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