's election of directors in 2002, 2003 and 2004 because they claim that the company's proxy statements were misleading. On Oct. 11, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety and a motion to disqualify Mr. Khanna and the additional plaintiffs as class representatives. On May 9, 2006, the court dismissed several of the claims for breach of fiduciary duty as well as the claims relating to our proxy statements. The court also determined that Mr. Khanna could no longer serve as a plaintiff in this matter. On Sept. 27, 2007, the company entered into a settlement in the Khanna lawsuit. If the settlement is approved by the court, the company will receive approximately $5,000 from certain of the company’s current and former directors and a former investor, consisting primarily of Covad stock, net of plaintiffs’ counsel’s fee and certain costs. The settlement, if approved, will also result in the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice. The settlement expressly states that each defendant, including the company , denies liability. Subject to final approval by the court, the settlement proceeds will be paid to the company pursuant to the terms of the settlement. The company has determined that the proposed settlement is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders. The Stipulation of Settlement and related paperwork is on file with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. The settlement is subject to and conditioned upon the court’s final approval after public notice of the proposed settlement and expiration of the time for appeal from any orders approving the settlement. Covad Communications Group, Inc. -- http://www.covad.com/-- provides voice and data communications products and services to consumers and businesses throughout the U.S. in approximately 235 major metropolitan areas in 44 states. Its products and services include high-speed, or broadband, data communications, Internet access connectivity, voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) telephony and a variety of related services. It primarily uses digital subscriber line (DSL) and DS-1, also referred to as T-1, technologies to deliver its services. DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Cavitron Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- The California Court of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal with regards to the decertification of a purported class action that accuses DENTSPLY International, Inc. of misrepresenting its Cavitron ultrasonic scalers. On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, D.D.S. and Richard Nathan, D.D.S. filed a class action in San Francisco County, California. The complaint, which has been amended twice, seeks a recall of the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in oral surgery. The court certified the case as a class action on June 15, 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair business practices claims. The class is defined as California dental professionals who purchased and used one or more Cavitron ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients. The company filed a motion for decertification of the class and this motion was granted. Plaintiffs have appealed the decertification of the class to the California Court of Appeals. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of products for the dental market. DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron --------------------------------------------------------------- DENTSPLY International, Inc. continues to face a purported class action alleging that the company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers was sold in breach of contract and warranty. The company allegedly misrepresented the potential uses of the product because it cannot deliver potable or sterile water. On Dec. 12, 2006, Carole Hildebrand, DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS filed a complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint seeks a refund of the purchase price paid for Cavitron scalers and asserts putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is "Hilderbrand, et al. v. Dentsply International, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05439-RBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge R. Barclay Surrick. Representing the plaintiff is: Alan Klein, Esq. Duane Morris LLP 30 South 17th St. Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196 Phone: 215-979-1000 Fax: 215-979-1020 E-mail: aklein@duanemorris.com Representing the defendants is: Richard G. Placey Montgomery, Mccracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP 123 S. Broad St., 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19109 Phone: 215-772-7424 Fax: 215-772-7620 E-mail: rplacey@mmwr.com DENTSPLY INT'L: Continues to Face Multiple Trubyte-Related Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- DENTSPLY International Inc. still faces several lawsuits that accuse it of engaging in a conspiracy to violate antitrust laws in relation to the sale of Trubyte teeth or products containing Trubyte teeth. Subsequent to the filing of the Department of Justice Complaint in 1999, several private party class actions were filed based on allegations similar to those in the Department of Justice case, on behalf of dental laboratories, and denture patients in seventeen states who purchased Trubyte teeth or products containing Trubyte teeth. These cases were transferred to the United States District Court in Wilmington, Delaware. The private party suits seek damages in an unspecified amount. The Court has granted the Company’s Motion on the lack of standing of the laboratory and patient class actions to pursue damage claims. The Plaintiffs in the laboratory case appealed this decision to the Third Circuit and the Court largely upheld the decision of the District Court in dismissing the Plaintiffs’ damages claims against DENTSPLY, with the exception of allowing the Plaintiffs to pursue a damage claim based on a theory of resale price maintenance between the Company and its tooth dealers. The Plaintiffs’ petition to the United States Supreme Court asking it to review this decision of the Third Circuit was denied. The Plaintiffs in the laboratory case filed an amended complaint asserting that DENTSPLY and its tooth dealers, and the dealers among themselves, engaged in a conspiracy to violate the antitrust laws. Dentsply and the dealers have filed Motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims, except for the resale price maintenance claims. Additionally, manufacturers of two competitive tooth lines and a dealer, as a putative class action, have filed separate actions seeking damages alleged to have been incurred as a result of the Company’s tooth distribution practice found to be a violation of the antitrust law. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of products for the dental market. DIGIMARC CORP: Ruling on Securities Suit Appeal Expected in 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Digimarc Corp. is expecting the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to issue in 2008 a ruling on an appeal against the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit filed against the company. Beginning in September 2004, three purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against the company and certain of its current and former directors and officers on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities during the period April 17, 2002 to July 28, 2004. These lawsuits were later consolidated into one action for all purposes. The amended complaint, which sought unspecified damages, asserted claims under the federal securities laws relating to the company's restatement of its financial statements for 2003 and the first two quarters of 2004 and alleged that the company issued false and misleading financial statements and issued misleading public statements about the company's operations and prospects. On Aug. 4, 2006, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice and entered judgment in the Company’s favor. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal was stayed pending the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s determination in another case of issues relating to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and briefing is scheduled to be completed by the end of the year. The Company anticipates oral argument and a decision in 2008. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “Garcia et al. v. Digimarc Corp. et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-01455-BR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon under Judge Anna J. Brown. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gary M. Berne, Esq. Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter PC, 209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 227-1600 Fax: (503) 227-6840 E-mail: gberne@ssbls.com - and - Gary I. Grenley, Esq. Paul H. Trinchero, Esq. Grenley Rotenberg Evans Bragg & Bodie PC 1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 241-0570 Fax: (503) 241-0914 E-mail: ggrenley@grebb.com ptrinchero@grebb.com GAP INC: Faces Suit Over Theft of Job Applicants' Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- Gap Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging it allowed 800,000 job-seekers' confidential information, including Social Security numbers, to be stolen from a third-party vendor that manages job applications, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Joel Ruiz claims the information, which was not encrypted, exposed all 800,000 to identity theft. An unidentified thief stole two laptop computers with the information on Sept. 28, the complaint states. Mr. Ruiz claims Gap's negligence exposed online and telephone job applicants in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico to ID theft. He further claims that Gap failed to investigate the data security practices of its third-party vendor; that it saved sensitive records on portable computers that should have been housed in a secure central computer; and negligently required job applicants to input sensitive personal information, including Social Security numbers, to apply for a job. Mr. Ruiz received a letter from Gap CEO Glenn Murphy, assuring him that the information had not been "accessed or used improperly." Gap also offered to pay for 12 months of credit monitoring and fraud assistance. But Mr. Ruiz wants long-term monitoring of Gap's security measures. He also refused the offer because by doing so, they would have waive their right to a jury trial should the credit monitoring service fail. He brings this suit as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons that have applied for a position with Gap Inc., Old Navy, Banana Republic, Piperline, Outlet Stores, or any other relevant Gap brand store, through Gap's application process from July 1, 2006 to July 31, 2007, and whose personal information was compromised in a laptop theft from one or more of Gap's third party vendors. He asks the court to rule on: (a) whether Gap failed to exercise reasonable security measures to protect the personal information of plaintiff and the class; (b) whether Gap's failure to protect the personal information of plaintiff and the class violated their legally protected privacy interest under the California Constitution; (c) whether plaintiff and the class are at an increased risk of identity theft as a result of Gap's failure to protect the personal information of plaintiff and the class; (d) whether defendant owed the legal duties discussed to plaintiff and the class and whether defendant breached these duties; and (e) whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled to the relief sought, including injunctive relief. Plaintiff demands judgment on behalf of himself and those similarly situated as follows: -- for an order certifying the proposed class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) and appointing plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel of record to represent said class; -- awarding plaintiff and class members compensatory damages against defendant in an amount to be determined at trial, together with prejudgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law; -- grant all appropriate injunctive relief under Cal.Bus. and Prof.Code Section 17200 et seq. as stated; -- grant all appropriate relief under Cal.Civ.Code Section 1798.85; -- awarding plaintiff and class members the reasonable costs and expenses of suit, including attorneys' fees, filing fees; and -- grant additional legal or equitable releif as the court may find just and proper. The suit is "Joel Ruiz et al. v. Gap, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 07 5739," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Christine Pedigo Bartholomew 100 Bush Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 398-8700 Fax: (415) 398-8704 Mila F. Bartos Tracy Rezvani Karen J. Marcus Finkelstein Thompson LLP 1050 30th Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 337-8000 Fax: (202) 337-8090 - and - Ben Barnow Barnow and Associates PC One N. LaSalle Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, IL 60602 MULTIPLEX GROUP: ASIC Told to Hand over Investigation Documents --------------------------------------------------------------- The Federal Court ordered the Australian Securities and Investments Commissions to hand over documents and examination transcripts to a shareholder class action against Multiplex, Elisabeth Sexton of Sydney Morning Herald reports. Justice Alan Goldberg rejected the regulator's claim the material was protected by public interest immunity. He explained the reasons to ASIC, but not to the public. The materials include 36 documents and statements and examination transcripts of 23 witnesses ASIC interviewed during a forceful investigation into Multiplex's disclosure of delays to its Wembley Stadium project. In December, the ASIC concluded from the investigation that Multiplex failed to comply with its continuous disclosure obligations from February 3 to 23, 2005. Without admitting guild, Multiplex signed an enforceable undertaking and agreed to pay shareholders $32 million in compensation. The class action is seeking $100 million and alleges failure to disclose between August 2, 2004, and May 30, 2005. "We expect that the transcripts of the examinations will go a substantial way in showing the shareholders what the company knew and when," said shareholders' solicitor, Bernard Murphy, from Maurice Blackburn. In September 2002, Multiplex won a contract to rebuild Wembley Stadium. Cost blowouts and problems with contractors delayed construction and caused hundreds of millions in losses. Subsequently, Maurice Blackburn lodged a class action in the Federal Court, in Melbourne, on behalf of shareholders of Australian property developer Multiplex over the redevelopment of London's iconic Wembley Stadium (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2006). The suit claims shareholders were victims of Multiplex's failure to keep the market properly informed about problems it was having with the $1 billion project and the likely impact those problems would have on the company's profits. NEBRASKA: Black Workers Pay More for Health Insurance, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- The State of Nebraska and its Health and Human Services Department are facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 7 in the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska claiming black employees are forced to pay more for health insurance, with fewer plan choices, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Sandra Cartwright claims 96 of the defendants' black workers live in three ZIP codes, and workers in those ZIP codes only must pay more money for less coverage, with less choice of plans. She claims that only certain employees of the defendant were required to purchase their health insurance exclusively through Mutual of Omaha or pay significantly higher premiums for coverage offered through BlueCross BlueShield. The citizens and employees who were offered these options resided in certain zip code areas in the State of Nebraska. Further, citizens in these zip codes, were required to purchase health insurance which was not equal to in price or in benefits to the health insurance other employees of the defendants, who lived in other zip codes could purchase. The health insurance coverage offered through the Mutual of Omaha Insurance was less satisfactory, less comprehensive, provided fewer services, fewer providers, less coverage and less treatment options than the health insurance plan offered in all other zip codes in the State of Nebraska other than zip codes starting with 680, 681 and 685. As a proximate result of the defendants' illegal conduct, plaintiff has suffered actual monetary and compensatory damages and continue to suffer them on an ongoing basis. She requests that the court enter judgment as follows: -- certify this as a class action proceeding; -- declare the conduct of the defendants to be violative of the rights of all plaintiffs under state and federal law; -- order that the defendants immediately offer to the plaintiffs the same coverage available to other employees of the State of Nebraska who reside in different zip codes or to offer them the same type of insurance available to approximately 96% or more of all white citizens employed by the State of Nebraska; -- award all plaintiffs in the class compensatory damages for pain, suffering, humiliation and emotional distress in an amount to be determined by the jury; -- enjoin the defendants from any further discrimination against the plaintiff; and -- award the plaintiffs costs and reasonable attorney fees and such other and further relief as the court deems just, reasonable and appropriate to correct the wrong done to the plaintiff. The suit is "Sandra Cartwright et al. v. The State of Nebraska et al., Case No. CV07-4648," filed in the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska. Representing plaintiffs is: Kathleen M. Neary Vincent M. Powers Vincent M. Powers & Associates 411 south 13th Street, Suite 300 Lincoln, NE 68508 Phone: (402) 474-8000 SAN DIEGO GAS: Accused of Negligence in Witch Creek Wildfire ------------------------------------------------------------ San Diego Gas & Electric Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 13 in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, claiming it caused the devastating Witch Creek wildfire by failing to inspect and trim trees, brush and hazards near its power lines, the CourtHouse News reports. Named plaintiffs Kenyon and Kathy Clark brings this action as a class action for economic damages and injunctive relief on behalf of all persons whose property was destroyed by the "Witch Creek fire" against defendant in the State of California. The Witch Creek Fire, which started Oct. 21, burned 197,990 acres from Santa Ysabel to Rancho Santa Fe. The cost as of Nov. 1 for the Witch Creek Fire was $16 million, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The 198,000-acre Witch Creek fire destroyed 911 homes, 30 commercial buildings and 239 automobiles from Oct. 21 to Nov. 5 and "was caused by a power line owned and operated by SDG&E," the complaint states. Plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether SDG&E properly removed vegetation that could interfere with its transmission and distribution lines; (b) whether SDG&E failed to clear vegetation from its transmission and distribution lines according to state codes and regulations; (c) whether SDG&E failed to clear vegetation from its transmission and distribution lines according to its own standards; (d) whether SDG&E's conduct violates the California Public Resources Code; (e) whether SDG&E's conduct violates the California common laws; (f) whether SDG&E's conduct is unlawful and/or unfair constitution violations of Section 17200, et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code; and (g) whether SDG&E intentionally failed to cut and trim brush as required by State codes and is liable for punitive damages or waiting time penalties. They request that the court grant the following relief: -- that this action be certified as a class action on behalf of the proposed plaintiff class and the plaintiffs be appointed as the representatives of the class, and for an order requiring defendants to identify each member of the class by name, home address, and home telephone number; -- for an accounting, under administration of the plaintiffs and/or the receiver and subject to court review, to determine the amount to be returned by defendants, and the amounts to be refunded to members of the class who are owed monies by defendants; -- injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains and awarding the plaintiff and the class full restitution of all monies wrongfully acquired by defendant by means of such "unfair" and "unlawful" conduct, plus interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to, inter alia, Section 1021.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; -- general damages according to proof; -- compensatory damages according to proof; -- consequential damages according to proof; -- prejudgment and post judgment interest as provided by statute; -- attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs of this action pursuant to statute; -- punitive damages; and -- such further relief as the court deems necessary, just and proper. The suit is "Kenyon Clark et al. v. San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al., Case No. 37-2007-00081605-CU-NP-CTL," filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego under Judge Charles R. Hayes. Representing plaintiffs are: James P. Frantz, Esq. Philip C. Aman, Esq. Franzt Law Group 600 West Broadway, Suite 1200 San Diego, California 92101 Phone: (619) 233-5945 Fax: (619) 525-7672 SOLUTIA INC: “Reiff” ERISA Suit Defendants Seek Case Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants in the suit, “Reiff v. Metz,” which alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, have filed a motion to dismiss the case. Former officers and employees of Solutia, Inc., and Solutia's Employee Benefits Plans Committee and Pension and Savings Funds Committee faces a purported class action alleging violations of ERISA. The suit, Reiff v. Metz, was filed on June 25, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The purported class representative in Reiff is a current Solutia employee. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in September 2007, which is pending before the Court. The suit is “Reiff v. Metz et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-06011-LAP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Loretta A. Preska. Representing the plaintiff is: Ronen Sarraf, Esq. Sarraf Gentile, LLP 485 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 868-3610 Fax: (212) 918-7967 E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com TIGER BRANDS: Could Face South African Lawsuit Over Price-Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- South African bread distributors, led by Imraahn Ismail- Mukaddam, and trade union Cosatu are considering legal action against food and pharmaceuticals group Tiger Brands after the company admitted price-fixing, Reuters South Africa reports. According to the report, South Africa's Competition Commission said that Tiger Brands had admitted guilt in taking part in a cartel with other food companies and would pay a fine of close to ZAR100 million ($14.9 million). The Competition Commission found that bakeries owned by Tiger Brands, Premier Foods Ltd. and a third company had colluded to raise prices to distributors and agreed not to supply each others', the report said. "It had an immediate impact on our business... and we had to pass that loss on to the consumers," Mr. Ismail-Mukaddam told Reuters. "We must take this further and we are definitely considering taking this further in the form of a class action suit ...," he added. According to Mr. Ismail-Mukaddam, up to 50 parties could take part in the class action. "We'll support any steps that bring relief to poor people from the rampant exploitation of many of these big companies that are colluding to really profit off people's misery,” said Tony Ehrenreich, Cosatu's Western Cape provincial secretary. Tiger Brands could not immediately be reached for comment, the report said. Tiger Brands Ltd. makes a lot of rands. Its largest sector is food manufacturing, which including products such as breakfast cereals, confectionery, canned and ready-to-eat foods, sugar, flour, salty snacks, and baked goods. Tiger's healthcare division manufactures over-the-counter and prescription medicines as well as hospital products. The company has operations in the fishing and personal care products sectors. The company operates a joint venture with Ashton Canning Company, L&A Foods, a leading South African supplier of canned fruit for the export market. WAL-MART STORES: “Hummel” Plaintiffs Win Additional Award --------------------------------------------------------- Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Mark I. Bernstein awarded Wal- Mart Stores Inc. employees $46.7 million in costs and attorneys expenses, the Jurist reports. Wal-Mart has said it will appeal the decision. On Oct. 13, 2006, the jury awarded $62.3 million in back-pay damages to the plaintiffs for off-the-clock work and missed rest breaks. The plaintiffs consist of 187,000 current and former employees who worked at Wal-Mart and Sam's Clubs from March 1998 through May 2006. In the recent ruling, about 125,000 people will receive $500 each in damages under a state law invoked when a company, without cause, withholds pay for more than 30 days. Case Background The suit, "Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," was certified in January 2006. In October 2006, a jury awarded nearly $78.5 million to the class comprising of some 186,000 current and former employees of Pennsylvania stores who claimed they weren't properly paid for missed rest breaks and off-the-clock work (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 17, 2006). The case involves labor practices at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores between March 1998 and May 1, 2006. The lead plaintiff is Dolores Hummel, who worked at a Sam's Club in Reading from 1992-2002. Ms. Hummel charged that she had to work through breaks and after quitting time to meet work demands in the bakery. She said that she worked eight to 12 unpaid hours a month, on average, to meet work demands. The recent ruling brings the total award in the case to $187.5 million. For more details, contact plaintiff’s lawyer: Michael Donovan, Esq. Donovan Searles 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, (Philadelphia Co.) Phone: 215-732-6067 Fax: 215-732-8060 Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: No Removal Expense for Cleco Unit at Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cleco Corp. says that a US$100,000 increase in equity earnings at its Cleco Evangeline LLC affiliate was primarily due to the absence of asbestos removal expense during the 2007-3rd quarter, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 31, 2007. Equity income from investees increased US$12.8 million, or 86.8 percent, in the 2007-3rd quarter compared with the 2006-3rd quarter. The increase was due to a US$12.7 million increase in equity earnings at affiliate Acadia Power Holdings LLC (APH) and a US$100,000 increase at Evangeline. Pineville, La.-based Cleco Corp.'s Cleco Power LLC unit generates, transmits, and distributes electricity to 268,000 residential and business customers in 104 communities in Louisiana. Cleco Power has a generating capacity of more than 1,350 MW from its interests in fossil-fueled power plants. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Has 1,993 Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., as of Sept. 30, 2007, recorded about 1,993 pending asbestos-related claims filed against it, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 31, 2007. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company has been named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,645 plaintiffs. Of those claims, about 2,652 have been closed through dismissals or settlements. As of June 30, 2007, the Company faced lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,592 plaintiffs. Of those claims, about 1,950 claims were pending and 2,642 have been closed through dismissals or settlements. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007) The Company is a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work the Company may have performed at various locations. The Company has never been a manufacturer, distributor or supplier of asbestos products. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount per claim of about US$1,000. With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, the Company cannot identify a population of potential claimants with sufficient certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of liability, if any. At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had accrued US$900,000 for liability and related expenses. Based in Hoffddorp, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. is a global specialty engineering and construction company that makes flat-bottom tanks for storing crude oil, gas, water, chemicals, and manufacturing feedstocks; cryogenic tanks and systems to maintain liquid gases; natural gas processing plants; elevated tanks for water storage; and pressure vessels for high-pressure/high-temperature applications. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Records $637M Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Standard Companies Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liability amounted to US$637 million in its consolidated balance sheet as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$652.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 30, 2007. The Company's long-term asbestos liability, as of June 30, 2007, amounted to US$642.6 million. (Class Action Reporter, July 20, 2007) The Company's long-term asbestos receivable amounted to US$336 million in its consolidated balance sheet as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$336.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. As of June 30, 2007, the Company’s long-term asbestos receivable amounted to US$336.9 million. (Class Action Reporter, July 20, 2007) Piscat