/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/071123.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 23, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 233 Headlines ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Certification Order in OrthoClear Suit Pending ALTRIA GROUP: Appeals Reinstatement of Maine Lights Lawsuit CANADA: Labradormiut File Suit Over Residential School Abuse CAREER EDUCATION: Reaches Settlement in Ill. Securities Lawsuit CAREER EDUCATION: Discovery Ongoing in Md. Students' Litigation CAREER EDUCATION: Discovery Ongoing in Ill. FLSA Violations Suit CAREER EDUCATION: Students of Calif. Culinary Academy File Suit COMPUCREDIT CORP: Continues to Face N.C. Consumer Fraud Lawsuit COOPER LIGHTING: Recalls Shop Lights Posing Shock Hazard ELI LILLY: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Fraud Complaint FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls Jewelry on Paint's High Lead Content GAS PIPELINES: No Ruling Yet in Antitrust Suit Certification GAS PIPELINES: No Certification Yet in Gas Royalty Owners Suit L-3 COMMS: Pension Fund Amends Suit Over Stock Options Award NVR INC: Faces Several Overtime Wage Suits in Ohio, Md., N.Y. NVR INC: Still Faces Penn. Suit Alleging RESPA Violations PHILIP MORRIS: Award in Brazilian Consumer Suit Under Appeal PHILIP MORRIS: Marlboro Smokers Class Certification Pending PHILIP MORRIS: Still Faces Tobacco Marketing Fraud Suit in Cal. PHILIP MORRIS: Faces 17 Lights/Ultra Lights Suits in U.S. PHILIP MORRIS: Revival of “Aspinall” Lights Lawsuit Under Appeal SEARS ROEBUCK: Settles Suit Over Gas Ranges Without “Anti-Tip” STEWART TITLE: Court to Evaluate Yigo Lands Suit Certification TOTAL HEALTH: Settles Workers' Suit in Penna. Court for $2.2M TRI-STATE CHRYSLER: W.Va. Woman Sues Over “Fraudulent Contest” UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Awaits Ruling in “Taylor” Policyholders Suit WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Suit Over Undisclosed "Preferred List" Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Connors Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Faces 208 Cases at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Faces 1,183 Cases at Oct. 15 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Ongoing v. CenterPoint, Units ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berkshire Has $56.3M Loss Reserves at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Has 10 Cases Set for Trial in 2007 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Has $189M for Claims at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ATSDR Finds Illinois Beach Park Hazard-free ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Madison County Trial Ends with Settlement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Gov't. Indicts Contractors for Breach ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Gov't. Awards JPY22M Payout to Widow ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Still Party to W.R. Grace Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Involved in Grace Case in Canada ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Corp. Deficit Linked to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quigley Bid on Disclosure Statement Granted ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Industries Inc. Faces 470 Pending Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Receives 3,479 Claims in Jan.-Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Faces 72,790 Pending Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Solutia Inc. Involved in Asbestos Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MeadWestvaco Faces 400 Suits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: California Water Faces Injury Case in L.A. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Face Cases w/ 6,300 Claimants ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Insurance Reserves $23M at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alamo Group Has $331,000 for Ohio Facility ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. TriMas Rise to 1,697 at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Has 660 Suits w/ 6,800 Claimants ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Falk Faces 140 Actions with 4,100 Claimants ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Has 6,700 Zurn Cases at Sept. 29 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quaker Unit, Carrier Enter Claims Agreement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Records 115 Actions at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Has 34,702 Claims at Sept. 28 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Pending v. Gardner Denver ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $363.48M Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has 343 Open Claims in U.K. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records 132,810 U.S. Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Campaigner to Claim Extra Damages v. Hardie ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Testing Offered to Ferry Workers ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA to Monitor Air During Kans. Demolitions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: L. Tersigni Files for Bankruptcy in Conn. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Ltd. Finalizes Sale of Lummus for $950M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Couple Sues 65 Corporations in W.Va. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Arizonian Sues 67 Companies in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Capital Manor, Contractors Fined $64,058 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Fitter Files GBP100T Suit v. Employers ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms Dana Corp.'s $2M Settlement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Worker Sues 38 Firms in West Virginia ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Announces Ariz. Enforcement Achievement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Local Files Suit v. 26 Corporations ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Pleasant Acres Worker Sues York County ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Victim Gets Payout From Hardie Unit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP to Penalize for Hazard at Fla. Hospital ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Denies Engineer Payout Rights ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Florida DEP to Check for Hazard in Landfill ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owner of Ill. Demolition Cos. Pleads Guilty ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Swiss School Staff Fall Ill Due to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Widow Files Lawsuit Against Transfield ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit Filed v. A.O. Smith, 40 Firms in Texas ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace to Settle Minnesota Claim for $26,472 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Grace to Settle 40 Damage Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Moves to Disallow Allegheny PD Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Reports Settlement of Claims for 3Q07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $8.2M Verdict Against Union Carbide, Hexion ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Lawsuits Pending v. Phelps Dodge ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Records $7.25M for Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. Entrx Drop to 240 at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Still Faces ACE Insurance Action New Securities Fraud Cases ACA CAPITAL: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. CHINA EXPERT: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. E-TRADE: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. FEDERAL HOME: Coughlin Stoia Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y. FORMFACTOR INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in Cal. HOME SOLUTIONS: Schatz Nobel Files Tex. Securities Fraud Lawsuit PZENA ASSET: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Suit in N.Y. ********* ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Certification Order in OrthoClear Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule on motions for and against a certification of a class in a suit that names Align Technology, Inc., OrthoClear Inc., and OrthoClear Holdings, Inc., d/b/a OrthoClear, Inc., as defendants. The Complaint, filed on behalf of Debra A. Weber and all others similarly situated on May 18, 2007, alleges that orthodontic treatments of the dental patient plaintiff “were interrupted, unduly prolonged or terminated as a result of defendants' unlawful conduct” relating to the OrthoClear Settlement. OrthoClear Settlement On Oct. 13, 2006, the Company entered into a formal agreement with OrthoClear, Inc., OrthoClear Holdings, Inc., and OrthoClear Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. (OrthoClear), together with certain individuals associated with OrthoClear to end all pending litigation between the parties. As part of the OrthoClear Agreement, OrthoClear agreed to stop the importation of aligners into the U.S. and discontinue all aligner business operations worldwide. As a result, most OrthoClear patients were unable to complete their orthodontic treatment with OrthoClear. In an attempt to help minimize treatment disruptions for the OrthoClear patients and their doctors, the Company committed to make treatment available to these patients at no additional cost under the Patients First Program.“ Align Technology launched the Patients First Program to provide new Invisalign treatment to former OrthoClear patients at no charge to patients or their doctors. Causes of Action The Complaint alleges two causes of action against the OrthoClear defendants and one cause of action against Align Technology for breach of contract. The cause of action against Align Technology references Align's agreement to make Invisalign treatment available to OrthoClear patients, alleging that Align failed “to provide the promised treatment to Plaintiff or any of the Class Members.” On July 3, 2007, the company filed its answer to the complaint and asserted 17 affirmative defenses. On July 20, 2007, the company filed a motion for summary judgment on the Third Cause of Action (the only cause of action alleged against Align). On Aug. 24, 2007, Ms. Weber filed a motion for class certification. On Oct. 1, 2007, the company filed an opposition to the motion of class certification and it is currently awaiting rulings from the Court. The suit is “Weber v. Align Technology, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:07-cv-00535-NAM-GJD,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Norman A. Mordue, with referral to Judge Gustave J. DiBianco. Representing plaintiffs are: Mark J. Schulte, Esq. Daniel B. Berman, Esq. Maureen E. Maney, Esq. Zachary M. Mattison, Esq. Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm P.O. Box 4976 1500 MONY Tower I Syracuse, NY 13221-4976 Phone: 315-471-3151 Fax: 315-471-3167 or 315-233-4312 E-mail: mschulte@hancocklaw.com or dberman@hancocklaw.com or mmaney@hancocklaw.com or zmattison@hancocklaw.com ALTRIA GROUP: Appeals Reinstatement of Maine Lights Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Defendants in the suit, “Good, et al. v. Altria Group, Inc., et al.,” filed a petition for a writ of certiorari against a decision reinstating the lights class action. The lawsuit was filed in 2005 on behalf of Maine residents who smoked Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights manufactured by Philip Morris USA, Inc. The lawsuit contends that Philip Morris, USA Inc., and its parent company, Altria Group, Inc., violated the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Law by engaging in unfair and deceptive acts or practices. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the company made affirmative representations that some of its brands are “Light” and that they deliver “Lowered Tar and Nicotine” when in fact they do not do so and the company knew that they do not do so. The lawsuit was dismissed on May 25, 2006 by U.S. District Court Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr., who ruled that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) pre-empts the plaintiffs’ claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on August 31, 2007, issued a ruling that reinstated the suit. The court vacated the district court’s grant of PM USA’s motion for summary judgment on federal preemption grounds and remanded the case to district court. The district court has stayed proceedings pending the ruling of the United States Supreme Court on defendant’s anticipated petition for a writ of certiorari, which was filed on October 26, 2007. CANADA: Labradormiut File Suit Over Residential School Abuse ------------------------------------------------------------ While the residential school survivors across Canada are in the process of receiving their Common Experience Payments and applying for increased compensation for the most serious claims of abuse, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nunatsiavut have been left out. Over 300 individual survivors of residential schools located throughout Labrador and Northern Newfoundland, have retained Steven Cooper of the law firm of Ahlstrom Wright Oliver & Cooper LLP of Sherwood Park, Alberta and Kirk M. Baert of Koskie Minsky LLP of Toronto, Ontario to represent their interests and that of all similar survivors. Recently, a class action was filed in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador seeking compensation similar to that already agreed upon for survivors in all other parts of Canada. Messrs Cooper and Baert are members of the National Consortium Negotiating Committee which represented over 7500 survivors in negotiations resulting in the settlement of the national class action currently being implemented in the rest of the country. Mr. Cooper's clients include survivors from across Northern Canada including Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut and elsewhere. Mr. Baert is one of Canada's leading class action lawyers and represented survivors from across Canada when the class action settlement was presented to 9 provincial and territorial superior courts across Canada. "I wondered why no one from Labrador showed up at the negotiations. To this day, neither I nor anyone I represent have received a satisfactory explanation as to why Labrador survivors were not included in the settlement package," said Mr. Cooper. "I was contacted by a small group of residential school survivors from Labrador approximately one year ago and despite a number of attempts to get information from and work with the Nunatsiavut Government, I have heard nothing formally from them. “My clients have been told that efforts are being made to include them in the settlement agreement but as far as I can tell, nothing has come of those attempts. In the absence of a political solution, we must look to the courts for equitable treatment for our clients and for all survivors across Newfoundland and Labrador including the area of Nunatsiavut." The class action claim will eventually include all residential schools operated by any entity in Newfoundland and Labrador, including those that may have been operated by the Newfoundland and Labrador Government before Confederation in 1949. "Although the claim asks for the same sort of relief as was requested of the Courts across the country, we are looking for nothing more than what has been negotiated on behalf of survivors in the rest of Canada," notes Mr. Baert. "What we negotiated on behalf of the residential school survivors in the rest of the country is fair compensation for all survivors. Our clients seek nothing other than fair and equal treatment with their fellow survivors across the country." "I am happy Mr. Cooper and Mr. Baert have been hired to help people in Labrador. Mr. Cooper has represented survivors in Nunavut for a decade and I know Nunatsiavutmiut(Labradormiut) are in good hands. As someone who grew up in the North, Mr. Cooper understands what we went through and he has worked for us for years without any help from anyone. “I hope the Federal Government treats my colleagues in Labrador the same as survivors in the rest of the country. I hope they settle this claim quickly and fairly. I cannot believe they were not included in the current settlement," said former Nunavut Commissioner and former residential school student Peter Irniq. Mr. Baert and Mr. Cooper were quick to point out that they continue to hope to work with the representatives of the Nunatsiavut Government but will continue to represent individual clients and their class interests, regardless of what the Nunatsiavut Government may do in the future. The Government of Canada, under pressure from more than 15,000 individual lawsuits, 21 class actions and pressure from the Assembly of First Nations, agreed formally on May 30, 2005, to enter into settlement negotiations. The negotiations took place over the latter half of 2005 and resulted in a landmark settlement on November 20, 2005. The settlement was ultimately approved by courts across the country from December 2006 to March 2007. Implementation began in late September 2007. Under the settlement currently being implemented across the country, it is expected that approximately 80,000 survivors and their families will share in approximately $5 billion dollars in settlement funds. The funds represent payments to individuals and payments, a truth and reconciliation commission, commemoration funds and healing funds. Under the settlement in operation in the rest of the country, survivors will not only receive a compensation payment based on their years of attendance at residential schools, but up to $525,000.00 each for serious physical and any sexual abuse and resulting economic losses. The process for which claims may be made under the more serious abuse category called the Independent Assessment Process allows for a supportive, private hearing to determine entitlement before an independent adjudicator. For more info, contact: Steven Cooper Kirk M. Baert Phone: 1-800-994-7477 or (780) 464-7477 or (416) 595-2117 Email: steven@awoc.ca or kbaert@kmlaw.ca Website: http://www.awoc.caor http://www.kmlaw.ca CAREER EDUCATION: Reaches Settlement in Ill. Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- A tentative settlement was reached in the consolidated class action, “In re: Career Education Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08884,” according to the company's Nov. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007. The case, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, represents the consolidation into one suit of six purported class actions filed between Dec. 9, 2003, and Feb. 5, 2004, by and on behalf of certain purchasers of the company's common stock, against the company, John M. Larson, a former officer of CEC, and Patrick K. Pesch, a current officer of the company. The lawsuit alleged that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, the defendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts about the condition of the company's business and prospects during the putative class period, causing the respective plaintiffs to purchase shares of the company's common stock at artificially inflated prices. Plaintiffs further claimed that Messrs. Larson and Pesch were liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On March 29, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' third amended consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's dismissal of their third amended consolidated complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on April 24, 2007. The parties have reached an agreement to settle the plaintiffs' claims on appeal. This settlement is subject to the case being remanded to the District Court by the Court of Appeals and approval by the District Court after notice to potential class members. The suit is “In re: Career Education Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08884,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow. Representing the company are: Karl Richard Barnickol, Esq. Mary Ellen Hennessy, Esq. Joni S. Jacobsen, Esq. David H. Kistenbroker, Esq. Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, Il 60661-3693 Phone: (312) 902-5200 CAREER EDUCATION: Discovery Ongoing in Md. Students' Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the purported class action, “Laronda Sanders, et al. v. Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc. et al.,” pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. On March 15, 2006, 12 former students of the Landover, Maryland campus of Sanford-Brown Institute, one of Career Education Corp.'s schools, filed a class-action complaint, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against Career Education and Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc., one of the company's subsidiaries. The suit was filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland. The complaint alleges that the defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations and violated the Maryland consumer fraud act by misrepresenting or failing to disclose, among other things, details regarding instructors' experience or preparedness, availability of clinical externship assignments, and estimates for the dates upon which the plaintiffs would receive their certificates and be able to enter the work force. Plaintiffs further allege that defendants failed to maintain accurate attendance records, and that the defendants negligently or deliberately dropped students without justification. The complaint also alleges that defendants breached the enrollment contract with plaintiffs by failing to provide the promised instruction, training, externships, and placement services. Plaintiffs seek actual damages, punitive damages, and costs. Defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, and filed a motion to dismiss significant portions of the complaint. Plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court. On Sept. 18, 2006, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand. The Court also granted defendants' motion to dismiss the common law and statutory fraud counts of the complaint, with leave to amend. On Oct. 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The plaintiffs purport to bring their claims on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated former students. The case was later consolidated with a separate action brought in the same court by another former student. On March 12, 2007, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which alleges that the defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations and violated the Maryland consumer fraud act by misrepresenting or failing to disclose, among other things, details regarding instructors' experience or preparedness, availability of clinical externship assignments, and estimates for the dates upon which the plaintiffs would receive their certificates and be able to enter the work force. The complaint also alleges that defendants breached plaintiffs' enrollment contracts by failing to provide the promised instruction, training, externships, and placement services. Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, punitive damages, and costs. Discovery is ongoing, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007. Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com-- is a educational services company operating. CAREER EDUCATION: Discovery Ongoing in Ill. FLSA Violations Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Career Education Corp., American InterContinental University, Inc. (AIU Online), and the president of the company's Online Education Group. The litigation, “Paul Vander Vennet, et al. v. American InterContinental University, Inc., et al.,” was filed on Aug. 24, 2005 by former admissions advisors of AIU, alleging that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The defendants allegedly failed to pay the plaintiffs for all of the overtime hours they allegedly worked. The plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class under the FLSA and, on Aug. 24, 2005, filed a motion for FLSA Notice. On Dec. 22, 2005, and April 7, 2006, the Court granted plaintiffs' motions to send FLSA Notice, and plaintiffs' counsel has distributed such notice to certain current and former admissions advisors. On April 7, 2006, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to expand the class to include temporary admissions advisors. The deadline for potential plaintiffs to opt-in to this lawsuit was June 23, 2006. Less than 10 percent of the persons to whom notice of the suit was sent, including current and former admissions advisors, have joined the litigation. The parties are currently engaged in discovery, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “Vennet, et al. v. American Intercontinental University Online, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04889,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge William T. Hart. Representing the plaintiffs is: Robin B. Potter, Esq. Robin Potter & Associates P.C. 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 861-1800 E-mail: robinpotter@igc.org Representing the defendants is: James M. Gecker, Esq. Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60661 Phone: 312-902-5200 E-mail: james.gecker@kattenlaw.com CAREER EDUCATION: Students of Calif. Culinary Academy File Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Career Education Corp. faces a purported class action in California entitled, “Amador et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corp.” On Sept. 27, 2007, a complaint was filed in the California Superior Court in San Francisco on behalf of 37 current and former students of the California Culinary Academy. Plaintiffs plead their complaint as a putative class action and allege four putative causes of action: fraud; constructive fraud; violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs contend that CCA made a variety of misrepresentations to them, primarily oral, during the admissions process. The alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of the admissions process, the students' employment prospects upon graduation from CCA and CCA's ability to arrange beneficial student loans. Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com-- is a educational services company operating. COMPUCREDIT CORP: Continues to Face N.C. Consumer Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- CompuCredit Corp. and five of the company's subsidiaries continue to face a purported class action filed in the Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, entitled, “Knox, et al. vs. First Southern Cash Advance, et al., No. 5 CV 0445.” The plaintiffs allege that in conducting a so-called “payday lending” business, certain of the Company's Retail Micro-Lending and Servicing segment subsidiaries violated various laws governing consumer finance, lending, check cashing, trade practices and loan brokering. The plaintiffs further allege that the Company is the alter ego of its subsidiaries and is liable for their actions. The plaintiffs are seeking damages of up to $75,000 per class member. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. CompuCredit Corp. -- http://www.compucredit.com/-- is a provider of various credit and related financial services and products to or associated with the underserved (or sub-prime) consumer credit market, as well as to un-banked consumers. COOPER LIGHTING: Recalls Shop Lights Posing Shock Hazard -------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Lighting Inc., a division of Cooper Industries, of Houston, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 274,000 Metalux Fluorescent Shop Lights. The company said when the two prongs on the plug's electrical cord are touched simultaneously while lamps are installed, the light can pose an electric shock hazard to consumers. Cooper Lighting has received six reports of consumers experiencing an electric shock. No serious injuries have occurred. This recall involves the Metalux fluorescent shop lights Model 9240. Only date codes between December 1, 2006 ("344 06") and September 14, 2007 ("257 07") are included in this recall. The date code format includes the day and the year. For example, "344 06" refers to the 344th day of year 2006, or December 1, 2006. The model number and date code can be found on the packaging and on labels adhered to the fixture housing. The fluorescent shop lights were made in China and sold at major home center and hardware stores nationwide from January 2007 to October 2007 for between $8 and $10. Consumers are advised to stop using the light fixture immediately and uninstall it according to instructions posted at http://www.cooperlighting.com. The fixture should be returned to the place of purchase for a full refund or credit. For additional information, contact Cooper Lighting at (800) 440-1676 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit http://www.cooperlighting.com. ELI LILLY: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Fraud Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly and Co. is seeking for the dismissal of an amended consolidated securities complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suits, which were filed against the company and various current and former directors, officers and employees, are: -- “Smith et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company et al.,” filed on March 28, 2007, and -- “Valentine v. Eli Lilly and Company et al.,” filed on April 5, 2007. In both lawsuits, plaintiffs request certification of a class of purchasers of the company's stock from March 28, 2002, through Dec. 22, 2006. The complaints allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Zyprexa in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and the costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees. In October 2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, according to its Nov. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Eli Lilly and Co. -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers, develops, manufactures and sells products in one business segment, pharmaceutical products. FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls Jewelry on Paint's High Lead Content ----------------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, of Charlotte, N.C., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 205,000 Rachel Rose and Distinctly Basics Assorted Metal Jewelry. The company said the recalled jewelry contains high levels of lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects. No incidents/injuries have been reported so far. The recalled jewelry was sold under the Rachel Rose and Distinctly Basics brands and includes key rings and pins with religious themes (crosses and fish symbols), key rings with "Mom" and cheerleader charms; bracelets with charms like handbags, flip flops, hearts, dresses, and flowers; silver- colored rings with designs or stones in a variety of colors; clutchless hoop earrings with decorations such as butterflies; and filigree and long drop earrings with stones in a variety of colors. The jewelry was made in China and sold at Family Dollar stores nationwide from January 2003 through August 2007 for between $.50 and $2. A complete list of the recalled jewelry can be found at htpp://www.familydollar.com. It was sold at Hobby Lobby stores nationwide from August 2007 through November 2007 for about $1. Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled jewelry away from children and return it to a Family Dollar store for a full refund. For additional information, contact Family Dollar at (800) 547-0359 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.familydollar.com. GAS PIPELINES: No Ruling Yet in Antitrust Suit Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has yet to rule on a motion to certify a new class action, styled, “Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al.” Gas Pipelines is a subsidiary of XTO Energy, Inc. The action was filed in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, against natural gas pipeline owners and operators. It seeks to represent a class of plaintiffs consisting of all similarly situated gas royalty owners either from whom the defendants had purchased natural gas or measured natural gas since January 1, 1974 to the present. The new petition alleges the same improper analysis of gas heating content that had previously been alleged in "Price" until it was removed from the case by the filing of the amended class action petition. The previous "Price" case is styled, "Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al. (formerly "Quinque" case)." It was filed in June 2001, on behalf of a class of plaintiffs consisting of all similarly situated gas working interest owners, overriding royalty owners and royalty owners either from whom the defendants had purchased natural gas or who received economic benefit from the sale of such gas since Jan. 1, 1974. In all other respects, the new petition appears to be identical to the amended class action petition in that it has a proposed class of only royalty owners, alleges conspiracy, unjust enrichment and accounting, and only applies to gas measured in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming. The court held an evidentiary hearing in April 2005 to determine whether the amended class should be certified, and the Company is awaiting the Court's decision. The company reported no development in the case at its Nov. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007. XTO Energy Inc. -- http://www.xtoenergy.com– along with its subsidiaries are engaged in the acquisition, development, exploitation and exploration of producing oil and gas properties, and in the production, processing, marketing and transportation of oil and natural gas. GAS PIPELINES: No Certification Yet in Gas Royalty Owners Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has yet to rule on a motion to certify a lawsuit filed by gas royalty owners against Gas Pipelines, a subsidiary of XTO Energy, Inc. On Aug. 5, 2003, plaintiffs in “Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al.,” served one of the company's subsidiaries with a new original class action petition, “Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al.” The action was filed in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, against natural gas pipeline owners and operators. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of plaintiffs consisting of all similarly situated gas royalty owners either from whom the defendants had purchased natural gas or measured natural gas since Jan. 1, 1974 to the present. The new petition alleges the same improper analysis of gas heating content that had previously been alleged in the Price case discussed above until it was removed from the case by the filing of the amended class action petition. In all other respects, the new petition appears to be identical to the amended class action petition in that it has a proposed class of only royalty owners, alleges conspiracy, unjust enrichment and accounting, and only applies to gas measured in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming. The court held an evidentiary hearing in April 2005 to determine whether the amended class should be certified, and the company is awaiting the decision of the court. The amount of damages was not specified in the complaint. The company reported no development in the case at its Nov. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007. XTO Energy Inc. -- http://www.xtoenergy.com– along with its subsidiaries are engaged in the acquisition, development, exploitation and exploration of producing oil and gas properties, and in the production, processing, marketing and transportation of oil and natural gas. L-3 COMMS: Pension Fund Amends Suit Over Stock Options Award ------------------------------------------------------------ The Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund (IBEW) filed an amended complaint in a suit over L-3 Communications Corp.'s stock options award practices. On Nov. 20, 2006, IBEW filed a class action complaint in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York against the Company and certain current and former directors and officers alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Company’s historical stock option grants and disclosures. The complaint seeks monetary damages, rescission of the 2004 amendment to the 1999 Long Term Performance Plan, equitable relief, and the award of fees and expenses. The Company and other defendants filed a notice of removal of this action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 9, 2007, which was denied on July 24, 2007. On Sept. 12, 2007, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s action. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Oct. 17, 2007, asserting claims against a slightly different group of current and former directors and officers. This new complaint adds several state law claims brought derivatively by the plaintiff, including breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff’s amended complaint seeks monetary damages, rescission of the 2004 Amendment to the 1999 Long Term Performance Plan, equitable relief, disgorgement and attorney’s fees and costs. L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.L-3com.com-- is a system contractor for aircraft modernization and operations and maintenance, command, control and communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance collection systems and services, training and simulation, intelligence services and government support services. NVR INC: Faces Several Overtime Wage Suits in Ohio, Md., N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- NVR, Inc. faces several purported class actions in Ohio, Maryland, and New York with regards to overtime wages, according to its Nov. 1, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. On July 18, 2007, former employees filed lawsuits against the coampny in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in the Superior Court in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007 in the Superior Court in New Jersey. The suits are alleging that the company incorrectly classified its sales and marketing representatives as being exempt from overtime wages. These lawsuits are similar in nature to another lawsuit filed on Oct. 29, 2004 by another former employee in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The complaints seek injunctive relief, an award of unpaid wages, including fringe benefits, liquidated damages equal to the overtime wages allegedly due and not paid, attorney and other fees and interest. The suits were filed as purported class action. The class of individuals that any of the lawsuits purport to represent has not been certified. NVR, Inc. -- http://www.nvrinc.com/-- is engaged in the construction and sale of single-family detached homes, town homes and condominium buildings. NVR also operates a mortgage banking business. NVR INC: Still Faces Penn. Suit Alleging RESPA Violations --------------------------------------------------------- NVR, Inc. faces a purported class action in Pennsylvania, alleging that it violated Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement and Protection Act. On April 16, 2007, a lawsuit was filed by one of the company's customers in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs allege that the company violated Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement and Protection Act. The complaint seeks treble damages, interest, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorney fees and other expenses. The lawsuit was filed as a purported class action. NVR, Inc. -- http://www.nvrinc.com/-- is engaged in the construction and sale of single-family detached homes, town homes and condominium buildings. NVR also operates a mortgage banking business. PHILIP MORRIS: Award in Brazilian Consumer Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants in smoking and health class actions brought against tobacco industry participants in Brazil are appealing a 2004 order granting damages award to plaintiffs. In addition to the cases brought in the United States, three smoking and health class actions have been brought against tobacco industry participants, including certain Philip Morris International Inc. subsidiaries in Brazil and Israel. In one class action in Brazil, a consumer organization is seeking damages for smokers and former smokers, and injunctive relief. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff in February 2004. The court awarded BRL$1,000 (currently approximately $500) per smoker per full year of smoking for moral damages plus interest at the rate of 1% per month, as of the date of the ruling. Actual damages are to be assessed in a second phase of the case. The size of the class is currently unknown. Defendants appealed the decision to the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals and the case, including the judgment, is currently stayed pending appeal. In addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Court on the basis that the consumer association does not have standing to bring the lawsuit. Both appeals are pending, according to Altria Group Inc.'s Nov. 6 10-Q filing for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007. PHILIP MORRIS: Marlboro Smokers Class Certification Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Currently pending are two purported class actions against Philip Morris USA: (1) Caronia, filed in January 2006 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York; and (2) Donovan, filed in March 2007 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The suits were filed on behalf of each state’s respective residents who: are age 50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or more; and have neither been diagnosed with lung cancer nor are under examination by a physician for suspected lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose liability under various product-based causes of action and the creation of a court- supervised program providing members of the purported class Low Dose CT Scanning in order to identify and diagnose lung cancer. Neither claim seeks punitive damages. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is pending in Caronia, according to Altria Group Inc.'s Nov. 6 10-Q filing for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007. PHILIP MORRIS: Still Faces Tobacco Marketing Fraud Suit in Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris USA faces two remaining tobacco-related class actions under the California Business and Professions Code after the dismissal of one suit in August. In June 1997 and July 1998, two suits, “Brown” and “Daniels” were filed in California state court alleging that domestic cigarette manufacturers, including PM USA and others, have violated California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices. Class certification was granted in both cases as to plaintiffs’ claims that class members are entitled to reimbursement of the costs of cigarettes purchased during the class periods and injunctive relief. Daniels Lawsuit In September 2002, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims in “Daniels,” and plaintiffs appealed. In October 2004, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling, and also denied plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing. In February 2005, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear plaintiffs’ appeal. In August 2007, the California Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the Daniels class action on federal preemption grounds. Brown Lawsuit In September 2004, the trial court in “Brown” granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ claims attacking defendants’ cigarette advertising and promotion and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims based on allegedly false affirmative statements. Plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing was denied. In March 2005, the court granted defendants’ motion to decertify the class based on a recent change in California law, which, in two July 2006 opinions, the California Supreme Court ruled applicable to pending cases. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the order that decertified the class was denied, and plaintiffs have appealed. In September 2006, an intermediate appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order decertifying the class in Brown. In November 2006, the California Supreme Court accepted review of the appellate court’s decision. Gurevitch Lawsuit In May 2004, “Gurevitch” was filed in California state court on behalf of a purported class of all California residents who purchased the Merit brand of cigarettes since July 2000 to the present alleging that defendants, including PM USA, violated California’s Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices, including false and misleading advertising. The complaint also alleges violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, disgorgement, restitution, and attorneys’ fees. In July 2005, defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted; however, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint was also granted, and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in September 2005. In October 2005, the court stayed this action pending the California Supreme Court’s rulings on two cases not involving PM USA. In July 2006, the California Supreme Court issued rulings in the two cases and held that a recent change in California law known as Proposition 64, which limits the ability to bring a lawsuit to only those plaintiffs who have “suffered injury in fact” and “lost money or property” as a result of defendant’s alleged statutory violations, properly applies to pending cases. In September 2006, the stay was lifted and defendants filed their demurrer to plaintiffs’ amended complaint. In March 2007, the court, without ruling on the demurrer, again stayed the action pending rulings from the California Supreme Court in another case involving Proposition 64 that is relevant to PM USA’s demurrer. PHILIP MORRIS: Faces 17 Lights/Ultra Lights Suits in U.S. --------------------------------------------------------- Seventeen Lights/Ultra Lights Cases are pending in the U.S. against Philip Morris USA and, in certain instances, Altria Group, Inc. (ALG) and Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) or its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs in these class actions (some of which have not been certified as such), allege, among other things, that the uses of the terms “Lights” and/or “Ultra Lights” constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law fraud, or Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act violations, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, ALG and PMI or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury, and damages, the statute of limitations, express preemption by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and implied preemption by the policies and directives of the Federal Trade Commission, non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. Seventeen cases are pending in: Arkansas 2 Delaware 1 Florida 1 Illinois 1 Maine 1 Massachusetts 1 Minnesota 1 Missouri 1 New Hampshire 1 New Jersey 1 New Mexico 1 New York 1 Oregon 1 Tennessee 1 West Virginia 2 In addition, there are two cases pending in Israel. Other entities have stated that they are considering filing such actions against ALG, PMI, and PM USA. To the date of Altria Group's Nov. 6 10-Q filing for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007., 10 courts in 11 cases have refused to certify class actions, reversed prior class certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of PM USA. Trial courts in Arizona, Kansas, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington have refused to certify a class, an appellate court in Florida has overturned class certification by a trial court, the Ohio Supreme Court has overturned class certifications in two cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has dismissed a purported Lights class action, “Sullivan,” brought in Louisiana federal court on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claims were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. “Sullivan v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al.,” was filed in United States District Court, Western District, Louisiana on March 28, 2003. In August 2005, the court granted in part the motion for summary judgment filed by PM USA by dismissing plaintiffs' claims asserted under the Louisiana Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act. PHILIP MORRIS: Revival of “Aspinall” Lights Lawsuit Under Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Motions for direct appellate review by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court of an order reinstating the lights suit, “Aspinall v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 813 N.E.2d 476,” were granted. The civil action was commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 25, 1998. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant companies’ marketing of “light” cigarettes as delivering “lowered tar and nicotine” constituted deceptive conduct in a trade or business. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that Philip Morris knew that smokers of Marlboro Lights could receive as much, or more, tar and nicotine than if they had smoked regular cigarettes. Plaintiffs seek only to recover for economic loss, and not personal injuries. The Aspinall case was initially certified as a class action by a Massachusetts trial court on October 11, 2001. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is the first state supreme court to certify a class action against Philip Morris Cos. for allegedly deceiving consumers in its marketing of so-called light cigarettes. The suit was later decertified by a judge of the state's intermediate appellate court. In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reinstated the "lights" class action, ruling that Massachusetts' Consumer Protection laws require the trial court to allow the case to proceed as a class action but noting that the class certification "may be revisited" at a later time. The ruling was limited to Massachusetts (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 16, 2004). In April 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion to redefine the class to include all persons who after November 25, 1994 purchased packs or cartons of Marlboro Lights cigarettes in Massachusetts that displayed the legend “Lower Tar & Nicotine” (the original class definition did not include a reference to lower tar and nicotine). In August 2006, the trial court denied Philip Morris USA’s motion for summary judgment based on the state consumer protection statutory exemption and federal preemption. On motion of the parties, the trial court has subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment to the appeals court for review and the trial court proceedings are stayed pending completion of the appellate review. Motions for direct appellate review with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court were granted in April 2007. SEARS ROEBUCK: Settles Suit Over Gas Ranges Without “Anti-Tip” -------------------------------------------------------------- Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron has set a January hearing to approve a settlement between attorney Stephen Tillery of St. Louis and Sears Roebuck in a suit about gas or electric ranges that lack anti-tipping device, Steve Korris of Madison St. Clair Record reports. The suit was filed in 2004 on behalf of people who purchased free-standing or slide-in gas or electric ranges, which Sears delivered and set up without installing an "anti-tipping" safety device from Sept. 11, 1999, until the date of certification (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2007). Plaintiffs -- Charles and Annemarie Parker and Joyce and David Sumpter -- alleged the ranges they purchased from Sears were not installed properly. They claimed Sears breached warranty by not installing "anti-tip brackets," which put them in danger, rather than claim injuries. The class had wanted $60-125 to have the brackets installed. On Sept. 18, Mr. Tillery and Sears attorney Larry Hepler of Edwardsville announced a settlement. They agreed to certify a settlement class of range buyers in 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, back to July 2, 2000. Under the agreement, a class member can request installation of an anti-tip device on his or her range from Sears free of charge. Alternatively, a class member can request a $50 gift card on a Sears range. A class member who has paid for anti-tip installation can receive reimbursement up to $100, they agreed. Sears agreed to install anti-tip devices as part of normal delivery for three years. The class excluded anyone who filed a personal injury suit over a tipping range, anyone who moved since buying a range, and anyone who might opt out of the settlement. The settlement excludes those customers for whom installation of a range stability device is not reasonably feasible due to the physical condition of the class member's range or home," the parties wrote in a joint motion for preliminary approval. "...[C]lass members must acknowledge that a certain amount of damage to building materials (i.e. - screw holes, etc.) is a necessary byproduct of installation…," they wrote. They also agreed that the settlement would not obligate Sears to install a device if the repair person showed up at the appointed time to find the stove hot. Class counsel plans to petition for attorney fees and costs not to exceed $17 million. Judge Byron granted preliminary approval to the settlement and set a fairness hearing in January. Settlement administrator Rust Consulting of Minneapolis has mailed notices to the class. For more information, contact: Stephen Tillery, Esq. Korein Tillery LLC Gateway on the Mall, 701 Market Street, Suite 300 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 241-4844 Fax: (314) 588-7036 Representing Sears is: Larry E. Hepler, Esq. Hepler, Broom, MacDonald, Hebrank, True & Noce, LLC Two Mark Twain Plaza, Suite 300 103 West Vandalia Street P.O. Box 510, Edwardsville, Illinois 62025-0510 Phone: 618-307-1117 Telecopier: 618-656-1364 STEWART TITLE: Court to Evaluate Yigo Lands Suit Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Guam will evaluate the certification of a lawsuit against an insurance business that provides title insurance for its properties in Yigo, Gina Tabonares of the Marianas Variety reports. Gill Baza subdivision developer Cyfred Ltd. filed the suit on Aug. 20 raising claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007). It seeks $9,999,000. The Gill-Baza Subdivision was a way for low-income residents to find their way to home ownership by purchasing lots from a company called Cyfred, Inc. These residents could purchase property for zero or low money down at a 12% interest rate, with monthly payments under $500 a month. Attorney Curtis Van De Veld filed the action, alleging Stewart Title Guaranty and others failed to seek approval of insurance forms and rates they charge consumers. Under Guam law, all insurance companies are required to obtain approval from the Guam Banking and Insurance Commissioner before it can sell insurance policies, the report said. Cyfred also alleges the company only provided "an illusion of insurance coverage"; it never intended to provide and that its' policies were unfair and illegal. Recently, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joaquin Manibusan issued a scheduling order and discovery plan after the parties were unable to agree on several terms. The suit is Cyfred, Ltd. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00023, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Guam. Representing plaintiffs is: Curtis Charles Van de veld The Vandeveld Law Offices, P.C. Second Floor, Historical Bldg. 123 Hernan Cortes Avenue Hagatna, GU 96910 Phone: 671-477-2020 Fax: 671-472-2561 TOTAL HEALTH: Settles Workers' Suit in Penna. Court for $2.2M ------------------------------------------------------------- Total Health Home Care Corp. has agreed to pay $2.2 million to settle a class action filed by a group of caregivers alleging they were not paid or paid less than they should for hours worked, The Associated Press reports. In 2006, the group filed the suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, claiming the company should have paid them for the time they spent traveling between clients (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2006). One of the plaintiffs is Tracey Dennis. According to the report, they further claim the company forfeits some of their earnings through a wage practice that requires them at least 38 hours of time with clients in a week, or else their wage rate for all hours worked during that week will be reduced to as little as the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour. The workers claim the practice unjustly enriches Total Health at their expense. The settlement will cover 3,000 former and current nonsupervisory workers employed by the company from May 18, 2002, to March 17, the report said. TRI-STATE CHRYSLER: W.Va. Woman Sues Over “Fraudulent Contest” -------------------------------------------------------------- Tri-State Chrysler Jeep and Smart Automotive Group is facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 7 in Kanawha Circuit Court over the car dealer's alleged “misleading contest,” Cara Bailey of the West Virginia Record reports. Named plaintiff Cabell County woman Carol Patterson claims she was misled after receiving an advertisement that entitled her to several thousands dollars off a vehicle. Ms.Patterson claims she received a direct mail solicitation, which indicated she had won a contest that entitled her to $4,000 off any vehicle sold by the dealership. But when she visited the dealership in 2006 to purchase a vehicle, she did not receive the promised reduction. Afterwards, she traded a 1997 Jeep Grand Cherokee that she later found out to have been used as a rental vehicle. Allegedly, the company did not inform her of the vehicle's history. She tried to get her original vehicle but was told it was already sold. Ms. Patterson says she later learned that is was not sold until several weeks after the transaction, according to the report. Ms. Patterson seeks relief for the class who are those who received a mailing solicitation within the last 10 years from Smart Automotive Group and have not filed an individual civil action alleging misconduct. The class seeks compensation for emotional and mental distress, loss of use, aggravation, anxiety, annoyance and inconvenience. They also seek punitive damages for willful, wanton and reckless disregard for their legal rights, Ms. Bailey says. Representing Ms. Patterson is: David L. Grubb The Grubb Law Group 1324 Virginia Street E Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 345-3356 or (866) 851-9292 (Toll Free) Fax: (304) 345-3355 Web site: http://www.grubblawgroup.com UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Awaits Ruling in “Taylor” Policyholders Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A federal court has reserved further ruling on a motion for summary judgment by UnumProvident Corp. in the putative class action, “Taylor v. UnumProvident Corp., et al.,” The suit was filed April 30, 2003, originally in the Tennessee Circuit Court. It was subsequently removed to federal court. The suit alleges claims against UnumProvident and certain subsidiaries on behalf of a putative class of long-term disability insurance policyholders who did not obtain their coverage through employer sponsored plans and who had a claim denied, terminated, or suspended by a UnumProvident subsidiary after Jan. 1, 1995, seeking equitable and monetary relief. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated various state laws by engaging in unfair claim practices and improperly denying claims. The court subsequently granted in part the company's motion for summary judgment in “Taylor,” dismissing plaintiff’s request for equitable relief on her breach of contract claim and dismissing any claim plaintiff may make for punitive damages under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The former claim is the principal claim upon which class certification is sought. The court reserved ruling on the remainder of the pending motion for summary judgment pending further mediation of the matter, according to the Unum Group's Nov. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Unum Group -- http://www.unum.com/-- formerly UnumProvident Corp., is a provider of group and individual income-protection insurance products in the U.S., and the U.K. WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Suit Over Undisclosed "Preferred List" --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, asserting that Washington Mutual maintained and failed to disclose a "preferred list" of proprietary mutual funds while concealing from investors revenue-sharing and other incentive programs intended to sell the WM Group of Funds. The complaint alleges that Washington Mutual violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading information in the mutual fund prospectuses, which impeded investor access to alternative funds and superior returns. On June 6, 2007, the district court appointed the named plaintiff as lead plaintiff and Finkelstein & Krinsk as lead counsel. For more information, contact: William Restis, Esq. Finkelstein & Krinsk 501 West Broadway, Suite 1250 San Diego CA, 92101 Toll free: 877-493-5366 E-mail: wrr@classaction.com Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Connors Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upheld a June 28, 2005 ruling Board of Veterans' Appeals ruling, which denied service connection for the cause of John T. Connors' death. Judge Davis entered the decision of Case No. 05-2198 on Oct. 9, 2007. John T. Connors served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from January 1968 to November 1971. His military records reflect that he was an aircraft electrical repairman, and that he served in Japan, Korea, and Thailand. Mr. Connors received the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM). However, nothing in his service records officially documents his physical presence there. He died on Jan. 11, 1993. His death certificate listed as the cause of death respiratory failure due to pneumonia as a consequence of lung cancer. In February 2003, Mrs. Connors filed a claim for dependency and indemnity compensation, alleging that the veteran's lung cancer resulted from Agent Orange exposure. In April 2003, the Manchester, N.H., VA regional office (RO) denied her claim. Mrs. Connors filed a Notice of Disagreement, and the RO issued a Statement of the Case (SOC). Mrs. Connors attended a personal hearing on Feb. 5, 2004. Her representative stated that many of the airplanes on which Mr. Connors worked contained asbestos, and that records revealed that the veteran was once sent to a satellite airbase to repair an aircraft. The representative suggested that the airbase was likely in Vietnam, which would explain the veteran's receipt of the medal. In the June 28, 2005 decision on appeal, the Board denied service connection for the cause of Mr. Connors' death, specifically finding that his death was not "proximately due to or the result of a condition incurred or aggravated during service." Elaine M. Connors, Mr. Connors' surviving spouse, appealed through counsel from the June 28, 2005 Board decision. The appeal was timely, and the Court had jurisdiction to review the Board's decision. Single-judge disposition was appropriate. The Appeals Court found no reason to disturb the Board's conclusion that Mr. Connors did not serve in Vietnam and that "the veteran was not exposed to herbicides during service and that his death many years later was unrelated to his service." Similarly, to the extent Mrs. Connors suggested that Mr. Connors was exposed to asbestos during military service, her arguments cannot be sustained. After consideration of the parties' briefs and a review of the record, the Appeals Court affirmed the Board's June 28, 2005 decision. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Faces 208 Cases at Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Midwest Generation LLC, at Sept. 30, 2007, recorded about 208 asbestos-related cases for which it was potentially liable and that had not been settled and dismissed, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2007. At June 30, 2007, the Company recorded about 179 cases for which it was potentially liable and that had not been settled and dismissed. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007) The Company had recorded a US$64.2 million liability at Sept. 30, 2007 related to this matter. The Company entered into a supplemental agreement with Commonwealth Edison Co. and Exelon Generation Company LLC on Feb. 20, 2003 to resolve a dispute on the interpretation of its reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under the environmental indemnities set forth in an Asset Sale Agreement. Under this supplemental agreement, the Company agreed to reimburse Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for 50 percent of specific asbestos claims pending as of February 2003 and related expenses less recovery of insurance costs, and agreed to a sharing arrangement for liabilities and expenses associated with future asbestos-related claims set forth in the agreement. Commonwealth Edison and Midwest Generation apportion responsibility for future asbestos-related claims based upon the number of exposure sites that are Commonwealth Edison locations or Midwest Generation locations. The supplemental agreement has a five-year term with an automatic renewal provision. Payments are made under this indemnity upon tender by Commonwealth Edison of appropriate proof of liability for an asbestos-related settlement, judgment, verdict, or expense. Chicago-based Midwest Generation LLC is a power producer with a generating capacity of more than 5,610 MW from its six plants in Illinois. The Company also oversees the operation of the Fisk and Waukegan on-site generating plants, which have 305 MW of capacity. The Company is a subsidiary of Edison International unit Edison Mission Midwest Holdings Co. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Faces 1,183 Cases at Oct. 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------- CH Energy Group Inc. states that, as of Oct. 15, 2007, of the 3,310 pending asbestos cases filed against subsidiary Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., 1,183 cases remain pending, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2007. Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,976 have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 151 cases. Central Hudson is presently unable to assess the validity of the remaining asbestos lawsuits; accordingly, it cannot determine the ultimate liability relating to these cases. Central Hudson, as of June 30, 2007, had 1,181 pending asbestos- related cases, out of the 3,306 cases filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007) Poughkeepsie, N.Y.-based CH Energy Group Inc.'s utility subsidiary Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. provides electricity to 367,000 customers in eight counties of New York State's Mid-Hudson River Valley, and delivers natural gas and electricity in a 2,600-square-mile service territory extending from New York City to Albany, N.Y. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Ongoing v. CenterPoint, Units ---------------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to face lawsuits filed by individuals who claim injury to to exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2007. Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by the Company, but most existing claims relate to facilities previously owned by the Company or its subsidiaries. The Company anticipates that additional claims like those received may be asserted in the future. In 2004, the Company sold its generating business, to which most of these claims relate, to Texas Genco LLC, which is now known as NRG Texas LP (NRG). Under the terms of the arrangements on separation of the generating business from the Company and its sale to Texas Genco LLC, ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from claims on the generating business has been assumed by Texas Genco LLC and its successor. However, but the Company has agreed to continue to defend those claims to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by the Company. Houston-based CenterPoint Energy Inc.'s regulated utilities distribute natural gas and electricity to more than 5 million customers in six states, primarily in the southern U.S. The Company also operates 7,900 miles of gas pipeline, and it has gas gathering and storage operations. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berkshire Has $56.3M Loss Reserves at Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s Consolidated Balance Sheet as of Sept. 30, 2007 includes estimated liabilities for unpaid losses from property and casualty insurance and reinsurance contracts of US$56.3 billion, an increase of US$8.7 billion from Dec. 31, 2006. The increase in unpaid loss reserves was principally due to the Equitas reinsurance transaction that became effective on March 30, 2007. The reserves associated with this reinsurance transaction are considered to be long-tailed and include significant amounts related to asbestos, environmental, mass tort as well as other losses. Based in Omaha, Nebr., Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is a holding company owning subsidiaries engaged in diverse business activities. The most important of these are insurance businesses conducted on both a primary basis and a reinsurance basis. The Company also owns and operates other businesses engaged in various activities. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Has 10 Cases Set for Trial in 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Belden Inc. (f/k/a Belden CDT Inc.) has 10 asbestos-related actions, which are scheduled for trial in 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2, 2007. These 10 cases are included in about 155 personal injury cases in which the Company was aware of at Oct. 30, 2007. The Company recorded 26 asbestos-related cases that are scheduled for trial in 2007. These 26 cases are included in about 150 personal injury cases the Company was aware of at July 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007) The Company is party to various legal proceedings and administrative actions that are incidental to its operations in which the claimant alleges injury from exposure to asbestos fiber, generally contained in a small number of products made by the Company's predecessors. These proceedings include personal injury cases in which the Company is a defendant. Electricians have filed most of these cases, primarily in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory, special and punitive damages. Through Oct. 30, 2007, the Company has been dismissed (or reached agreement to be dismissed) in about 191 similar cases without any going to trial, and with 12 of these involving any payment to the claimant. The Company has insurance that it believes should cover a significant portion of any defense or settlement costs borne by the Company in these types of cases. St. Louis, Mo.-based Belden Inc. makes cable and wire products for use in the broadcasting, computer, entertainment, security, instrumentation, and networking industries. Products include fiber optic, coaxial, and multi-conductor cables, as well as lead and hookup wires and connectivity and management products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Has $189M for Claims at Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Old Republic International Corp.'s claim reserves for asbestos and environmental matters, at Sept. 30, 2007, amounted to a gross of US$189 million and a net of US$153.6 million. The Company's claim reserves for asbestos and environmental matters, at June 30, 2007, amounted to a gross of US$190.3 million and a net of US$153.4 million. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007) At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's claim reserves for asbestos and environmental matters amounted to a gross of US$194.9 million and a net of US$157.8 million. During the three most recent calendar years, the general insurance group experienced favorable development of prior year loss reserves primarily stemming from the commercial automobile and the E&O/D&O (financial indemnity) lines of business; this was partially offset by unfavorable development in excess workers compensation coverages and for ongoing development of asbestos and environmental exposures (general liability). Unfavorable developments attributable to A&E claim reserves are due to periodic re-evaluations of those reserves as well as reclassifications of other coverages’ reserves, typically workers compensation, deemed to be assignable to A&E types of losses. Chicago-based Old Republic International Corp., through subsidiaries covering the U.S. and Canada, is an insurance holding company operating in three areas: Old Republic General Insurance offers general insurance including commercial property and liability; the Company's Mortgage Guaranty unit offers mortgage guaranty insurance; and its Title Insurance Groups specialize in title insurance. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ATSDR Finds Illinois Beach Park Hazard-free ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to a Nov. 9, 2007 press release by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, conditions on the Adeline Jay Geo-Karis Illinois Beach State Park are not thought to harm people's health, Associated Content reports. The beach has been under investigation for asbestos contamination since 2006. The ATSDR released the results from the exposure investigation. The study was conducted by ATSDR starting in the spring of 2006. The documentation supporting the findings indicates that the IBSP beaches are fine. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency set up an expert panel that decided that more sampling should be done to confirm the findings from the investigation report. The EPA, in September 2007, took steps to do more sampling that is still in the lab being analyzed. It is ATSDR's responsibility to look at the results of the additional sampling done by the EPA and write an evaluation of the results in 2008. The current report is the result of the prior findings. Adeline Jay Geo-Karis Illinois Beach State Park is located along Lake Michigan, and has been watched by state agencies, the EPA, and the University of Illinois at Chicago since 1997. In 1997, building materials were found along the shoreline in the area, and it was discovered that the material contained asbestos. However, the reports to date have not shown chrysotile, which is the main type of asbestos that was found in the debris. Another type of asbestos was found in the air in small quantities after intense stirring of the sand that would not normally occur. ATSDR sampled sand and air during two types of activities, the construction of sand castles and tractor pulled grading equipment used to level the beach. This was a way to get the most sand disturbance and there by the best samples. Scientists collected samples from the sand and air and compared them to samples before the sand was disturbed. There was a slightly higher level of asbestos after the grading, but this much disturbance is not likely to occur during a normal day at the beach. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Madison County Trial Ends with Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Madison County, Ill.'s third asbestos trial in 45 days settled after a jury was empaneled to hear Gilbert Carrizales' suit, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Represented by Randy Gori of Edwardsville, Ill., Mr. Carrizales, of Madison County, sued 13 days after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. On March 15, 2007, Mr. Carrizales sued 105 defendants. However, the trial was narrowed down to Georgia-Pacific Corp. and John Crane Inc. Mr. Gori and Georgia-Pacific's attorney, Jeff Hebrank, spent the last two days picking a jury to hear the case. Shortly before opening arguments were scheduled to begin on Nov. 8, 2007, it was announced that a settlement had been reached in the case. In addition to asbestos exposure during his career, Mr. Carrizales also alleged he was exposed to asbestos during non- occupational work projects including home and automotive repairs, maintenance and remodeling. Mr. Carrizales alleged that Georgia-Pacific and John Crane included asbestos in their products even when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide any or adequate instructions concerning the safe methods of working with and around asbestos. Mr. Carrizales alleged the defendants are guilty of willful and wanton misconduct. He claims he has had to undergo costly medical treatment and that he suffers great physical pain and mental anguish as a result of his asbestos exposure. Over the past several years, Georgia-Pacific has done very well in defending asbestos cases in Madison County. In two separate trials in 2005 and 2006, Georgia-Pacific was granted defense verdicts. Attorney Mark "Moose" Phillips of Nelson Mullins in South Carolina assisted Mr. Hebrank in those trials. Several weeks ago, Georgia-Pacific settled a case for a nominal amount right before closing arguments in Chester Black's trial. Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack presided over the voir dire portion of jury examination. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Gov't. Indicts Contractors for Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inter-agency task force overseen by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, on Nov. 5, 2007, charged Francis Tramontozzi (72) and his son Thomas (47) with illegal asbestos removal, LegalNewsline.com reports. Ms. Coakley says the Tramontozzis did not notify the Department of Environmental Protection and caused asbestos emissions to be released. As a result, each was charged with violating the state's Clean Air Act. The Environmental Crimes Strike Force, a joint effort of Ms. Coakley's office and Secretary of Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles, learned of the case about one year ago. The Tramontozzis owned the property from which they were removing asbestos. In May 2006, a Board of Health Violation notice was issued to Francis Tramontozzi, who was ordered to fix the asbestos problem. When an inspector returned several months later, the deteriorating asbestos insulation was not fixed, Ms. Coakley says. In September 2006, the Tramontozzis had repaired the insulation. After a review by the Board of Health found asbestos debris and powder, which was not contained, in an area surrounding the building, the state's DEP was contacted, Ms. Coakley says. The Tramontozzis were released on their own recognizance and will appear in court Dec. 18, 2007 for a pretrial conference. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Gov't. Awards JPY22M Payout to Widow ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Okinawa Defense Bureau, a Japanese Defense Ministry branch, has paid about JPY22 million (US$194,700) in compensation to the bereaved wife of a former worker at a Kadena Air Base who died of lung cancer after being exposed to asbestos while at work, AirForceTimes report. The 62-year-old widow's lawyer, Takeshi Furukawa, made the announcement on Nov. 7, 2007. The Okinawa Defense Bureau decided Oct. 3, 2007 to make the first damages payment for asbestos victims at the base in Okinawa under the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement, according to Mr. Furukawa. The former worker serviced boilers at Kadena between 1964 and 1996, and died in 2001. His death was officially recognized to be an industrial accident in 2006. His wife then filed a JPY30 million suit against the Okinawa bureau in December 2006, saying asbestos measures were insufficient at the U.S. base. The bureau has admitted that the U.S. side and the Japanese government, which employs workers for U.S. bases in Japan, had neglected to take sufficient asbestos measures and paid compensation, Mr. Furukawa said. Mr. Furukawa said the case is significant in that it will pave the way for numerous U.S. base workers in Okinawa to seek redress from courts for asbestos-induced illnesses. Mr. Furukawa added that 13 cases of compensation have been paid to workers, or families of workers at Yokosuka Naval Base under the bilateral Status of Forces Agreement. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Still Party to W.R. Grace Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corp. continues to be involved in W.R. Grace & Co.’s bankruptcy case, which is pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the District of Delaware, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 5, 2007. On Nov. 27, 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in the bankruptcy case of W. R. Grace & Co. to resolve all current and future asbestos-related claims made against the Company and its affiliates, the fraudulent transfer claims, successor liability claims, and indemnification claims by Fresenius Medical Care Holdings Inc. and affiliated companies in connection with the Cryovac transaction. On Dec. 3, 2002, the Company's Board of Directors approved the agreement in principle. The Company received notice that both of the committees had approved the agreement in principle as of Dec. 5, 2002. The parties to the agreement in principle signed a definitive settlement agreement as of Nov. 10, 2003 consistent with the terms of the agreement in principle. The Company recorded a charge of US$850.1 million as a result of the asbestos settlement in its consolidated statement of operations for the year ended Dec. 31, 2002. On June 27, 2005, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the District of Delaware, where the Grace bankruptcy case is pending, signed an order approving the definitive settlement agreement. Although Grace is not a party to the settlement agreement, under the terms of the order, Grace is directed to comply with the settlement agreement subject to limited exceptions. The order also provides that the Court will retain jurisdiction of any dispute involving the interpretation or enforcement of the terms and provisions of the definitive settlement agreement. In January 2005, Grace filed a proposed plan of reorganization and related documents with the Bankruptcy Court. A number of objections were filed, and the Company does not know whether the final plan will be consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement or if the other conditions to the Company's obligation to pay the settlement amount will be met. Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corp. is a manufacturer of packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems that serve an array of food, industrial, medical, and consumer applications. Operating in 51 countries, the Company's international reach generated revenue of US$4.3 billion in 2006. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Involved in Grace Case in Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corp. continues to be involved in litigation with W.R. Grace & Co. in Canadian court, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 5, 2007. On March 31, 1998, the Company completed a multi-step transaction that brought the Cryovac packaging business and the former Sealed Air Corp.’s business under the common ownership of the Company. In its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company described the Cryovac transaction and contingencies related to the Cryovac transaction. The Company also described the cases of: -- Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al., and -- Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. The Company also described six additional putative class proceedings that had been brought in various provincial and federal courts in Canadian courts seeking recovery from the Company and its subsidiaries Cryovac Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie as well as other defendants, including Grace, for asbestos-related injuries. In April 2001, Grace's subsidiary Grace Canada Inc. had obtained an order of the Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Court File No. 01-CL-4081) recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the United States of America involving Grace Canada's U.S. parent corporation and other U.S. affiliates of Grace Canada, and enjoining all new actions and staying all current proceedings against Grace Canada related to asbestos under the Canadian Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. That order has been renewed repeatedly. In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, the court ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of staying all Canadian actions. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to lift the stay and enable the Canadian litigation to proceed in order to establish the validity and amount of their claims. The court has entered an order extending the stay until the date on which the relief sought by class action plaintiffs in their motion is either granted or denied by the court. The plaintiffs' motion was scheduled to be heard on Nov. 22, 2007. Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corp. is a manufacturer of packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems that serve an array of food, industrial, medical, and consumer applications. Operating in 51 countries, the Company's international reach generated revenue of US$4.3 billion in 2006. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Corp. Deficit Linked to Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corp.'s US$105.7 million decrease in working capital during the first nine months of 2007 resulted from an increase in current liabilities of US$35.6 million, due to an increase in accrued interest of US$26.2 million on the Company's liability under an asbestos settlement agreement. At Sept. 30, 2007, working capital was US$244.9 million compared with US$350.6 million at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 5, 2007. Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corp. is a manufacturer of packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems that serve an array of food, industrial, medical, and consumer applications. Operating in 51 countries, the Company's international reach generated revenue of US$4.3 billion in 2006. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quigley Bid on Disclosure Statement Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. says that, on Oct. 23, 2007, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York granted subsidiary Quigley Company Inc.'s application to approve its disclosure statement, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 5, 2007. Quigley was acquired by the Company in 1968 and sold small amounts of products containing asbestos until the 1970s. In September 2004, the Company and Quigley took steps that were intended to resolve all pending and future claims against Pfizer and Quigley in which the claimants allege personal injury from exposure to Quigley products containing asbestos, silica or mixed dust. In September 2004, Quigley filed a petition in the Bankruptcy Court seeking reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In March 2005, Quigley filed a reorganization plan in the Bankruptcy Court that needed the approval of both the Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York after receipt of the favorable vote of 75 percent of the claimants. In connection with that filing, the Company entered into settlement agreements with lawyers representing more than 80 percent of the individuals with claims related to Quigley products against Quigley and the Company. The agreements provide for a total of US$430 million in payments, of which US$215 million became due in December 2005 and is being paid to claimants upon receipt by the Company of certain required documentation from each of the claimants. The reorganization plan provided for the establishment of a Trust for the payment of all remaining pending claims as well as any future claims alleging injury from exposure to Quigley products. As certified by the balloting agent in May 2006, more than 75 percent of Quigley's claimants holding claims that represent more than two-thirds in value of claims against Quigley voted to accept Quigley's plan of reorganization. On Aug. 9, 2006, in reviewing the voting tabulation methodology, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that certain votes that accepted the plan were not predicated upon the actual value of the claim. As a result, the reorganization plan was not accepted. In June 2007, Quigley filed an amended plan of reorganization that is intended to address the Bankruptcy Court's concerns regarding the voting tabulation methodology. In July 2007, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing to consider the adequacy of Quigley's disclosure statement. On Oct. 23, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court granted Quigley's application to approve its disclosure statement. The parties have scheduled a conference with the court on Nov. 6, 2007 to resolve any remaining solicitation, voting or scheduling issues and, thereafter, will submit a proposed order to the court to approve the disclosure statement. N.Y.-based Pfizer Inc. is a research-based pharmaceuticals firm. Products include Viagra, Celebrex, Zoloft, and Lipitor. Subsidiaries include Embrex, Warner-Lambert, and Parke-Davis. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Industries Inc. Faces 470 Pending Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos-related cases against NL Industries Inc. totals about 470, in which these cases involve a total of about 7,000 plaintiffs and their spouses, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 5, 2007. The Company has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by its former operations containing asbestos, silica and mixed dust. In addition, the claims of about 3,300 former plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed from Ohio State Courts. The Company does not expect these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts’ medical criteria for asbestos- related claims. The Company has not accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability. To date, the Company has not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters. In addition, from time to time, the Company has received notices on asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which the Company has entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from the Company. Dallas-based NL Industries Inc., through subsidiary Kronos Worldwide, supplies titanium dioxide (T1O2), which maximizes the whiteness, opacity, and brightness of paints, plastics, paper, fibers, and ceramics. Valhi Inc. owns 83 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Receives 3,479 Claims in Jan.-Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife Inc.'s subsidiary Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. received about 3,479 new asbestos-related claims during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with 6,384 claims during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 5, 2007. Metropolitan Life received about 2,599 new asbestos-related claims during the six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with 3,886 new claims during the six months ended June 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007) Metropolitan Life is and has been a defendant in asbestos- related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of Metropolitan Life’s employees during the period from the 1920s through about the 1950s and allege that Metropolitan Life learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. Since 2002, trial courts in California and Illinois have denied Metropolitan Life’s motions to dismiss. As reported in the 2006 Annual Report, Metropolitan Life received about 7,870 asbestos- related claims in 2006. New York-based MetLife Inc., with its subsidiaries including Metopolitan Life Insurance Co., offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products and services to corporations and other institutions. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Faces 72,790 Pending Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Corp. faced about 72,790 pending asbestos claims as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with about 73,310 as of Dec. 31, 2006 and about 81,300 as of Sept. 30, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 5, 2007. The Company had had about 72,890 pending asbestos claims as of June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007) The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, before the 1970s. The Company is typically named as one of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases. Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos- containing insulating material in turbines sold for power- generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos-containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial ships. Of the claims pending as of Sept. 30, 2007, about 48,260 were pending in state courts, 21,210 in federal courts and, additionally, about 3,500 were third party claims pending in state courts. During the 2007-3rd quarter, the Company received about 880 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket about 800 claims. To date, the Company has not been liable for any third party claims. The Company's total costs for 2006 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits was about US$5.7 million, compared with US$37.2 million for 2005. New York-based CBS Corp. is comprised of the following segments: Television (CBS Television, comprised of the CBS Network, television stations, and its television production and syndication operations; Showtime Networks; and CSTV Networks), Radio (CBS Radio), Outdoor (CBS Outdoor) and Publishing (Simon & Schuster). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Solutia Inc. Involved in Asbestos Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Solutia Inc. continues to be involved in numerous asbestos- related legal proceedings, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 6, 2007. Before Sept. 1, 1997, the Company was a wholly owned subsidiary of the former Monsanto Co. (now known as Pharmacia Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer Inc.). On Sept. 1, 1997, Pharmacia distributed all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Solutia as a dividend to Pharmacia stockholders. As a result of the Solutia Spinoff, on Sept. 1, 1997, the Company became an independent publicly held company and its operations ceased to be owned by Pharmacia. Monsanto also indemnified Pharmacia on legal proceedings described in the Company's 2003 Form 10-K/A in which the Company was a named defendant or was defending solely due to its Pharmacia related indemnification obligations. Solutia is prohibited from performing with respect to these obligations, and developments in these matters are managed by Monsanto or other named defendants. Accordingly, the Company has ceased reporting on the status of those legal proceedings. The legal proceedings in this category relate to property damage, personal injury, products liability, premises liability or other damages relating to exposure to PCB, asbestos and other chemicals manufactured before the Solutia Spinoff. Defense and settlement costs as well as judgments are being funded by Monsanto for these matters. Monsanto’s funding of these legal activities, and the resulting claim against the Company which Monsanto has asserted in the Chapter 11 case, inclusive of the non-qualified unliquidated and contingent components of their claim, will be resolved via the Plan. The estimated unsecured claim amount was classified as a liability subject to compromise as of Sept. 30, 2007 in the amount of US$106 million and as of Dec. 31, 2006 in the amount of US$111 million. St. Louis-based Solutia Inc. manufactures and markets chemical- based products. The Company makes performance films for laminated safety glass and after-market applications; chemicals for the rubber industry; specialty products such as heat transfer fluids and aviation hydraulic fluids; and nylon products including high-performance polymers and fibers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MeadWestvaco Faces 400 Suits at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos-related lawsuits against MeadWestvaco Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2007, increased to about 400, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 6, 2007. As of June 30, 2007, the Company faced about 350 asbestos- related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007) The Company said that as with numerous other large industrial companies, it has been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury litigation. These suits also name many other corporate defendants. All of the claims against the Company resolved to date have been concluded before trial, either through dismissal or through settlement with payments to the plaintiff that are not material to the Company. At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had recorded litigation liabilities of about US$21 million, a significant portion of which relates to asbestos. Glen Allen, Va.-based MeadWestvaco Corp. provides packaging solutions to the food and beverage, media and entertainment, personal care, home and garden, cosmetics, and healthcare industries. The Company has positions in its Consumer & Office Products and Specialty Chemicals businesses, and operates in more than 30 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: California Water Faces Injury Case in L.A. ---------------------------------------------------------------- California Water Service Group and a number of co-defendants continue to face a complaint in the Superior Court County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC360406, for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 6, 2007. The plaintiff claims to have worked for three of the Company’s contractors on pipeline projects during the period 1958-1999, including Palos Verdes Water Co., a water utility the Company acquired in 1970. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and other defendants are responsible for his asbestos-related injuries. On April 20, 2007, the Superior Court sustained the Company’s demurrer without leave to amend all Plaintiff’s claims alleging products liability and intentional torts. The Court also sustained the Company’s demurrer with leave to amend Plaintiff’s claim for premise owner contractor liability, a negligence claim, alleging misconduct that may allow for punitive damages (the “Premise/Owner Claim”) and severed the Company from the accelerated trial with other named defendants. On July 3, 2007, the Court sustained the Company’s demurrer with leave to amend the Plaintiff’s third amended complaint alleging the Premise/Owner Claim. Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint restating the Premise/Owner Claim. The Court overruled the Company’s demurrer on the Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint, but the Court sustained the Company’s motion to strike punitive damages. The Company used asbestos cement pipe and fittings, which were widely used in the water industry and permitted for such use by regulatory agencies, and the Company hired qualified contractors to install the pipe and fittings in accordance with laws and regulations at the time. The Company’s insurance carrier has accepted the defense of the claim, reserving certain rights along with one of the contractors’ insurance companies. On May 30, 2007, the Company and a number of co-defendants were served with a complaint in the Superior Court County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-07-274213, for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos. The Plaintiff dismissed the Company from the complaint without prejudice prior to setting a trial date. The Company sustained no liability. San Jose, Calif.-based California Water Service Group is a holding company with five wholly owned subsidiaries that provide water utility and other related services in California, Washington, New Mexico and Hawaii. California Water Service Co., Washington Water Service Co., New Mexico Water Service Co., and Hawaii Water Service Company Inc. provide regulated utility services under the rules and regulations of their respective state’s regulatory commissions. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Face Cases w/ 6,300 Claimants ---------------------------------------------------------------- CIRCOR International Corp. subsidiaries have been named as defendants or third-party defendants in open asbestos-related claims brought on behalf of 6,300 plaintiffs, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 6, 2007. These subsidiaries are Leslie Controls Inc., Spence Engineering Company Inc., and Hoke Inc., three subsidiaries in the Company's Instrumentation and Thermal Fluid Controls Products segment. In some instances, the Company also has been named individually and as successor in interest to one or more of these subsidiaries. Of about 6,300 plaintiffs whose claims remain open, all but about 1,100 have brought their claims in Mississippi. The remaining claims have been brought in the state courts of about 32 different states with California, Texas, New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut having the most significant percentage of the claims. Leslie, Spence, and Hoke, have been named as defendants or third-party defendants in open asbestos related cases brought on behalf of about 6,100 claimants. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007) The Company's Leslie subsidiary is responsible for 29 percent of all defense and indemnity costs associated with asbestos claims made against it. On Oct. 12, 2007, a Los Angeles jury rendered a verdict that, if allowed to stand, would result in a liability to Leslie of about US$2.5 million (29 percent, or about US$700,000, would be paid by Leslie while insurance would pay the rest). During the first three quarters of the Company's 2007 fiscal year and excluding the Oct. 12, 2007 verdict, Leslie resolved a total of 70 asbestos cases for an aggregate indemnity amount of US$4.8 million, of which 71 percent or US$3.4 million was paid by insurance. During the three months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded 139 cases filed, 51 cases dismissed, and 12 cases resolved. During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded 424 cases filed, 129 cases dismissed, and 70 cases resolved. During the three months ended Sept. 30, 2007, aggregate indemnity costs amounted to US$1.4 million and aggregate defense costs amounted to US$2.4 million. During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, aggregate indemnity costs amounted to US$4.8 million and aggregate indemnity costs amounted to US$6.1 million. At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded 716 total open asbestos- related cases and 324 open mesothelioma cases. For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007 and excluding the Oct. 12, 2007 verdict, Leslie’s average per quarter share of combined defense and indemnity costs have been about US$1.1 million compared with a per quarter average of US$600,000 for the 2006 fiscal year. Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International Inc. provides valves and fluid control products for the industrial, aerospace, petrochemical, and energy markets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Insurance Reserves $23M at Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alleghany Corp.'s subsidiary, Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC, at Sept. 30, 2007, reserved a gross of US$23 million (a net of US$22.9 million) for asbestos and environmental unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses. AIHL, at June 30, 2007, recorded a gross of US$23.5 million (a net of US$23.4 million) as A&E reserves for unpaid losses and LAE. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007) These reserves are for various liability coverages related to asbestos and environmental impairment claims that arose from reinsurance assumed by a subsidiary of Capitol Transamerica Corp. (a Company subsidiary) between 1969 and 1976. This subsidiary exited this business in 1976. New York-based Alleghany Corp. has interests ranging from property/casualty insurance to real estate. The Company's RSUI Group is an underwriter of wholesale specialty insurance. The Company also has commercial and residential real estate interests in California. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alamo Group Has $331,000 for Ohio Facility ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alamo Group Inc. has identified and established a reserve of US$331,000 over a potential asbestos issue at its Gradall facility, in New Philadelphia, Ohio, which is being evaluated, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 6, 2007. The Company had identified and established a reserve of US$350,000 on a potential asbestos issue at its Gradall facility. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007) On Feb. 3, 2006, the Company purchased substantially all of the assets and assumed certain liabilities of the Gradall excavator business of JLG Industries Inc. Seguin, Tex.-based Alamo Group Inc. provides tractor-mounted mowing equipment (rotary, flail, and sickle-bar). The Company's Alamo Industrial and Tiger hydraulically powered tractor-mounted mowers are primarily sold to government entities. The Company's Rhino and M&W subsidiaries sell rotary cutters and other equipment to farmers and ranchers for pasture maintenance. The Company's McConnel, Bomford, and S.M.A. units sell hydraulic boom-mounted hedge and grass cutters. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. TriMas Rise to 1,697 at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- TriMas Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2007, was a party to about 1,697 pending asbestos-related cases involving an aggregate of about 9,662 claimants, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2007. These claimants allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of the Company's subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration industries. The Company, as of June 30, 2007, was party to about 1,648 pending asbestos-related cases involving an aggregate of about 9,810 claimants. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007) For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded 413 claims filed, 1,183 claims dismissed, and 119 claims settled. The Company recorded US$7,095 as the average settlement amount per claim during period and US$3,939,734 as total defense costs during period. For the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 3,766 claims filed, 12,508 claims dismissed, and 123 claims settled. The Company recorded US$5,613 as the average settlement amount per claim during period and US$4,895,104 as total defense costs during period. Of the 9,662 claims pending at Sept. 30, 2007, 160 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum), 137 of the 160 claims sought between US$1 million and US$5 million in total damages and 23 sought between US$5 million and US$10 million in total damages. Solely with respect to compensatory damages, 143 of the 160 claims sought between US$50,000 and US$600,000 and 17 sought between US$1 million and US$5 million. Solely with respect to punitive damages, 137 of the 160 claims sought between US$1 million and US$2.5 million and 23 sought US$5 million. Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been about US$4.6 million. Bloomfield Hills, Mich.-based TriMas Corp. manufactures products for commercial, industrial and consumer markets. The Company is engaged in five business segments: Packaging Systems, Energy Products, Industrial Specialties, RV & Trailer Products, and Recreational Accessories. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Has 660 Suits w/ 6,800 Claimants ---------------------------------------------------------------- RBS Global Inc. has been named as a defendant in over 660 asbestos-related lawsuits (with about 6,800 claimants) pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2007. The suits are related to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by the Company’s Stearns division. Invensys PLC and FMC, the prior owner of the Stearns business, have paid 100 percent of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. Similarly, the Company’s Prager subsidiary has been named as a defendant in two pending multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly manufactured by Prager. About 3,600 claimants are in the Prager lawsuits. Milwaukee-based RBS Global Inc. is an industrial company comprised of two segments, Power Transmission and Water Management. PT manufactures gears, industrial bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyor belts, couplings, aerospace bearings and seals, industrial chain and special components. WM supplies professional grade specification drainage, water control, PEX piping and commercial brass products, serving the commercial and institutional construction, civil and public water works markets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Falk Faces 140 Actions with 4,100 Claimants ---------------------------------------------------------------- RBS Global Inc.'s Falk subsidiary faces over 140 lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions over alleged personal injuries due to the presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously made by Falk. About 4,100 claimants are in these suits, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2007. Hamilton Sundstrand is defending Falk in these lawsuits under its indemnity obligations and has paid 100 percent of the costs to date. Milwaukee-based RBS Global Inc. is an industrial company comprised of two segments, Power Transmission and Water Management. PT manufactures gears, industrial bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyor belts, couplings, aerospace bearings and seals, industrial chain and special components. WM supplies professional grade specification drainage, water control, PEX piping and commercial brass products, serving the commercial and institutional construction, civil and public water works markets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Has 6,700 Zurn Cases at Sept. 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- RBS Global Inc. and an average of 67 other unrelated companies, as of Sept. 29, 2007, were defendants in about 6,700 asbestos- related lawsuits representing about 45,300 claims, in which the suits relate to the Company's Zurn water management business. The suits allege damages in an aggregate amount of about US$12.5 billion against all defendants. Plaintiffs’ claims against Zurn allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are being handled under a defense strategy funded by Zurn’s insurers. The Company estimates that Zurn’s potential liability for asbestos claims pending against it and for claims estimated to be filed through 2016 is about US$136 million, of which the Company expects to pay about US$102 million through 2016 on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years. Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its potential asbestos liability as of Sept. 29, 2007, is about US$285 million. As of Sept. 29, 2007, the Company had recorded a receivable from its insurance carriers of US$136 million, which corresponds to the amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of recovery. Milwaukee-based RBS Global Inc. is an industrial company comprised of two segments, Power Transmission and Water Management. PT manufactures gears, industrial bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyor belts, couplings, aerospace bearings and seals, industrial chain and special components. WM supplies professional grade specification drainage, water control, PEX piping and commercial brass products, serving the commercial and institutional construction, civil and public water works markets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quaker Unit, Carrier Enter Claims Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inactive Quaker Chemical Corp. subsidiary and a primary insurance carrier, during the 2007-3rd quarter, entered into an asbestos-related Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2007. Under the agreement, the carrier will pay 27 percent of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims for a minimum of five years beginning July 1, 2007. The subsidiary that was acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other than the proceeds from insurance settlements received in 2005 and early in the 2007-2nd quarter. To date, most of these claims have been disposed of without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against the subsidiary. It is projected that the subsidiary’s total liability over the next 50 years for these claims is about US$12,700,000. These cases were handled by the subsidiary’s primary and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the aggregate limits of the policies. A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response to this challenge, two of the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in late 2005 for US$15 million and in the 2007-1st quarter for US$20 million. The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement are structured to be received over a four-year period with annual installments of US$5 million, the first of which was received early in the 2007-2nd quarter. Conshohocken, Pa.-based Quaker Chemical Corp. produces rolling lubricants used in making rolled aluminum products and hot- and cold-rolled steel products. The Company also makes corrosion preventives, metal finishing compounds, hydraulic fluids, and machining, grinding, and forming compounds. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Records 115 Actions at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Indianapolis Power & Light Co., an IPALCO Enterprises Inc. subsidiary, faces about 115 pending asbestos-related lawsuits as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with 114 pending suits at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2007. These suits allege personal injury or wrongful death stemming from exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing products formerly located in IPL power plants. IPL has been named as a “premises defendant” in that IPL did not mine, manufacture, distribute or install asbestos or asbestos containing products. These suits have been brought on behalf of persons who worked for contractors or subcontractors hired by IPL. IPL has insurance which may cover some portions of these claims. These cases are being defended by counsel retained by various insurers who wrote policies applicable to the period of time during which much of the exposure has been alleged. IPL faced about 116 pending asbestos-related lawsuits as of June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007) Indianapolis-based IPALCO Enterprises Inc. operates the regulated electric utility, Indianapolis Power & Light Co. and its unregulated subsidiary, Mid-America Capital Resources Inc. All of the Company's business consists of the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electric energy conducted through IPL. The Company is a subsidiary of The AES Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Has 34,702 Claims at Sept. 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- General Cable Corp., at Sept. 28, 2007, had about 34,702 outstanding asbestos claims, in which 1,272 were non-maritime and 33,430 were maritime, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2007. In addition, Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by the Company. The Company had accrued, on a gross basis, about US$5.3 million at Sept. 28, 2007 and about US$5.2 million at Dec. 31, 2006, and had recorded about US$500,000 of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits. The Company, at June 29, 2007, recorded about 34,805 outstanding asbestos-related claims, of which 1,415 were non-maritime claims and 33,390 were maritime claims. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007) Highland Heights, Ky.-based General Cable Corp. develops, designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Pending v. Gardner Denver ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gardner Denver Inc. continues to face asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2007. The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos from multiple sources and typically the Company is one of about 25 or more named defendants. In the Company’s experience to date, the majority of the plaintiffs have not suffered an injury for which the Company bears responsibility. Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed and sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos litigation lawsuits. However, neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber. Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products were enclosed within the subject Products. The Company has entered into a series of cost-sharing agreements with multiple insurance companies to secure coverage for asbestos lawsuits. The Company said it believes some of the potential liabilities regarding these lawsuits are covered by indemnity agreements with other parties. The Company’s uninsured settlement payments for past asbestos lawsuits have been immaterial. Quincy, Ill.-based Gardner Denver Inc. makes compressors, such as reciprocating, rotary screw, and sliding vane compressors, as well as positive displacement and centrifugal blowers. The Company also makes well-servicing pumps for oil and natural gas companies, and it is adding new lines, such as water-jetting products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $363.48M Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s long-term asbestos-related liability amounted to US$363,478,000 as of Sept. 28, 2007, compared with US$424,628,000 as of Dec. 29, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2007. The Company's asbestos-related liability amounted to US$384,824,000 as of June 29, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007) The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable amounted to US$311,279,000 as of Sept. 28, 2007, compared with US$350,322,000 as of Dec. 29, 2006. The Company’s asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable amounted to US$335,862,000 as of June 29, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007) Net asbestos-related gains totaled US$8,633,000 during the three months ended Sept. 28, 2007, compared with US$36,074,000 during the three months ended Sept. 29, 2008. Net asbestos-related gains totaled US$8,633,000 during the nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007, compared with US$115,664,000 during the nine months ended Sept. 29, 2006. Some of the Company's U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries are defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits and out-of-court informal claims pending in the United States and United Kingdom. Plaintiffs claim damages for personal injury alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with work allegedly performed by Company subsidiaries during the 1970s and earlier. Clinton, N.J.-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. builds business process and power generating facilities. The Company operates through two business groups: The Engineering & Construction group and Global Power Group. The Company also builds, own, and leases cogeneration and independent power projects. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has 343 Open Claims in U.K. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Wheeler Ltd., as of Sept. 28, 2007, recorded 343 open asbestos-related claims filed against its subsidiaries in the United Kingdom, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2007. Some of the Company's subsidiaries in the United Kingdom have received claims alleging personal injury arising from exposure to asbestos. To date, 855 claims have been brought against the U.K. subsidiaries. None of the settled claims has resulted in material costs to the Company. As of Sept. 28, 2007, the Company had recorded total liabilities of US$36.5 million comprised of an estimated liability relating to open (outstanding) claims of US$6 million and an estimated liability relating to future unasserted claims through year-end 2021 of US$30.5 million. Of the total, US$2.3 million was recorded in accrued expenses and US$34.2 million was recorded in asbestos-related liability on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. An asset in an equal amount was recorded for the expected U.K. asbestos-related insurance recoveries, of which US$2.3 million was recorded in accounts and notes receivable-other and US$34.2 million was recorded as asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. The liability estimates are based on an Oct. 17, 2007 final ruling from the U.K. House of Lords upholding a court decision that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a compensable injury. Clinton, N.J.-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. builds business process and power generating facilities. The Company operates through two business groups: The Engineering & Construction group and Global Power Group. The Company also builds, own, and leases cogeneration and independent power projects. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records 132,810 U.S. Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Foster Wheeler Ltd. recorded 132,810 open asbestos-related claims filed against its U.S. subsidiaries during the three and nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007, compared with 150,800 claims during the three and nine months ended Sept. 29, 2006. During the three months ended Sept. 28, 2007, the Company noted 1,080 U.S. claims filed and 1,850 U.S. claims resolved. During the three months ended Sept. 29, 2006, the Company noted 2,030 U.S. claims filed and 12,670 U.S. claims resolved. During the nine months ended Sept. 29, 2007, the Company noted 4,160 U.S. claims filed and 7,240 U.S. claims resolved. During the nine months ended Sept. 29, 2006, the Company noted 7,360 U.S. claims filed and 21,380 U.S. claims resolved. Total asbestos assets amounted to US$335,110,000 as of Sept. 28, 2007, compared with US$363,700,000 as of Dec. 29, 2006. Total asbestos liabilities amounted to US$399,300,000 as of Sept. 28, 2007, compared with US$466 million as of Dec. 29, 2006. Payments made during the nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007 reduced the Company's estimated year-end 2006 liability by US$66,700,000. The amount spent on asbestos litigation, defense and case resolution was US$21,800,000 for the three months ended Sept. 28, 2007 and US$66,700,000 for the nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007. As of Sept. 28, 2007, total asbestos-related liabilities were comprised of an estimated liability of US$136,800,000 relating to open (outstanding) claims being valued and an estimated liability of US$262,500,000 relating to future unasserted claims through year-end 2021. The overall historic average combined indemnity and defense cost per resolved claim through Sept. 28, 2007 has been about US$2,500. As of Sept. 28, 2007, the Company estimated the value of its asbestos insurance asset contested by its subsidiaries’ insurers in ongoing litigation in New York state court at US$26.5 million. The litigation relates to the amounts of insurance coverage available for asbestos-related claims and the proper allocation of the coverage among the subsidiaries’ various insurers and its subsidiaries as self-insurers. In the 2007-3rd quarter, the subsidiaries reached agreements to settle their disputed asbestos-related insurance coverage with two additional insurers. As a result of these settlements, the Company increased its asbestos-related insurance asset and recorded a gain of US$8.6 million in the 2007-3rd quarter. In 2006, the Company was successful in its appeal of a New York state trial court decision that previously had held that New York, rather than New Jersey, law applies in the above coverage litigation with the subsidiaries’ insurers, and as a result, the Company increased its insurance asset and recorded a gain of US$19.5 million. On Feb. 13, 2007, the subsidiaries’ insurers were granted permission by the appellate court to appeal the decision to the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court. On Oct. 11, 2007, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the appellate court decision in the Company's favor. Clinton, N.J.-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. builds business process and power generating facilities. The Company operates through two business groups: The Engineering & Construction group and Global Power Group. The Company also builds, own, and leases cogeneration and independent power projects. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Campaigner to Claim Extra Damages v. Hardie ---------------------------------------------------------------- The New South Wales Court of Appeal, on Nov. 20, 2007, has given asbestos campaigner Bernie Banton the go-ahead to pursue extra “punishment” damages for James Hardie Industries N.V.'s 2001 corporate restructure as part of his compensation claim for mesothelioma, The Sydney Morning Herald reports. Mr. Banton contracted mesothelioma in August 2007. The NSW Court of Appeal said Mr. Banton could be entitled to additional payment if the Dust Diseases Tribunal decided it strongly disapproved of the way Hardie set up an underfunded compensation trust in February 2001. Three appeal court judges said the tribunal, which will begin hearing Mr. Banton's claim on Nov. 21, 2007, could express its disapproval of Hardie's attempt to cut its links with asbestos by awarding so-called "exemplary" damages. Justice David Hodgson defined exemplary damages as "punishment for actions in contumelious disregard for a plaintiff's rights" designed to deter future wrongdoing. When an AUD1.5 billion shortfall in the 2001 trust was exposed in 2003, Hardie said it would not pay those claimants who missed out. After a public incident, in which Mr. Banton played a leading role, Hardie set up a second trust that began operating in February. The appeal judges dismissed an argument by the trust's barrister, David Williams, that exemplary damages could only be awarded for Hardie's conduct when Mr. Banton worked in its factory at Camellia, New South Wales, from 1968 to 1974. However, they agreed with Mr. Williams that Mr. Banton had already received exemplary damages for that period. This was because Mr. Banton contracted asbestosis in 1999 and was paid AUD800,000 compensation in 2000. Mr. Banton's barrister, Jack Rush, argued that although his client's 2000 case included a claim for exemplary damages, the out-of-court settlement did not include any payment for exemplary damages. However, the appeal judges, on Nov. 20, 2007, ruled the 2000 payment was not “fragmented.” Exemplary damages had been "merged" into the AUD800,000 damages award, Justice Hodgson said. Mr. Banton's claim is being handled jointly by Hardie's workers compensation insurer in the 1960s and 1970s, Allianz Australia, and the new trust set up in February 2007, the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund. Allianz made a settlement offer for loss of income, medical expenses and home care on Oct. 31, 2007. The fund challenged Mr. Banton's right to pursue exemplary damages. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Testing Offered to Ferry Workers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crew members of the Atlantic Freighter will get medical tests and people who worked on board in the past will receive questionnaires as Marine Atlantic continues dealing with asbestos on the ship, Cape Breton Post reports. Company spokeswoman Tara Laing, on Nov. 19, 2007, explained that current employees who worked on the vessel would be assessed by an occupational health doctor to determine if they were exposed to asbestos. Former crew members, some who may have been on board when the Crown corporation started using the vessel in 1986, will be sent a questionnaire. Once completed, Ms. Laing said, that document would also be reviewed by health professionals to determine if an investigation is required. According to Sue Irvine, president of the Canadian Auto Workers, Local 4285, who represents about half the 30-member crew, contacting former employees could take a lot of time as it may involve a lot of people, perhaps more than 1,000. Until the company’s measures are in place, Ms. Irvine is telling past and present crew members to see their family physicians. She suggested the company was taking part in the health testing so willingly because it realizes the potential risks. Marine Atlantic, Ms. Irvine continued, has even informed workers compensation of the problem so, if a current or former member of the crew comes down with an asbestos-related illness, they would not have have to prove exposure. Workers were startled to find asbestos warnings posted around the ship earlier in the fall. The company had the mineral removed or enclosed in the 1990s, but a September 2007 survey found some of the sealed areas had been damaged through wear and tear. The health assessments and questionnaires are another part of Marine Atlantic’s plan to deal with the problem. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA to Monitor Air During Kans. Demolitions ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, will conduct air monitoring for asbestos during the demolition of 313 oil- contaminated houses in Coffeyville, Kans., according to an EPA press release dated Nov. 19, 2007. Coffeyville Resources purchased the houses under a buyout program it implemented in response to the oil spill and flooding last summer. Demolition was scheduled for Nov. 19, 2007. Heavy rains in June 2007 caused localized flooding and a rise in elevation of the Verdigris River. During the night of June 30, the Verdigris River overflowed the levee around Coffeyville, Kans. River levels rose rapidly and exceeded the height of the levee by 3.9 feet. Flood waters entering the refinery led to a release of about 90,000 gallons of crude oil. Coffeyville Resources will conduct perimeter asbestos air monitoring during the demolition project and will remove asbestos as required by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulations. EPA will collect independent samples at about 10 percent of Coffeyville Resources' sampling locations to confirm the company's air monitoring data. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: L. Tersigni Files for Bankruptcy in Conn. ---------------------------------------------------------------- L. Tersigni Consulting, which advised asbestos creditors in more than a dozen major bankruptcy cases, on Nov. 14, 2007, filed for bankruptcy the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Bridgeport, Conn., The Associated Press reports. The filing came as federal bankruptcy monitors prepared to appoint an examiner to investigate claims that the Stamford, Conn.-based firm's deceased leader, Loreto Tersigni, improperly inflated bills. An investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey that began in 2006 did not produce charges against Mr. Tersigni, who died in May 2007. Professionals at the Tersigni firm who became suspicious that bills submitted to bankruptcy courts for approval were not correct brought the matter to the attention of federal authorities. However, it was not until after Mr. Tersigni's death that the firm's clients, the official committees representing asbestos claimants in a series of Chapter 11 cases, were alerted to the billing matter and to the federal probe. The bankruptcy courts have begun their own investigation of L. Tersigni's bills, by authorizing the appointment of an examiner by the U.S. Trustee's Office, a civil agency of the Justice Department. Over the years, L. Tersigni billed millions to companies like Owens Corning , Federal-Mogul Corp., W.R. Grace & Co. and others that resorted to Chapter 11 bankruptcy in an effort to resolve billions in damages stemming from their asbestos products. L. Tersigni Consulting's Chapter 11 petition estimated the firm's assets at more than US$1 million and its liabilities at up to US$1 million. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Ltd. Finalizes Sale of Lummus for $950M ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABB Ltd., on Nov. 19, 2007, said it had completed the sale of its downstream oil and gas business Lummus Global to Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. for an enterprise value of US$950 million, Reuters reports. ABB, which announced the transaction in August 2007, has received net cash proceeds of around US$800 million, which will be booked in the fourth quarter, the group said. ABB, which has recovered from a multi-year restructuring drive, had long been looking to sell the Lummus Global business, the last remaining of a number of units it was aiming to divest after settling huge asbestos claims in previous years. The Company said, “As previously communicated, the sale triggered an accelerated US$204 million payment by ABB to the CE Asbestos PI Trust. This payment will be also booked in the fourth quarter.” Zurich, Switzerland-based ABB Ltd. provides power and automation technologies to utility, industrial, and commercial customers. Power products include transmission and distribution components, as well as turnkey substation systems. Automation technologies are used to monitor and control equipment and processes in industrial plants and utilities. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Couple Sues 65 Corporations in W.Va. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mayford Lee Sigman and Betty Sigman, both of West Virginia, on Nov. 8, 2007, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 65 businesses in Kanawha Circuit Court, The West Virginia Record reports. The Sigman couple blames the companies, all of which are licensed or registered to do business in West Virginia, for Mr. Sigman's asbestosis after working years around their asbestos- laden products. Mr. Sigman worked for Monsanto Co., where he was exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products. He claims that because of his exposure, he developed asbestosis. According to the suit, the defendants are negligent and should have known of the dangers of the asbestos. The suit also states that the defendants should have provided employees, including Mr. Sigman, with safe and sufficient apparel and safety equipment. In the 13-count suit, Mr. Sigman claims he has suffered damages, including medical and pharmaceutical expenses, travel expenses, great pain of body and mind, immense suffering, embarrassment, inconvenience, loss of earning capacity and loss of quality and enjoyment of his life. Mrs. Sigman claims she has lost the general services, companionship and society, as well as the financial support of her husband. Through attorney James C. Stebbins, the Sigmans seek compensatory and punitive damages. Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-2422 will be assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Arizonian Sues 67 Companies in Ill. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ervin Rymaszewski, of Arizona, on Nov. 15, 2007, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 67 defendant corporations in Madison County, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Mr. Rymaszewski was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Aug. 3, 2007. Mr. Rymaszewski alleges the companies' negligence led to his contraction of mesothelioma. Mr. Rymaszewski also claims that he was exposed to asbestos dust that his wife would carry home on her clothes while working as an assembly worker from the 1950s through the 1970s. Mr. Rymaszewski claims his wife would carry the asbestos dust on her clothing home with her where it would again become airborne. Mr. Rymaszewski was employed from 1952 through 1986 as a welder, truck driver, lineman and laborer at various locations including Illinois. He claims he was also exposed to asbestos during non- occupational work projects including home and automotive repairs, maintenance and remodeling. Mr. Rymaszewski claims the defendants knew or should have known that the asbestos fibers contained in their products had a toxic, poisonous and highly deleterious effect upon the health of people. Mr. Rymaszewski alleges that the defendants included asbestos in their products even when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide any or adequate instructions concerning the safe methods of working with and around asbestos. Mr. Rymaszewski also claims that the defendants failed to require and advise employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home. The complaint states that, as a result of the alleged negligence, Mr. Rymaszewski claims he was exposed to fibers containing asbestos and developed a disease caused only by asbestos which has disabled and disfigured him. Mr. Rymaszewski also claims that he has sought, but has been unable to obtain, full disclosure of relevant documents and information from the defendants leading him to believe the defendants destroyed documents related to asbestos. Mr. Rymaszewski claims that as a result of each defendant breaching its duty to preserve material evidence by destroying documents and information he has been prejudiced and impaired in proving claims against all potential parties. He seeks damages to help pay for the cost of his treatment. The complaint states that Mr. Rymaszewski also suffers "great physical pain and mental anguish, and also will be hindered and prevented from pursuing her normal course of employment, thereby losing large sums of money." Mr. Rymaszewski seeks at least US$250,000 in damages for negligence, willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of evidence among other allegations. Nicholas Angelides of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represents Mr. Rymaszewski. Case No. 07 L 979 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Capital Manor, Contractors Fined $64,058 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Capital Manor and two contractors have been fined a total of US$64,058 for asbestos violations reported during 2006 remodeling work at the West Salem, Ore., retirement facility, Statesman Journal reports. The Department of Environmental Quality fined the retirement home for allowing unlicensed contractors to perform asbestos- related work and for failing to fully document the presence of asbestos at the facility. Capital Manor has paid its US$29,948 penalty. Dottie Boyd, DEQ investigator, said that whether any retirement home residents or workers inhaled asbestos fibers is unknown, but it cannot be ruled out. Ms. Boyd said that any Capital Manor residents or staff members concerned about asbestos exposure "should consult their doctor about it, at a minimum." Capital Manor previously was cited by Oregon's Occupational Safety and Health Division for failing to ensure that an exposure assessment was conducted by a competent person prior to drywall demolition work by contractors. The workplace safety inquiry was sparked in September 2006 by a complaint about workers being exposed to asbestos while not wearing respirators, records show. DEQ launched its investigation in the wake of the workplace safety complaint, and it announced the fines on Nov. 15, 2007. According to the DEQ, Oregon Cascade Plumbing & Heating paid its US$2,100 fine. Turner Construction has not yet decided whether to appeal its US$32,010 fine, said Dan Kavanaugh, the firm's regional manager in Portland, Ore. DEQ reports indicate that both contractors were fined for cutting into walls containing asbestos, allowing the hazardous material to accumulate in the open and for performing asbestos- related work without a license. The violations occurred between April 2006 and September 2006, according to the DEQ. Capital Manor hired Turner Construction for work that was part of a US$14 million renovation project at one of Salem's largest retirement homes -- comprising a 10-story independent living facility, a three-story assisted living/independent living facility and a 93-unit housing campus. In April 2006, workers began sawing into and removing asbestos- containing walls in hallways and apartment bathrooms, according to DEQ records. The environmental agency reported that the work continued "on and off" until Sept. 13, 2006, "and did not employ any of the work practices required when handling and disposing of friable" asbestos-containing material. Mr. Kavanaugh said Turner Construction did not know about the presence of asbestos during the wall-cutting work. Despite such assurances, DEQ officials said residents and workers could have inhaled asbestos fibers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Fitter Files GBP100T Suit v. Employers ---------------------------------------------------------------- George Alexander claims GBP100,000 from his former employers, saying he was exposed to asbestos for eight years as an electrical fitter, The Argus reports. The 71-year-old Mr. Alexander has filed a High Court writ claiming his work in maintaining boilers and pipework exposed him to asbestos used as insulation. Mr. Alexander, of Langdale Road, Hove, claims the mesothelioma he developed later in life has cut his life expectancy by 12 years. He is claiming damages from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, who he worked for between 1973 and 1981. A writ issued by his solicitors, Simpson Millar, says Mr. Alexander worked in a municipal laundry and swimming pool maintaining boilers and pipework. Mr. Alexander says the pipes were lagged with old, crumbling asbestos, which fell onto the floor where he worked and walked. The writ claims he once disturbed asbestos lagging as part of work replacing an old boiler door. Mr. Alexander says that, in 1978, he worked near contractors as they replaced asbestos. His solicitor, Helen England, told The Argus she hopes to reach a settlement with the London council by the end of the year. If a settlement is not reached the case is due to come before a High Court judge in January 2008. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms Dana Corp.'s $2M Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Corp., on Nov. 15, 2007, won court approval to pay US$2 million to settle personal-injury claims from 7,500 people who say they were sickened by Company products with asbestos, The Associated Press reports. Judge Burton Lifland of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan said the deal resolves large number of the 150,000 personal- injury claims against the auto-parts maker. Judge Lifland overruled objections from an informal committee representing asbestos claimants. The committee asked for more information about the Company's settlement with the 7,500 people. He said enough information about the settlement is already available. Dana has been working to get out of bankruptcy by the end of 2007. Part of the Company's efforts to exit Chapter 11 protection includes settling the hundreds of thousands of personal-injury claims against it. Dana intends to deal with other asbestos-related bankruptcy claims after it exits Chapter 11. The company, however, said many of those claimants have not become sick. According to court papers, about seven percent of the asbestos claims filed against Dana allege mesothelioma or cancer. Dana has said the settlement will cost up to US$2 million as long as all the people involved can come forward with the required proof to support their claims. The deal will resolve about seven percent of the mesothelioma claims and four percent of the cancer claims filed against Dana. Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Corp.'s core products include axles and driveshafts, as well as sealing, thermal, and structural products. The Company also supplies companies that make commercial and off-highway vehicles like PACCAR and Navistar. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Worker Sues 38 Firms in West Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Holter of Ohio, on Nov. 1, 2007, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 38 companies in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Mr. Holter claims the defendants produced asbestos-containing materials, which caused him to contract mesothelioma. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Mr. Holter worked for The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. from 1965 to 1979, where he claims he was exposed to asbestos. Goodyear is named as a defendant in the suit. According to the suit, Mr. Holter worked as a laborer and maintenance worker for the Goodyear plant in Apple Grove, W.Va. Part of his job was to tear off insulation, which contained asbestos. Mr. Holter claims the plant had specific knowledge of asbestos exposure, asbestosis, cancer and mesothelioma during the relevant time periods. Mr. Holter has incurred medical and hospital bills, suffering tremendous pain of body and mind, because of his mesothelioma. In the 11-count suit, Mr. Holter and his wife seek compensatory and punitive damages. William K. Schwartz is representing the Holters. Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-2374 will be assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Announces Ariz. Enforcement Achievement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s enforcement actions in Arizona for 2007 continues the agency’s successful efforts to make polluters achieve on-the-ground improvements to bring environmental and public health benefits for the state’s residents, according to an EPA press release dated Nov. 15, 2007. Leading the year’s enforcement accomplishments efforts, include regulating asbestos requirements in schools, enforcing dust control laws and protecting air quality. Polluters committed to more than US$2.82 million to correct environmental violations and prevent future pollution, resulting in over 50,000 pounds of pollutants reduced in the environment. Wayne Nastri, administrator of the EPA's Pacific Southwest office, said, “The EPA’s efforts to control exposure to asbestos and protect air quality in Arizona in 2007 will benefit human health and the environment for Arizona residents for years to come.” Arizona enforcement highlights for 2007 include: -- Asbestos in schools: Seven Tucson charter school operators were fined a combined total of US$67,240 for Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act violations. Five other Arizona charter schools paid penalties totaling US$49,200 for asbestos violations. All failed to conduct inspections to determine if asbestos- containing material was present in school buildings, and failed to have an asbestos management plan. All of the schools have since taken necessary actions to comply with the law. Each school currently has a management plan, including asbestos location and how schools will properly manage asbestos to reduce risk of exposure. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Local Files Suit v. 26 Corporations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon R. Conley of Kanawha County, W.Va., on Nov. 1, 2007, has filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 26 national and local companies in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Union Carbide Corp. is one of the defendants, for which Mr. Conley worked from 1948 to 1985. Mr. Conley claims the defendants' negligence caused him to be exposed to asbestos, which contributed to his development of mesothelioma. Attorney William K. Schwartz, who is representing Mr. Conley, is seeking punitive and compensatory damages, claiming the companies were negligent in manufacturing, assembling, supplying and distributing their products. Mr. Conley worked as an electrician and chief operator at Union Carbide facilities in South Charleston and Institute. During that time he worked in areas where workers handled asbestos- containing materials and products. The suit claims that the companies knew their products contained asbestos, which was dangerous to the workers, but did not provide proper safety training and equipment, as well as provide knowledge of the dangers of asbestos. In the 12-count suit, Mr. Conley and his wife seek punitive and compensatory damages. Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-2373 will be assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Pleasant Acres Worker Sues York County ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Ann Gruzs, a beautician who was fired from the York County Pleasant Acres Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in York County, Pa., has filed a federal lawsuit against the county, the facility and some of its managers claiming she was fired for complaining about asbestos floor tiles in the facility salon where she worked, York Daily Record reports. The lawsuit says Ms. Grusz became a beautician at Pleasant Acres on Oct. 4, 2001, and that in May 2005 the condition of the salon's floor tiles had begun to deteriorate significantly - many became dislodged, broken and brittle. Ms. Gruzs claims she made several requests to have the tiles replaced or repaired, but no action was taken for almost a year. The lawsuit added that conversations with a maintenance worker at the facility led Ms. Grusz to believe the floor tiles contained asbestos. When the old tiles were removed and the floor was replaced, work was not performed with appropriate regard for asbestos risk, she claimed. The suit says Ms. Gruzs asked for an air quality test in the salon after the floor was replaced and she was told there was no need because the tiles had been tested clean. She then took some of the removed tiles to an outside laboratory, which reportedly found hazardous asbestos levels in the tiles and mastic. Ms. Gruzs says she tried to file a grievance with her union but union officials would not accept it. She participated in a conference call with the union and a representative of the state Department of Environmental Protection on June 5, 2006. Ms. Grusz then again filed a grievance with the union based on her belief that the tiles contained dangerous levels of asbestos-containing materials and the tiles were not properly removed and disposed of, possibly exposing residents, coworkers, and Ms. Gruzs to dangerous levels of airborne asbestos particulates. Later that month, Ms. Grusz was told her grievance would be heard, she says, but when she came to the hearing she was fired. She claims she was fired for exercising her First Amendment right to speak out on a matter of public concern and for exercising her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act. The suit said the county alleges Ms. Gruzs violated the county's no-call/no-show policy by failing to call in absent on three consecutive days beginning June 6, 2006. She claims she did call in and properly notify the facility she would be absent on June 6, 7, and 8. Ms. Gruzs is asking for compensatory damages in excess of US$350,000 with interest and costs and reasonable attorney fees. County solicitor Michael Flannelly said Ms. Gruzs "was terminated pursuant to our progressive discipline policy, and it had nothing to do with allegations of asbestos." Mr. Flanelly noted the tiles Ms. Grusz complained about had been removed before she was terminated and that during the conference call the Department of Environmental Protection had assured her the tiles presented no health risk to her. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Victim Gets Payout From Hardie Unit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anita Steiner, of Melbourne, Australia, who alleges she developed mesothelioma from her exposure to asbestos as a child has won payout from Amaca, a former James Hardie Industries N.V. Subsidiary, The Age reports. The 45-year-old Ms. Steiner was diagnosed with mesothelioma in May 2007 following childhood exposure to asbestos material. On Nov. 8, 2007, lawyers for Ms. Steiner and Amaca agreed on an undisclosed settlement before the case was to go to a Victorian Supreme Court trial. Ms. Steiner alleged she was exposed to asbestos fibers 40 years ago while her parents built an office and unit next to their home in the Adelaide suburb of Torrens Park. She alleged she was exposed to asbestos fibers from cement sheeting used during construction. However, Amaca's lawyer, Richard J. Stanley described the settlement as fair and denied it was an admission of guilt. Ms. Steiner has left her job as an IT professional and undergone her first round of chemotherapy. Part of her right lung, its lining and a rib were removed during surgery. In February 2007, Hardie shareholders approved an AUD4 billion asbestos compensation deal, ending the long-running battle between asbestos disease victims and the building products maker. The deal, which followed six years of wrangling, paved the way for victims of asbestos-related diseases caused by products made by former Hardie subsidiaries, to get their hands on a share of the AUD4 billion worth of compensation over the next 40 years. The agreement to establish the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund was negotiated with the company by asbestos victims' groups, unions and the New South Wales government. There were 202 claims for mesothelioma in the year ending March 31, 2007, according to an AICF report. The report added that mesothelioma claim settlements over that period included five in excess of AUD1 million. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP to Penalize for Hazard at Fla. Hospital ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Florida Department of Environmental Protection is set to penalize whoever is responsible for failing to locate asbestos and relieve the contamination at the old Fort Walton Beach Hospital in Fort Walton Beach, Fla., Southwest Florida Daily News reports. However, the DEP has not figured out whether Okaloosa County or the nonprofit Elder Services of Okaloosa County is to blame. On Oct. 9, 2007, DEP officials met with Don Turner, the director of the county’s facility maintenance, and Ruth Lovejoy, executive director of Elder Services. They discussed five “possible violations of law” committed during renovations at the old hospital on Hospital Drive to convert it to Autumn House, an affordable assisted-living facility. Elder Services leases the old hospital from the county and would run Autumn House. Greg Landry, of DEP’s air program division, told Mr. Turner and Ms. Lovejoy that whoever was responsible for the asbestos violations was subject to a US$33,000 fine. DEP spokeswoman Sally Cooey said her agency has not determined whether the county or Elder Services should bear the brunt of the fine. Mr. Turner and Ms. Lovejoy have been asked to submit letters by Dec. 3, 2007 arguing their cases and stating what actions have been taken that could lessen the fine. In July 2007, Ms. Lovejoy announced Elder Services’ intention to clean up the old hospital’s second floor to develop Autumn House with help from inmates from the Florida Department of Corrections. Mr. Turner said Elder Services failed to let the county know that it also had an agreement with local contractor Tracy Acree to do some renovations. Mr. Acree did not file a work plan with the county, Mr. Turner said, so no one with the county knew the scope of the work to be done. The hospital was built in the 1950s, when asbestos was commonly found in floor tiles and the mastic adhesive used to install them. Someone, likely a guard assigned to inmate supervision, apparently got worried about possible asbestos contamination when the tiles were being pulled from the floor, Mr. Turner said. Someone sent a sample off for testing without the county or Ms. Lovejoy knowing. Then the inmates stopped coming to work. When the inmates failed to show up a second day, Ms. Lovejoy called the Department of Corrections and was told that her labor force had been reassigned. The DEP called soon after. Corrections officials contacted on Nov. 6, 2007 offered no explanation for what had happened. Mr. Turner said no matter where DEP lays blame, the county will likely help Elder Services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Denies Engineer Payout Rights ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.K. Court of Appeal denied David McGovern, a retired heating engineer, the right to claim compensation for his pleural plaques, Oldham Advertiser reports. Mr. McGovern worked for a Stretford, England, firm called William Matthews between 1959 and 1978, where he used to lag boilers and heating pipes. Six years ago, Mr. McGovern began having breathing problems and was diagnosed with pleural plaques. In October 2007, the House of Lords upheld a 2006 ruling by the Court of Appeal that people exposed to asbestos can no longer claim compensation for pleural plaques. Apparently, it is considered by some specialists to be the most “benign” of all asbestos-related diseases. The verdict affects thousands and the trade union Amicus and law firms, including Mr. McGovern's, have pledged to fight to re- instate compensation. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Florida DEP to Check for Hazard in Landfill ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Florida Department of Environmental Protection is checking whether asbestos was dumped improperly at a landfill northeast of Alico Road and U.S. 41, The News-Press reports. The DEP and Lee County have received anonymous verbal complaints alleging the dumping of crushed asbestos pipes at the 70-acre site. Asbestos can be discarded only in landfills approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. A.J. Satyal of the DEP says, “We don't have the full report.” The EPA regulates the removal of 160 square feet or more of asbestos. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires that workers be trained and wear full protective equipment. Leigh Simmons, a senior environmental specialist with Lee County, said, “The county just wants to know that employees were not put at risk.” ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owner of Ill. Demolition Cos. Pleads Guilty ---------------------------------------------------------------- Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Illinois Department of Public Health announced that a Chicago man and two corporations he owns recently pleaded guilty to felony asbestos charges over the 2005 demolition of a Chicago building, according to an Illinois Attorney General press release dated Nov. 20, 2007. On Oct. 19, 2007, Daniel T. Coyne entered a guilty plea in Cook County Circuit Court to the charge of Failure to Remove Asbestos, a Class 4 felony. The court ordered Mr. Coyne to pay US$15,000 in fines, costs, and restitution and sentenced him to 30 months probation. He also entered guilty pleas on behalf of his corporations, ACES Demolition and ACES Environmental Consulting. The court ordered each corporation to pay US$15,000 in additional fines, costs, and restitution. An investigation by the USEPA-Criminal Investigation Division (USEPA-CID) and the City of Chicago Department of Environment (CDOE) revealed that in June 2005, Mr. Coyne provided the city with fraudulent inspection information in his capacity as an asbestos inspector. Specifically, in an inspection report concerning a former Dominick's store at 3649 N. Central Avenue in Chicago, Mr. Coyne falsely certified that he had conducted a visual inspection of the building, including the pipes, beams and other areas that may contain asbestos, and declared the area “free of asbestos containing materials (ACM).” According to the IDPH, Mr. Coyne's asbestos inspector's license had expired in May 2005. Based on Mr. Coyne's false inspection information, the Chicago Department of Construction and Permits issued a permit to Mr. Coyne's company to demolish the former Dominick's store. After the demolition began, a November 2005 CDOE inspection revealed more than 3,000 linear feet of ACM in the form of pipe insulation in the basement of the structure. CDOE ordered a stop to the demolition until the ACM was properly removed. CDOE also notified IDPH of its findings. IDPH had previously imposed sanctions on Coyne and his companies for other asbestos-related violations and referred the case to the USEPA-CID. The case was then referred to Ms. Madigan's office for prosecution. Assistant Attorney General Richard J. Powers handled the case for Ms. Madigan's Environmental Crimes Bureau. Special Agents Dan Sekerek and Eric Hann investigated the case for the USEPA- CID. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Swiss School Staff Fall Ill Due to Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- The contamination by the material of two workers at a school in Thonex, Geneva, raises concerns about health risks in hundreds of public buildings, Tribune de Geneve reports. A pair of non-teaching employees at a junior high school in Thonex (le Cycle d’orientation du Foron) have been diagnosed as suffering from a disease related to exposure to asbestos. It is not clear whether the two employees at the Thonex school were exposed to asbestos there or elsewhere. The building has been declared safe for teachers and students. However, the Tribune de Geneve, on Nov. 21, 2007, reported that 308 public buildings in the canton built before 1991, including more than 100 schools, contain asbestos. The buildings were identified by a cantonal department (Stipi) responsible for protecting against “pollution” inside buildings. One of the difficulties linking health risks with specific buildings is that some diseases related to asbestos exposure can lie dormant for 15 years, a Stipi official said. According to the Suva insurance company, 200 people die each year as a result of exposure to asbestos. Maintenance staff and workers in electrical, plumbing and other construction trades may be among those most at risk. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Widow Files Lawsuit Against Transfield ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit is being filed against power station construction firm Transfield Services Ltd. on behalf of an unnamed New South Wales woman who is terminally ill with mesothelioma, ABC News reports. The woman is the widow of the now deceased man Rino Pettinari, who worked for Transfield at the Vales Point, Munmorah, Wangi and Liddell power stations, as well as at BHP in the 1960s and 1970s. Newcastle law firm Turner Freeman says while Mr. Pettinari did not die from an asbestos-related disease, his wife is now battling mesothelioma. The woman's lawyer alleges she was exposed to the asbestos fibres while laundering her husband's clothes. While official legal proceedings are yet to begin, the law firm has begun interviewing Mr. Pettinari's former power station colleagues in a bid to assist with his wife's legal case. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit Filed v. A.O. Smith, 40 Firms in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shelley Dee Bourliea, on behalf of Terry Bourliea, on Nov. 2, 2007, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against the A.O. Smith Corp. and 40 other companies in Orange County District Court in Texas, The Southeast Texas Record reports. When he was alive, Mr. Bourliea sued and received a settlement for an asbestos-related disease. Now deceased, his benefactor is suing on his behalf for a different asbestos-related disease. Bryan Blevins represents Mrs. Bourliea. In the suit, Mrs. Bourliea alleges that the defendants knowingly and maliciously manufactured and distributed asbestos-containing products throughout Jefferson County. Case No. A-070625-c is styled Shelley Dee Bourliea vs. A.O. Smith Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace to Settle Minnesota Claim for $26,472 ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co. has negotiated a settlement agreement with the city of Barnesville, Minn., an asbestos property damage claimant represented by Motley Rice LLC, allowing the City's Claim No. 6936 for US$26,472. The Settlement Amount will be paid after the effective date of any plan of reorganization approved by the Court in the Debtors' bankruptcy cases. It will be paid by either the Debtors, an asbestos trust, or any entity appointed to make the payment. (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 144; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Grace to Settle 40 Damage Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Bankruptcy Court authorized W.R. Grace & Co. to enter into separate settlement agreements with more than 40 asbestos- related property damage claimants represented by the law firm Dies & Hill LLP: These claimants are: -- Acadia Parish School Board, -- City of Amarillo, Tex., -- State of Arizona, -- State of Arkansas, -- BNC Forum LLP, -- Brother Martin High School, -- Caddo Parish School Board, -- Calcasieu Parish School Board, -- City of Eugene, Ore., -- City of Houston, -- Coleman Housing Authority, -- Congregation of Immaculate Concepcion Church, -- Congregation of Joan of Arc Church - LaPlace, -- Congregation of St. Dominic Catholic Church, -- Congregation of St. Francis Assisi Church, -- Congregation of St. Francis Xavier Cabrini Church, -- Congregation of St. Francis Xavier Church, -- Congregation of St. Joan of Arc Church, -- Congregation of St. Louise De Marillac Church, -- Congregation of St. Mary Magdalene Catholic Church, -- Congregation of St. Philip Neri Catholic Church, -- Congregation of St. Pius X Roman Catholic Church, -- Congregation of St. Raymond Catholic Church, -- Congregation of St. Rita Roman Catholic Church, -- State of Connecticut, -- Cook County, Ill., -- County of El Paso, Tex., -- East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, -- EPEC Realty Inc., -- Harlingen Housing Authority, -- Jefferson Davis Parish School Board, -- Jefferson Parish School Board, -- Lafayette Parish School Board, -- Lafourche Parish School Board, -- LaSalle Parish School Board, -- Mt. Carmel Academy of New Orleans, -- Natchitoches Parish School Board, -- State of Oregon, -- Oregon Health and Science University -- City of Phoenix, -- St. Mary's Academy of the Holy Family, and -- City of Tucson, Ariz. (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 144; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Moves to Disallow Allegheny PD Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- In March 2006, the Allegheny Center Associates filed Claim No. 9778 for alleged asbestos-related property damage in two of its buildings located in Pittsburgh. The Speights & Runyan law firm also filed Claim Nos. 11036 and 11037, alleging property damage for the two Allegheny buildings. In February 2007, the Debtors asked the Court to expunge 27 PD claims, including Claim No. 9778 on the grounds of statute of limitations. Allegheny has admitted in its proof of claim that the asbestos had been removed from two of its buildings in the 1980s, at least 11 years before the Debtors' Petition Date. Thus, the Debtors sought to expunge Claim No. 9778 based on the expiration of Delaware's three-year statute of limitations. Allegheny did not file any response to the Debtors' request. Accordingly, the Court expunged Claim No. 9778. Because Claim Nos. 11036 and 11037 are duplicative of Claim No. 9778, the Debtors ask the Court to disallow the Claims asserted by Speights & Runyan. (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 144; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Reports Settlement of Claims for 3Q07 ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co. reported to the Court that during the period from July 1, 2007, through Sept. 30, 2007, they entered into four separate settlement agreements: (1) The Debtors and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency entered into an administrative consent order, effective Sept. 17, 2007, under which the Debtors will take responsibility and pay for a Super fund remedial investigation/feasibility study for the former Libby vermiculite mine and environs to determine the current extent of contamination, if any, in that area and the best means for re mediating any contamination. No payment amount was specified in the administrative consent order. (2) In August 2007, the Debtors resolved Claim No. 15073 filed by James P. Rapisardi, executor of the estate of Rosario Rapisardi, asserting US$680,060, by allowing the Claim as an unsecured, prepetition, non-priority claim for US$10,000. (3) The Debtors and the state of Minnesota entered into a settlement that allows the state's Claim No. 9648 as an unsecured, prepetition, non-priority claim for US$360,000. (4) The Debtors and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality entered into a stipulation allowing the LDEQ's Claim No. 13417 as an unsecured, prepetition, non-priority claim for US$1,478. (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 144; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $8.2M Verdict Against Union Carbide, Hexion ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C., is announcing a US$8.2 million verdict handed down on Nov. 21, 2007 in an asbestos lawsuit on behalf of an 73-year-old pipefitter from Texas City and his wife of more than 50 years, according to a Baron & Budd press release dated Nov. 21, 2007. The verdict in Judge John Ellisor's 122nd District Court in Galveston, Tex., includes US$7.93 million in damages against Houston-based Union Carbide Corp. and Columbus, Ohio-based Hexion Specialty Chemicals Inc. Jurors also assessed US$275,000 in punitive damages against Hexion. Baron & Budd attorneys Denyse Finn Clancy and Russell W. Budd represented Oliver D. Smith and his wife Peggy Ann. Mr. Budd said, “These companies knowingly exposed Mr. Smith and workers like him to dangerous asbestos, which caused him to develop the cancer mesothelioma. While we can't undo the harm they caused, we can hold them accountable.” Mr. Smith was exposed to asbestos while working as a pipefitter in the 1950s and 1960s. Evidence in the two-week trial showed that the dangers of asbestos exposure have been widely known since the early 1900s, but the defendants continued to expose Mr. Smith and others to dangerous asbestos products. Hexion owned the chemical plant where Mr. Smith worked from 1957-1964. Mr. Smith also worked at a Union Carbide facility. The damage caused by asbestos exposure can take decades to surface. Mr. Smith was diagnosed nearly 50 years after he began working as a pipefitter. He continues to fight his disease from his home in Thibodaux, La. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Lawsuits Pending v. Phelps Dodge ---------------------------------------------------------------- Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.'s subsidiary Phelps Dodge Corp., or its subsidiaries, has been facing a large number of product liability or premises lawsuits claiming injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2007. Filed since about 1990, these suits claim injury from exposure to asbestos found in electrical wire products produced or marketed many years ago, or from asbestos at certain Phelps Dodge properties. Phoenix-based Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.'s 91 percent- owned subsidiary, PT Freeport Indonesia (PT-FI), operates the open-pit Grasberg gold, copper, and silver mine in Indonesia. Through its stake in PT-FI, the Company controls proved and probable reserves of about 35 billion pounds of copper and about 35 million ounces of gold. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Records $7.25M for Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Entrx Corp.'s current reserve for asbestos liability claims amounted to US$7.25 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$8 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2007. The Company's current reserve for asbestos liability claims totaled US$7.5 million as of June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007) The Company's long-term reserve for asbestos liability claims amounted to US$30.5 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$35 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's long-term reserve for asbestos liability claims totaled US$32 million as of June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007) Minneapolis-based Entrx Corp. provides insulation and asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. Through its subsidiary Metalclad Insulation Corp., the Company provides these services to industrial, commercial and public agency clients. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. Entrx Drop to 240 at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos-related cases pending against Entrx Corp., mainly its subsidiary Metalclad Insulation Corp., at Sept. 30, 2007, dropped to 240, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2007. Asbestos-related cases pending against the Company, mainly Metalclad, at June 30, 2007, dropped to 265. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007) There were 126 new claims made in the first nine months of 2007, compared with 179 in the first nine months of 2006. The Company expended US$49,000 in the three months ended Sept. 30, 2007 (US$222,000 in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007) to administer the asbestos claims. The Company has included US$37,750,000 of insurance coverage receivable as an asset on its Sept. 30, 2007 balance sheet, and US$43 million on its Dec. 31, 2006 balance sheet. Minneapolis-based Entrx Corp. provides insulation and asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. Through its subsidiary Metalclad Insulation Corp., the Company provides these services to industrial, commercial and public agency clients. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Still Faces ACE Insurance Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Entrx Corp.'s subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation Corp., and several other liability insurers continue to face an asbestos- related declaratory relief action filed by ACE Property & Casualty Co., Central National Insurance Co. of Omaha, and Industrial Underwriters Insurance Co. On Feb. 23, 2005, ACE , Central National, and Industrial, which are all related entities, sued Metalclad and a number of its other liability insurers, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. ACE, Central National and Industrial issued umbrella and excess policies to Metalclad, which has sought and obtained from the plaintiffs both defense and indemnity under these policies for the asbestos lawsuits brought against Metalclad during the last four to five years. The ACE Lawsuit seeks declarations regarding a variety of coverage issues, but is centrally focused on issues involving whether historical and currently pending asbestos lawsuits brought against Metalclad are subject to either an "aggregate" limits of liability or separate "per occurrence" limits of liability. The ACE Lawsuit also seeks to determine the effect of the settlement agreement between the Company and Allstate Insurance Co. on the insurance obligations of various other insurers of Metalclad, and the effect of the “asbestos exclusion” in the Allstate policy. The ACE Lawsuit does not seek any monetary recovery from Metalclad. The ACE Lawsuit may result in the Company incurring costs in connection with obligations it may have to indemnify Allstate under the Settlement Agreement. Allstate, in a cross-complaint filed against Metalclad in October 2005, asked the court to determine the Company’s obligation to assume and pay for the defense of Allstate in the ACE Lawsuit under the Company’s indemnification obligations in the Settlement Agreement. Minneapolis-based Entrx Corp. provides insulation and asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. Through its subsidiary Metalclad Insulation Corp., the Company provides these services to industrial, commercial and public agency clients. New Securities Fraud Cases ACA CAPITAL: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of ACA Capital Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:ACA) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’ s initial public offering IPO) on or about November 10, 2006. The complaint charges ACA Capital and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. ACA Capital is a holding company that provides financial guaranty insurance products to participants in the global credit derivative, structured finance capital, and municipal finance capital markets. On or about November 9, 2006, ACA Capital priced its IPO of 6,875,000 shares of newly issued common stock and 23,541 shares of existing common stock at $13 per share, generating gross proceeds of $89.4 million. The Registration Statement for the IPO described positively ACA Capital’s business and the Company’s collateralized debt obligation (CDO) asset management business. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for the IPO contained inaccurate statements of material fact because it failed to disclose that the Company’s CDO assets were materially impaired and overvalued. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons who purchased ACA Capital common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s IPO on or about November 10, 2006. For more information, contact: Samuel H. Rudman David A. Rosenfeld Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 E-mail: djr@csgrr.com CHINA EXPERT: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm has filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of China Expert Technology, Inc. (formerly OTCBB: CXTI) stock from November 14, 2006 through October 1, 2007, inclusive. The complaint charges CXTI and certain of its present and former officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, during the Class Period the Company issued materially false and misleading statements pertaining to its financial results, condition, and business prospects. The complaint asserts that on July 19, 2007 the Company's CFO suddenly resigned. Thereafter, on August 14, 2007 CXTI announced that it had obtained a five-day extension with the SEC to file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q. During this period of time, numerous articles were published by media outlets calling into question the veracity CXTI's disclosures. On October 1st, following the resignation of the Company's auditor, the SEC temporarily halted trading of CXTI's stock. As a result of these adverse disclosures, investors were damaged. Interested parties may move the court no later than January 21, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. Tel: (212) 686-1060 Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425 Toll Free: 1-866—767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com E-TRADE: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a securities fraud class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of E-Trade Financial Corporation securities between April 20, 2006 and November 9, 2007. The complaint charges that E-Trade and its Chief Executive Officer (Mitchell H. Caplan) and Chief Financial Officer (Robert J. Simmons) misled shareholders by making false statements regarding the company's transition into the banking business for mortgages and home equity loans. As a result of the Company's expansion into lending, a majority of E-Trade's recent revenue growth has been driven by its mortgage assets. By 2006, the Company derived about 58% of its revenues from net interest earned on its loan portfolio, while brokerage commissions and revenue from primarily market making transactions accounted for only about 30% of revenue. During this transition period, E-Trade concealed an enormously risky and unsound subprime mortgage portfolio, and as the subprime market began to unravel in 2006 and continue its plunge into 2007, E-Trade failed to increase its level of provision for loan losses, as is required under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or "GAAP." Despite the housing correction becoming more severe each quarter with reports of increased delinquencies and foreclosures, E- Trade failed to make any of the necessary adjustments to its reserve for loan losses or to its level of charge-offs for the substantial mortgage portfolio that it was holding in its efforts to prop up its overall earnings in light of its sagging brokerage business. Remarkably, E-Trade increased its earnings guidance despite the abundant warning signs of impending problems in the subprime housing market. While E-Trade made generic statements about increased risk from its loan operations, it wholly failed to adequately disclose the devastating effects that even slight value reductions to its mortgage portfolio would (and eventually did) have on the Company's earnings and balance sheet. As the truth about the actual risks and true value of E-Trade's various mortgage backed securities were revealed to the market, E-Trade has been forced to incur massive write downs of the value of its mortgage backed assets held on its balance sheet. Interested parties may move the court no later than December 3, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Dustin Mansoor Gardy & Notis, LLP Phone: 201-567-7377 Fax: 201-567-7337 E-mail: dmansoor@gardylaw.com Website: http://www.gardylaw.com FEDERAL HOME: Coughlin Stoia Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation common stock during the period between August 1, 2006 and November 19, 2007. The complaint charges Freddie Mac and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Freddie Mac is a shareholder-owned company established by Congress in 1970 to support homeownership and rental housing. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements concerning Freddie Mac's business, its risk management and the procedures it put in place to protect the Company from problems in the mortgage industry. In fact, during the Class Period, Freddie Mac was not adequately implementing risk control measures. Moreover, the Company's procedures for appraisals led to many inflated appraisals, increasing the risk of defaults. Ultimately, the Company reported billions of dollars in losses, has been mentioned in investigations by the New York Attorney General and announced it must raise new capital to meet regulatory requirements. On this news, Freddie Mac stock fell over $10 per share to close at $26.74 on November 20, 2007. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants concealed the following information, which caused their statements to be materially false and misleading: (a) defendants were not implementing sufficient risk management controls to protect the Company from acquiring billions of dollars worth of mortgages with poor underwriting standards, causing the Company to have an untenable amount of risky loans; (b) defendants were not implementing controls to ensure that appraisals were done appropriately and to prevent collusion between lenders and appraisers, increasing the risk of defaults; (c) the Company was not adequately reserving for uncollectible loans, causing its financial results to be misleading; and (d) the Company had billions of dollars of bad loans which it would eventually have to write off, causing losses and capital deficiencies. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Freddie Mac common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. For more information, contact: Darren Robbins Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 E-mail: djr@csgrr.com FORMFACTOR INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott, LLP filed a class action against FormFactor, Inc. and certain officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of FormFactor common stock purchasers during the period April 26, 2006, through October 24, 2007, inclusive, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements and material omissions regarding the Company's business and operations and that, as a result, the price of the Company's securities was inflated during the Class Period, thereby harming investors. FormFactor, Inc. develops and markets advanced wafer probe cards used by semiconductor manufacturers to electrically test integrated circuits ("ICs"). The Company claims that its wafer sort, burn-in and device performance testing products are used by semiconductor manufacturers to cost-effectively perform IC testing upstream at the wafer level. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued false and misleading statements and financial reports that violated generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). As a result, vital accounting and other information was concealed, including a true accounting for the Company's obsolete inventory and serious production constraints. It is also alleged that the production constraints would likely place a ceiling on the Company's future revenue opportunity, as a result of any inability to recoup costs and expenses or loss of customers. On October 24, 2007, after the close of the markets, the Company issued a shocking press release regarding its sudden plans to undertake an "internal review of its inventory valuation practices." As a result of the shocking news, on October 25, 2007, the price of FormFactor stock plunged more than 17.8% or $7.70 per share to close at $35.54 per share on heavy volume of 8.3 million shares. Interested parties may move the court no later than December 31, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Scott+Scott, LLP Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537 E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com HOME SOLUTIONS: Schatz Nobel Files Tex. Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. has filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Home Solutions of America, Inc. (NasdaqGM:HSOA - News) between May 18, 2007 and November 14, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges that HSOA and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements concerning construction contracts for projects at three sites in New York, including Manhattan, and a site in Florida. Unbeknownst to investors, Defendants failed to disclose the following: (i) HSOA did not have an agreement with Blue Diamond Construction to perform construction with respect to at least one of the three New York sites Defendants had previously identified; and (ii) that the party that had reportedly awarded the Florida contract to HSOA was a party related to HSOA. On August 15, 2007, HSOA revealed that: (a) the Florida project was a related party transaction; (b) that in July HSOA had ``received informal inquiries from the SEC and Nasdaq with respect to prior disclosure and related issues;'' and (c) that management had requested that the audit committee perform an investigation into related party transactions and disclosures. Then, on September 27, 2007, Defendants acknowledged that they did not have a contract for the Manhattan element of the New York projects. Finally, on November 14, 2007, HSOA announced that it would delay the filing of its third quarter financial results, citing its ``voluntary review of related party transactions.'' On this news, HSOA's stock dropped over 20% to close at $1.57 per share on November 15, 2007. Interested parties may move the court no later than January 21, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Nancy A. Kulesa Wayne T. Boulton Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. Phone: (800) 797-5499 E-mail: firm@snilaw.com Website: http://www.snilaw.com PZENA ASSET: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Suit in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP commenced a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or acquired securities of Pzena Asset Management, Inc. in the Company's initial public offering which commenced on October 24, 2007. The claims asserted arise under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. section 77k, and have been asserted against Pzena and Richard C. Pzena, the Company's Chief Executive Officer. The complaint alleges that Defendants made materially misleading statements and otherwise failed to disclose a pattern of net redemptions in the largest mutual fund advised by Pzena, which existed at the time of the IPO. The subsequent disclosure of these facts three weeks later resulted in the price of the Company's common stock declining, causing Plaintiff and the other members of the Class to suffer damages. Interested parties may move the court no later than January 22, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Jeffrey Abraham, Esq. Larry Levit, Esq. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, New York 10119 Phone: (212) 279-5050 Fax: (212) 279-3655 E-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com or llevit@aftlaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, Editors. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *