C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 7, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 243 Headlines AON CORP: Continues to Face ERISA Fraud Litigation in Illinois BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Fla. BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Minn. Suit Over Deceptive Trade Practices BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Certifies Class in Ovcon-35 Lawsuits BELL RACING: Recalls Mini Helmets for Lead Paint Standard Breach EXPEDIA.COM: Accused of Bait and Switch Tactics in Missouri GOODYEAR TIRE: Cash Benefit from $324M “Entran II” Deal, Out HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Sued Over Underinsured Motorist Compensation ICON HEALTH: Recalls Inversion Benches Posing Fall Hazard INTERMIX MEDIA: Dec. 11 Hearing Set in Calif. Securities Suit KELLY SERVICES: Appeals Certification of Calif. Labor Lawsuit KOPPERS INC: Faces Lawsuits Over Somerville Wood Treatment Plant NATIONAL WESTERN: Faces Suits Over Sale of Annuities to Elders NAVARRE CORP: Yet to Report Minn. Securities Suit Deal Approval OFFICEMAX INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Court Drops Options Backdating Suit Defendants PEOPLES ENERGY: Ill. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Consumer Suit PEOPLES ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Connection Fees POLO RALPH: Calif. Club Monaco Store Employees File Labor Suit SOMA BEVERAGE: Recalls Flavored Water on Possible Contamination TEPPCO PARTNERS: Still Faces UnitHolder's Lawsuit in Delaware THRESHOLD PHARMACEUTICALS: N.Y. Securities Suits Sent to Cal. TIME WARNER: Continues to Face Privacy Rights Violation Suit WALT DISNEY: Workers File Lawsuit in Calif. Over Unpaid Wages WASHINGTON MUTUAL: 401(k) Members Claim Losses of at Least $150M Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaanapali Land, D/C Still Face Injury Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: “Premises” Cases Ongoing v. Huntsman Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harris Corp. Faces Cases Product Sale/Use ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Reserves $20.1M at Sept. 30 for A&E ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enstar Continues to Face Coverage Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re Reserves $558.1M for A&E Losses ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Claims Still Pending v. Duke Energy ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Domtar Corp. Affiliates Face Injury Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Curtiss-Wright Still Faces Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Int'l. Still Faces Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argo Records $169.5M A&E Reserves at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Affinia Still Involved in Dana's Bankruptcy ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Has 18,791 Claims at Oct. 19 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brandon Drying Has 8,741 Claims at Oct. 19 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Still Has Mount Vernon Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Has $446M Reserves at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Claims Pending v. Anadarko Petroleum ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tecumseh Defends v. Asbestos-Related Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus Metering Still Has Exposure Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reunion Ind. Records $225T for Settlements ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shell Still Indemnifies Kraton Polymers LLC ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hexion Specialty Deals w/ Liability Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DT Solutions Still Has Removal Suit in Md. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $6.45M Liabilities at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Motion to Bar Suits v. Congeleum Pending ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Faces 92 Hilco Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inactive Suit Still Pending v. Chase Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,900 Claims Pending v. Building Materials ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Liability Totals $10.66M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,363 Claims at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Valentec in Litigation w/ La. Over Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Still Faces Personal Injury Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Maremont Drop to 27,912 at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Cites $12M for Rockwell Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Has $44M Liability at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amerex Cleanup at Okla. Completed by Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Lummus Pays $27.78M Liability at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Has 5,600 Liability Cases at Sept. 28 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Has 134,000 Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Pending Against Fairchild ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Met-Pro Faces 39 Pending Actions at Oct. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sears Holdings Subject to Exposure Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Defends Itself in Banton Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Has $28.9M Adjustments at 2Q08 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PI Committee Objects to Dana Corp.'s Plan ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Urges Court to Disallow 1,064 Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trustee to Appoint Tersigni Probe Examiner ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA Issues Penalties to N.M. Contractors ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Whyalla Shipyard Worker Sues BHP Billiton ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Korean Firm Ordered to Pay KPW133M Damages ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow's Compensation Hearing Set on Dec. 10 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Widow Gets Payout from British Rail ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker Sues East Lancashire Hospitals Trust ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Australia Braces for New Wave of Deaths ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADFA Fears Closure Due to Lack of Funding ASBESTOS ALERT: Injury Actions Ongoing v. Imperial Subsidiaries New Securities Fraud Cases FX ENERGY: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit GENESCO INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Tenn. LEAP WIRELESS: Coughlin Stoia Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit MORGAN ASSET: Lockridge Grindal Files Tenn. Securities Lawsuit VIRGIN MOBILE: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit ********* AON CORP: Continues to Face ERISA Fraud Litigation in Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- Aon Corp. continues to face a consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The case caption is “In re Aon ERISA Litigation, 04 C 6875 (N.D. Ill.) (Norgle, J.).” Beginning in late October 2004, several putative ERISA class actions were filed against Aon in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case is about Defendants’ alleged ERISA violations, arising out their investment of material assets of the Aon Corporation 401(k) Savings Plan in Aon Corporation stock during the time period relevant to the action, the named plaintiffs and the other members of the Class. Defendants invested Plan assets in Aon Stock, despite the Company’s engaging in admittedly improper business practices throughout that time period – an undisclosed bid-rigging and kickback scheme that rendered such investment imprudent. Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class entrusted their retirement savings to Defendants, who, by investing Plan assets in Aon Stock during the time period relevant to the action, breached their statutory fiduciary duties of loyalty, care, skill, prudence, and diligence. Adam J. Levitt of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Class Counsel in the case, told Class Action Reporter that the lawsuit alleges that the fiduciaries of the Aon Savings Plan violated their fiduciary duties by investing Plan assets in Aon stock from Oct. 31, 2002 to the present, during which time Aon failed to disclose certain harmful business practices. Those practices, which increased Aon’s income at the expense of its clients, included: -- suggesting that an insurer raise its quote for a client’s business in order to settle a debt to the insurer and increase its contingent commission payout; -- promising increased retail business to insurers in return for their commitments to use Aon’s reinsurance services; -- entering into “producer funding agreements” whereby insurers directly funded the hiring of Aon brokers who held themselves out as Aon employees without disclosing that their positions were funded by the paying insurer; -- entering into secret “pay-to-play” arrangements with insurers whereby Aon required compensation from insurers that wished to bid on a client’s business; -- agreeing with preferred insurers to “freeze out” a competing insurer from Aon placements when that insurer did not provide comparable improper compensation to Aon; -- withholding a lower quote and placing a client with a higher bidding insurer with which Aon had a contingent commission agreement; and -- providing preferred insurers with first looks, last looks, and exclusive looks on preferred business in exchange for improper compensation. As set forth in the Complaint, these illegal business practices can generally, though not entirely, be grouped into three types of wrongdoing: “contingent commissions,” “client steering,” and “clawbacks.” While Aon was engaged in the wrongful practices that led to the present litigation, Defendants, in their fiduciary capacities, made Aon Stock a vital and material part of the Plan and never provided Plan participants – including Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class – with the truth regarding Aon’s business operations and the risks associated with investing Plan assets in Aon Stock. The Complaint alleges that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan participants and beneficiaries, in violation of SS 404 and 405 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. SS 1104 and 1105, by, inter alia: (a) overconcentrating the Plan’s investment purchases and holdings in Aon Stock; (b) imprudently permitting the Plan to purchase or hold Aon Stock during the Relevant Time Period, which, in turn, caused Aon Stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Relevant Time Period; (c) providing employer matching contributions to Plan participants’ Plan contributions in the form of knowingly overvalued Aon stock, thereby failing to provide Plan participants with true matching value for their Plan contributions; (d) failing to provide Plan participants, including Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class, with complete and accurate information sufficient to advise the participants of the true risks associated with investing in the Plan; and (e) failing to properly monitor the Plan and its fiduciaries. On May 3, 2005, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC was appointed Interim Class Counsel over these consolidated actions. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 22, 2005 and on Nov. 29, 2006, Judge Charles R. Norgle ruled that the action may proceed as a class action and approved Wolf Haldenstein as Class Counsel. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. For more details, contact: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Phone: (312) 984-0000 BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and four of its current and former officers face a purported securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The suit was filed by Joseph C. Hubbard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., James A. White, Valerie C. Toalson, Jarrett S. Levan and Alan B. Levan on Oct. 29, 2007. It alleges that during the purported class period of Nov. 9, 2005 through Oct. 25, 2007, BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and the named officers knowingly and/or recklessly made misrepresentations of material fact regarding BankAtlantic and specifically BankAtlantic’s loan portfolio and allowance for loan losses. The complaint asserts claims for violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified damages. The suit is “Joseph C. Hubbard, et al. v. BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-61542,” filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida. Representing the plaintiffs are: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-915 Fax: (310) 201-916 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP 830 Third Avenue 10th Floor New York Ave, NY 10022 Phone: 212.317.2300 Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Phone: 215.638.4847 Fax: 215.638.4867 Stull, Stull & Brody 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: 310.209.2468 Fax: 310.209.2087 E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com - and - Vianale & Vianale LLP The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town Center Road Boca Raton, FL 33486 Phone: 561.391.4900 Fax: 561.368.9274 E-mail: info@vianalelaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Minn. Suit Over Deceptive Trade Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bank of America, N.A. is facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 9 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging deceptive trade practices and fraud associated with its mortgages, the St. Paul Business Journal reports. The suit was originally filed in Hennepin County District Court in October and was transferred to U.S. Federal Court in Minnesota in November. Named plaintiffs Kieran and Maxine Hughes brings this suit on behalf of all Minnesotans similarly situated who have gotten Bank of America mortgages in the past six years. The Hughes refinanced their home in 2003 and paid a $372 loan discount fee at closing, but they paid an interest rate higher than the par rate for which they qualified, the complaint said. The complaint alleges that the company broke Minnesota laws when it charged hundreds of Minnesotans "loan discount fees," then failed to give them discounted interest rates. According to Mr. Switzky, Bank of America hasn't yet filed an answer to the complaint. The suit is “Hughes et al v. Bank of America, N.A., Case Number: 0:2007cv04583,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, under Judge Donovan W. Frank with referral to Judge Arthur J. Boylan. BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Certifies Class in Ovcon-35 Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- A court has granted a motion to certify class in suits filed by direct purchasers of the Ovcon-35 drug against Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Warner Chilcott Holdings, Co. III, Ltd., among others. To date, the Company has been named as a co-defendant with Warner Chilcott and others in complaints filed in federal courts by the Federal Trade Commission, 34 state Attorneys General, and certain private class-action plaintiffs claiming to be direct or indirect purchasers of Ovcon-35. These actions, the first of which was filed by the FTC in December 2005, allege, among other things, that a March 24, 2004 agreement between the Company and Warner Chilcott (then known as Galen Holdings PLC) constitutes an unfair method of competition, is anticompetitive and restrains trade in the market for Ovcon- 35 and its generic equivalents. In the actions brought on behalf of the direct purchasers, on Oct. 22, 2007, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class on behalf of all entities that purchased Ovcon 35 directly from Warner Chilcott (or its affiliated companies) from April 22, 2004. Fact and expert discovery are now closed. The Court has ordered dispositive motions to be filed by Nov. 14, 2007. No trial date has been set, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.barrlabs.com/-- is primarily a holding company. The Company's subsidiaries, Barr Laboratories, Inc. and Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., develop, manufacture and market generic and proprietary pharmaceutical products, respectively. It operates in two business segments. In the generic pharmaceutical segment, it manufactures and distributes approximately 150 different dosage forms and strengths of approximately 75 different generic pharmaceutical products, including 22 oral contraceptive products that represent the largest category of its generic product portfolio. BELL RACING: Recalls Mini Helmets for Lead Paint Standard Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bell Racing Co., of Santa Cruz, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,400 collectible mini helmets. The company said the surface paints on the recalled helmets contain excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No injuries have been reported. The recalled products are six-inch tall, collectible, miniature helmets, modeled after helmets worn by several race car drivers. The follow models are included in the recall: Terry Borcheller helmet, part number 2005740; Kurt Busch helmet, part number 2001368; and Vitor Meira helmet, part number 2001381. The part number is located on the product?s packaging with the UPC. These recalled mini helmets were manufactured in China and are being sold at home improvement and discount department retailers nationwide from March 2007 through November 2007 for about $50. Pictures of the recalled mini helmets: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08112a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08112b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08112c.jpg Consumers are advised to take the recalled helmets away from young children immediately and contact Bell Racing to receive a full refund. For further information, contact Bell Racing toll-free at (866) 892-6059 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, via e-mail: minireplicasrecall@bellracing.com, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.acprecall.com EXPEDIA.COM: Accused of Bait and Switch Tactics in Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------- Expedia.com is facing a class-action complaint alleging it uses a bait-and-switch scheme to lure consumers into booking hotels through its Web site, the CourtHouse News Service reports. It also claims that Expedia was administratively dissolved by the State of Missouri on Aug. 29, 2006, but continues to do business in the state illegally. Named plaintiff Tom Burcham claims he booked a room at the Hampton Inn in Cape Girardeau, Mo., through Expedia because its Web site promised that the hotel had a conference room, indoor and outdoor swimming pools, a restaurant and a bar and lounge. In reality, the hotel had none of these. He filed the suit on behalf of all Missourians who booked a room at the Hampton Inn in Cape Girardeau through Expedia. The class seeks more than $5 million in damages. Representing plaintiffs is: Tom R. Burcham, III 222 West Columbia Farmington, MO 63640 Phone: (573) 756-5014 Fax: (573) 756-6878 GOODYEAR TIRE: Cash Benefit from $324M “Entran II” Deal, Out ------------------------------------------------------------ Current or former property owners in the United States with radiant heating or snow melting systems that use a particular rubber hose are eligible to receive a cash benefit from a $324 million Settlement Fund. The hose, Entran II, is orange and stamped with the name "Heatway" or "Heatway Systems." It is put in floors or driveways to carry warm fluid that provides warmth and melts snow. The majority of the hose was sold and/or installed between 1989- 1995. The $324 million Settlement Fund is the result of the Settlement of a class action approved in 2004 by Federal District Court Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the District of New Jersey. Eligible property owners may receive a payment of tens of thousands of dollars, but need to file a claim no later than November 17, 2009 in order to receive a payment. The Entran II lawsuit alleges that Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company manufactured a defective product and that Entran II hose is prone to leaking when used under normal conditions. However, the Defendant denies all allegations and maintains that it produced Entran II according to agreed to specifications and that the problems are with improperly designed, installed and maintained heating systems - not the hose. The Defendant decided to settle the case in order to avoid the cost and inconvenience of a trial. "Eligible property owners have until November 17, 2009 to file a claim for payment from the $324 million Settlement Fund. This is a great deal for eligible property owners; the first average payment is in the tens of thousands of dollars," said Charles LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Lead Class Counsel for the Plaintiffs in this case. An interactive Web site, http://www.entraniisettlement.com, includes the complete notice form, claim form, and other Court documents. There is also a "Frequently Asked Questions" section, as well as information, pictures, and a video clip to assist property owners in identifying Entran II hose. Property owners can also call 1-800-254-9222 for more information and to find out if they are eligible. For further information on the proposed settlement, contact: Entran II Settlement Claims Administrator P.O. Box 24 Minneapolis, MN 55440-0024 Tel: 1-800-254-9222 http://www.entraniisettlement.com/ About Goodyear Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (NYSE: GT) -- http://www.goodyear.com/-- manufactures tires, engineered rubber products and chemicals in more than 90 facilities in 28 countries. Goodyear Tire has marketing operations in almost every country around the world including Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Jamaica and Peru in Latin America. Goodyear employs more than 80,000 people worldwide. HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Sued Over Underinsured Motorist Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hartford Financial Services Group is facing a class-action complaint filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County alleging it has cheated policyholders who submit claims regarding underinsured motorists since 1990. Named plaintiff William Briggs brings this action pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a class of persons injured in motor vehicle accidents from 1990 to the present while occupants of motor vehicles insured under automobile policies issued by the defendants and its various affiliates, providing coverage under, inter alia, the Pennsylvania Motor vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S.A. Section 1701 et seq., where a Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Protection form has been executed and where coverage has been denied by the defendants on the basis of the Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Protection. He wants the court to rule on whether: (a) the members of the class have presented claims to the defendants and/or its affiliates for recovery of underinsured motorist benefits under a Pennsylvania commercial automobile policy issued by the defendants and/or its affiliates; (b) defendants and/or its affiliates denied claims for recovery of underinsured motorist benefits on the basis of a Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Protection form; (c) the Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Protection form relied upon by the defendants does not specifically comply with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S.A. Section 1701 et seq.; (d) the Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Protection from upon which the defendants rely is an illegal and invalid Rejection of Underinsured Motorist protection form; (e) by operation of law, the defendants are required to provide underinsured motorist coverage under each of the automobile policies wherein coverage has been rejected but reliance upon the illegal and invalid Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Protection form; (f) each member of the class is entitled to a declaration that the policy of insurance issued by defendants and/or its affiliates under which claim has been made does, in fact, provide underinsured motorist coverage; and (g) each member of the class is entitled to adjucation of his or her underinsured motorist claims through arbitration before a Special Master for the award of underinsured motorist benefits under the policy of insurance where such coverage was wrongfully and illegally denied by defendants and/or its affiliates. Plaintiff prays for the following relief: -- appointing a Special Master for the arbitration of the underinsured motorist claims of the members of the class; -- ordering the Special Master to establish a process whereby the underinsured motorist claims of the members of the class can be fully, completely and expeditiously adjudicated; and - such other relief the court deems appropriate. The suit is "William Briggs et al. v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. et al.," filed in the court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County. Representing plaintiffs is: Howard G. Silverman, Esq. Kane and Silverman P.C. The Philadelphian 2401 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1 C-44 Philadelphia, PA 19130 Phone: (215) 232-1000 - and - Charles Jay Schleifer, Esq. Weinstein, Schleifer & Kupersmith, P.C. Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, 41st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 350-6600 ICON HEALTH: Recalls Inversion Benches Posing Fall Hazard --------------------------------------------------------- Icon Health & Fitness Inc., of Logan, Utah, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 22,000 Nordic Track and Reebok Inversion Benches. The company said the ankle clamp mechanism can release unexpectedly, posing a fall hazard to consumers. Icon has received five reports of injuries to consumers including contusions, lacerations and back pain. The recalled inversion benches invert a user by securing the ankles in a locking device and rotating the bench. The Nordic Track bench is model number 831.14595.0 and the Reebok bench is model number RBBE1996.0. The model number is located under the seat of the bench. These recalled inversion benches were manufactured in China and are being sold at sporting goods stores nationwide from September 2006 through January 2007 for about $200. Pictures of the recalled inversion benches: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08109b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08109a.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the inversion benches immediately and contact the firm to receive a free repair kit. For further information, contact Icon Health & Fitness toll-free at (866) 506-9095 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. MT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.iconfitness.com INTERMIX MEDIA: Dec. 11 Hearing Set in Calif. Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California set a Dec. 11, 2007 hearing for motions in a purported securities class action filed against several former officers and directors of Intermix Media, Inc., an acquisition of News Corp. The suit, “Jim Brown v. Brett C. Brewer, et al.,” was filed on June 14, 2006. In it, plaintiff asserts claims for alleged violations of Section 14a of the U.S. Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9, as well as control person liability under Section 20a. Plaintiff alleges that certain defendants disseminated false and misleading definitive proxy statements on two occasions: -- on Dec. 30, 2003 in connection with the shareholder vote on Jan. 29, 2004 on the election of directors and ratification of financing transactions with certain entities of VantagePoint Venture Partners, a former large stockholder of Intermix; and -- on Aug. 25, 2005 in connection with the shareholder vote on the formation of Fox Interactive Media, a division of News Corp. The complaint names as defendants certain VantagePoint-related entities and the members of the Intermix Board who were incumbent on the dates of the respective proxy statements. Intermix is not named as a defendant, but has certain indemnity obligations to the former officer and director defendants in connection with these claims and allegations. On Aug. 25, 2006, plaintiff amended his complaint to add certain investment banks as defendants. Intermix has certain indemnity obligations to the investment banks as well. After conferring with defendants concerning deficiencies in the amended complaint pursuant to local rule and entering a stipulation with defendants regarding a briefing schedule, plaintiff amended his complaint again on Sept. 27, 2006. On Oct. 19, 2006, defendants filed motions to dismiss all claims in the second amended complaint. On Feb. 9, 2007, the case was transferred from Judge Walter to Judge George H. King, the judge assigned to the derivative action, captioned, “LeBoyer v. Greenspan et al.,” on the grounds that it raises substantially related questions of law and fact as LeBoyer, and would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges. Judge King took the Feb. 26, 2007 hearing date for the motions to dismiss off-calendar. On May 22, 2007, Judge King ordered a combined status conference with the LeBoyer action occur on June 11, 2007 at which he ordered the Brown case be consolidated with the LeBoyer action. Judge King also stated that he was not going to consider the pending motions to dismiss but rather ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to file a consolidated first amended complaint setting forth the causes of action in the LeBoyer and Brown matters and further ordered the parties to file a joint brief regarding dismissal of the first amended complaint. On July 11, 2007, plaintiffs filed the consolidated first amended complaint. Pursuant to the stipulated briefing schedule ordered by the court, the parties’ joint brief was filed on Oct. 11, 2007, and the matter is scheduled to be heard on Dec. 11, 2007. The suit is “Jim Brown v. Brett C Brewer et al., Case No. 2:06 cv-03731-JFW-SH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge John F. Walter with referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman. Representing the plaintiffs is: Christy W. Goodman, Esq. Goodman Sheridan and Roff 1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1350 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-241-4860 E-mail: cgoodman@gsrllp.com Representing the defendants are: Elizabeth A. Moriarty, Esq. Hogan and Hartson 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-785-4600 E-mail: eamoriarty@hhlaw.com Web site: http://www.hhlaw.com - and - Stephen M. Knaster, Esq. Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-773-5700 Fax: 415-773-5759 Web site: http://www.orrick.com KELLY SERVICES: Appeals Certification of Calif. Labor Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Services, Inc. is appealing a ruling that granted class- action status to a lawsuit brought on behalf of the company's employees working in the State of California. The claims in the lawsuit relate to alleged misclassification of personal attendants as exempt and entitled to overtime under state law and alleged technical violations of a state law pertaining to information furnished on employee pay stubs. A hearing relating to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was held on March 5, 2007, and on April 30, 2007, the Court certified the class. As to the April 30 order, the Company has both filed with the trial court a motion for reconsideration and a writ with the California Court of Appeal seeking an interlocutory appeal. The company reported no new development in the matter in its Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Kelly Services, Inc. -- http://www.kellyservices.com/-- is a global temporary staffing provider operating in 30 countries and territories throughout the world. KOPPERS INC: Faces Lawsuits Over Somerville Wood Treatment Plant ---------------------------------------------------------------- Koppers, Inc. faces purported class actions in Pennsylvania and Texas that were brought on behalf of residents of Somerville, Texas, according to the company's Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Pennsylvania Litigation Koppers, Inc. also is defending a putative class action, which seeks the establishment of a medical monitoring program and the costs of periodic health screening and diagnostic testing for a class of approximately 7,500 people who have lived or currently live in Somerville, but who have not experienced any diseases. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in October 2007. Plaintiffs allege that they have been exposed to harmful levels of various toxic chemicals from the Somerville wood treatment plant. They seek unspecified damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. Texas Litigation In addition to the lawsuit mentioned above, an additional complaint was filed in the District Court of Burleson County, Texas in October 2007. The complaint is a putative class action filed on behalf of current and former residents of Somerville, Texas who live or lived within a one mile radius of the Somerville wood treatment plant. Plaintiffs estimate the putative class to number in excess of 2,500 people. Koppers Inc. and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. are defendants. The complaint seeks certification as a class action, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, relocation expenses, injunctive relief, punitive damages in an unspecified amount, the costs of developing a notice plan to notify members of the putative class and attorneys’ fees. The complaints contains counts relating to private nuisance, trespass, negligence, negligence per se and gross negligence arising from alleged emissions of toxic chemicals from the Somerville plant. Plaintiffs’ also filed an application for a temporary injunction seeking, among other things, temporary injunctive relief from alleged further releases of chemicals from the Somerville plant, the temporary relocation of all class members and reimbursement for certain personal and relocation expenses. On Oct. 26, 2007, Koppers filed a notice of removal removing this case from the District Court of Burleson County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Koppers Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.koppers.com/-- is an integrated global provider of carbon compounds and commercial wood treatment products. The Company's products are used in a variety of applications in a range of end markets, including the aluminum, railroad, specialty chemical, utility, rubber and steel industries. It serves its customers through a global manufacturing and distribution network, including 33 manufacturing facilities located in North America, Australasia, China, Europe and South Africa. The Company operates two principal businesses: Carbon Materials & Chemicals, and Railroad & Utility Products. NATIONAL WESTERN: Faces Suits Over Sale of Annuities to Elders -------------------------------------------------------------- National Western Life Insurance Co. is facing several purported class actions in California, which alleges elder abuse and other state code violations over the sale of certain deferred fixed annuities to seniors, according to the company's Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing. The Company is a defendant in three such class actions. The court certified a class consisting of certain California policyholders age 65 and older alleging violations under California Business and Professions Code section 17200. The court has additionally certified a subclass of 36 policyholders alleging fraud against their agent, and vicariously, against NWL. One of the suits is targeting National Western, for selling a deferred annuity to an Oceanside senior that was allegedly an "unsuitable" investment, since its payouts began well past the buyer's life expectancy (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 22, 2005). The legal action puts in the spotlight the increased scrutiny being given to the sales practices of certain types of annuities, investment vehicles offered by insurance companies and designed to provide an income stream and tax benefits to investors, usually during retirement. San Diego lawyer Ronald Marron and the law firm of Finkelstein & Krinsk brought the state court case charging the Texas firm of selling deferred fixed annuities with steep surrender charges to seniors. They are seeking class action status for California seniors who were sold similar products by National Western. Austin, Texas-based National Western Life Insurance Co. -- https://www.nationalwesternlife.com/ -- is a stock life insurance company doing business in 49 states, the District of Columbia and four U.S. territories or possessions. NAVARRE CORP: Yet to Report Minn. Securities Suit Deal Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Navarre Corp. has yet to report that the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has granted final approval to a settlement of a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against it and certain of its officers and directors. Several purported class-action lawsuits were commenced in 2005 by various plaintiffs against Navarre Corp., and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Plaintiffs cite to alleged violations of Sec. 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10(b)(5), promulgated under the Act, and as to the individual defendants only, violation of Sec. 20(a) of the Act. Plaintiffs sought certification of the actions as a class action lawsuit, compensatory but unspecified damages allegedly sustained as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, plus costs, counsel fees and experts fees. The actions are identified as: -- "AVIVA Partners, Ltd. v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05-1151 (PAM/RLE);" -- "Vivian Oh v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05-01211 (MJD/JGL);" and -- "Matthew Grabler v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05- 1260 (DWF/JSM)." By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 12, 2005, the Court appointed “The Pension Group,” comprised of the Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Funds and Ms. Grace W. Lai, as Lead Plaintiff, and appointed the Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield law firm as liaison counsel and the Lerach, Coughlin law firm as lead counsel. The Court also ordered that the cases be consolidated under the caption, “In re Navarre Corporation Securities Litigation,” and further ordered that a Consolidated Amended Complaint be filed. On Feb. 3, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint with the Court. This Consolidated Amended Complaint reiterates the allegations made in the individual complaints and extends these allegations to the Company’s restatements of its previously issued financial statements that were made in November 2005. A hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss was held on May 10, 2006 and by an order dated June 27, 2006, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, without prejudice. The Court allowed Plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint in an effort to cure the identified pleading deficiencies. On July 28, 2006 Plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Complaint against Defendants. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the renewed complaint on Sept. 22, 2006, asserting, among other things, that Plaintiffs had not sufficiently cured the defects present in the original Consolidated Amended Complaint. By a Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 21, 2006, the Court granted Defendants’ motion in part, denied it in part, and specifically removed Cary L. Deacon, Brian M.T. Burke and Charles Cheney as individual defendants. Defendants answered the Complaint on Jan. 26, 2007 and typical disclosure requirements and discovery proceeded. The Company and Plaintiffs agreed in principle to settle this litigation. This settlement remains subject to the satisfaction of various conditions, including the negotiation and execution of a final stipulation of settlement and approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. However, the Company anticipates that it will not be required to contribute any funds to the settlement beyond the already exhausted retention under its insurance policy. A hearing for preliminary approval of this settlement has been scheduled for Nov. 15, 2007. The suit is “In re Navarre Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 0:05-cv-01151-PAM-RLE,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Paul A. Magnuson with referral to Judge Raymond L. Erickson. Representing the plaintiffs are: Laura M. Andracchio, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 W Broadway Ste 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-338-3829 or 619-231-1058 or 619-338-3858 E-mail: lauraa@lerachlaw.com - and - Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. Esq. Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield 332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250, St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: 651-287-2100 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com Representing the defendants is: David A. Davenport, Esq. Winthrop & Weinstine, PA 225 S. 6th St., Ste. 3500, Mpls, MN 55402-4629 Phone: 612-604-6716 Fax: 612-604-6816 E-mail: ddavenport@winthrop.com OFFICEMAX INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted OfficeMax Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended securities fraud complaint filed against the company, according to the company's Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 29, 2007. The company and several former officers and/or directors of the company or its predecessor are defendants in a consolidated class action proceeding, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges, in summary, that the company failed to disclose: -- that vendor income had been improperly recorded; -- that the company lacked internal controls necessary to ensure the proper reporting of revenue and compliance with generally accepted accounting principles; and -- that the company 's 2004 and later results would be adversely affected by the company's allegedly improper practices. The relief sought includes unspecified compensatory damages, interest and costs, including attorneys' fees. On Sept. 21, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which is pending. On Sept. 12, 2006, the court granted the defendant group's joint motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On Nov. 9, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a purported amended complaint. On Jan. 19, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On Sept. 26, 2007, the court granted the motion to dismiss and terminated the case. The suit is “Roth v. Officemax Inc, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv- 00236,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Joan B. Gottschall. Representing the plaintiffs are: William J. Doyle, Esq. William S. Lerach, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 Representing the defendants are: Phillip M. Goldberg, Esq. Foley & Lardner 321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60610 Phone: 312-832-4500 John William Rotunno, Esq. Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, LLC 70 West Madison Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60602-4207 Phone: (312) 372-1121 E-mail: jrotunno@bellboyd.com - and - Patrick Thomas Stanton, Esq. Schwartz, Cooper, Greenberg & Krauss 180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 516-4489 E-mail: pstanton@scgk.com OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Court Drops Options Backdating Suit Defendants ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed certain defendants from a shareholder lawsuit filed against Openwave Systems and nine former executives over an alleged stock-option backdating scheme. Between Feb. 21, and March 27, 2007, four substantially similar securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Openwave and four current and former officers of the Company. The complaints purport to be filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Openwave stock from Sept. 30, 2002 through Oct. 26, 2006, and allege that during the Class Period, the defendants engaged in improper stock options backdating and issued materially false and misleading statements in the Company’s public filings and press releases regarding the manner in which Openwave granted and accounted for the options. Based on these allegations, the complaints assert two causes of action—one against all defendants for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and a second against the individual defendants for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On April 25, 2007, the Company and the individual defendants filed a joint motion to transfer the actions to the Northern District of California where the related shareholder derivative class actions are pending. On May 18, 2007, the court entered an order consolidating the four securities class actions into a single action captioned, “In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation (Master File 07- 1309 (DLC)),” and appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On June 14, 2007, the court entered an order denying the motion to transfer. On June 29, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended class action complaint. The consolidated and amended complaint adds 17 additional defendants, including: * several current and former Openwave officers and directors, * KPMG LLP, and * Merrill Lynch, * Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., * Lehman Brothers Inc., * J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., and * Thomas Weisel Partners LLC The consolidated and amended complaint alleges claims for violation of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as claims for violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 arising out of the Company’s 2005 public offering. The complaint seeks money damages, equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company is required under contracts with the individual defendants to indemnify them under certain circumstances for attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System is appointed lead plaintiff; Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP shall serve as lead counsel for all plaintiffs in the consolidated actions and the class. On Aug. 10, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated and amended class action complaint. On Oct. 31, 2007, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court granted the motions to dismiss claims asserted under the Securities Act of 1933 as to all defendants against whom those claims were asserted, and granted the motion to dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 claims against certain of the officer and director defendants, but denied the motion to dismiss the Exchange claims asserted against Openwave and certain of the other director and officer defendants. Defendants Dismissed from Suit As a result of the court’s decision, KPMG LLP, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Lehman Brothers Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., and Thomas Weisel Partners LLC have all been dismissed as defendants from the litigation. The remaining defendants are the Company, certain former officers of the Company, and certain former and current directors of the Company. The suit is “In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation (Master File 07-1309 (DLC)),” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Denise L. Cote. Representing the plaintiffs are: Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910 New York, NY 10119 Phone: 212.279.5050 Fax: 212.279.3655 E-mail: JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo One Liberty Square Boston, MA 2109 Phone: 617.542.8300 Fax: 617.230.0903 E-mail: info@bermanesq.com - and - Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212.554.1400 Fax: 212.554.1444 E-mail: blbg@blbglaw.com PEOPLES ENERGY: Ill. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Consumer Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Cook County (Ill.) Circuit Court has yet to rule on a motion seeking for a dismissal of a lawsuit that accuses Peoples Energy Corp. of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act in relation to matters at issue in the utilities’ fiscal year 2001 Gas Charge reconciliation proceedings. Peoples Energy was acquired recently by Integrys Energy Group, Inc. In February 2004, customers of The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co. and North Shore Gas Co. (NSG) filed a purported class action in Cook County Circuit Court against Peoples Energy, Peoples Gas, North Shore. The suit, “Alport et al. v. Peoples Energy Corp.,” seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Peoples Gas and North Shore have been dismissed as defendants and the only remaining counts of the suit allege violations of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and that Peoples Energy acted in concert with others to commit a tortious act. Peoples Energy denies the allegations and is vigorously defending the suit. On Sept. 25, 2006, the court granted in part Peoples Energy's motion to dismiss the case by limiting the potential class members in the suit to those persons who were customers during the time that Peoples Energy’s joint venture with Enron was in operation and did not receive part of the settlement proceeds from the reconciliation cases. However, the court denied Peoples Energy’s motion to dismiss the case to the extent that the complaint seeks punitive damages (regardless of whether such customers received part of the settlement proceeds from the reconciliation cases). The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint and a motion for class certification and on April 25, 2007 the Court denied, without prejudice, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On June 29, 2007, Peoples Gas and North Shore filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding for failure to join a necessary party. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 11, 2007. Subsequently, Peoples Gas' and North Shore's motion to delay responding to the amended complaint until the court rules on the motion to dismiss was granted. Integrys Energy reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Peoples Energy Corp. -- http://www.pecorp.com-- is a holding company and does not engage directly in any business of its own. It operates through its regulated utility subsidiaries, The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co., and North Shore Gas Co. Peoples Energy's other subsidiaries are Peoples Energy Resources Co., LLC, Peoples Energy Services Corporation, Peoples Energy Production Co. and Peoples District Energy Corp. It has five segments: Gas Distribution, Oil and Gas Production, Energy Marketing, Energy Assets, and Corporate and Other. PEOPLES ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Connection Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Peoples Energy Corp., along with its utility subsidiaries, is seeking for the dismissal of an amended class action complaint that accuses them of improperly charging connection and disconnection fees to several Chicago-based builders. In June 2005, the purported class action was filed against the company by Birchwood Builders, LLC in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. It named as defendants: -- Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co.; and -- North Shore Gas Co. The suit generally accuses defendants of fraudulently and improperly charging fees to customers with respect to utility connections, disconnections, reconnections, relocations, extensions of gas service pipes and extensions of distribution gas mains and failing to return related customer deposits. Peoples Gas and North Shore filed two motions to dismiss the lawsuit. On Jan. 25, 2007, the judge entered an order dismissing the complaint, but allowing the plaintiffs the option of filing an amended complaint, except as to the plaintiffs’ seeking of declaratory relief, which was dismissed with prejudice. The judge also ruled that the plaintiffs could file their claims directly with the Illinois Commerce Commission. On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with the Circuit Court. Peoples Gas and North Shore responded by filing a motion to dismiss and are awaiting a decision on this motion. Peoples Energy was acquired recently by Integrys Energy Group, Inc. Integrys Energy reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Peoples Energy Corp. -- http://www.pecorp.com-- is a holding company and does not engage directly in any business of its own. It operates through its regulated utility subsidiaries, The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co., and North Shore Gas Co. Peoples Energy's other subsidiaries are Peoples Energy Resources Co., LLC, Peoples Energy Services Corporation, Peoples Energy Production Co. and Peoples District Energy Corp. It has five segments: Gas Distribution, Oil and Gas Production, Energy Marketing, Energy Assets, and Corporate and Other. POLO RALPH: Calif. Club Monaco Store Employees File Labor Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. faces a purported class action in California that alleges violations of California wage and hour laws, according to the company's Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 29, 2007. On Aug. 21, 2007, eleven former and current employees of the company's Club Monaco stores in California filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging violations of the state's wage and hour laws by improperly classifying employees as exempt and by failing to pay overtime work and granting meal breaks to workers The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and punitive damages. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. -- http://www.ralphlauren.com-- is a global player in the design, marketing and distribution of lifestyle products, including men’s, women’s and children’s apparel, accessories, fragrances and home furnishings. The Company operates in three segments: Wholesale, Retail and Licensing. SOMA BEVERAGE: Recalls Flavored Water on Possible Contamination --------------------------------------------------------------- Soma Beverage recalls Metromint flavor water in 16.9 fluid ounce bottles. All flavors of Metromint with Best Before 2008/12/21 and produced at its California facility are affected by this recall, this includes peppermint, spearmint, orangemint, and lemonmint. Soma Beverage of San Francisco, California is recalling all bottles of Metromint flavors Peppermint, Spearmint, Orangemint, and Lemonmint with Best Before 2008/12/21 and produced at its California facility because they may be contaminated with Bacillus cereus. The products were distributed nationwide to grocery stores and sold on the Internet. The products were packaged in plastic 16.9 ounce bottles. The Metromint recalled products were produced at the California Soma facility. The recalled products can be identified by the "Best Before" date found on the shoulder of the bottle. All Metromint recalled products (Peppermint, Spearmint, Orangemint, and Lemonmint) with "Best Before" dates before 2008/12/21, produced at the Californian facility, are affected by this recall. Products produced in the California facility have the lettering "KSA" in a rectangle located on the lower right-hand corner of the back panel on the label. There have been no reported illnesses in California. The symptoms of B. cereus diarrheal type food poisoning usually include onset of watery diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and pain 6- 15 hours after consumption of contaminated food. Nausea may accompany diarrhea, but vomiting rarely occurs. Symptoms persist for 24 hours in most instances. The vomiting type of food poisoning associated with B. cereus is characterized by nausea and vomiting within 30 minutes to 6 hours after consumption of contaminated foods. Duration of symptoms is generally less than 24 hours. Infants, children and pregnant women are susceptible to dehydration resulting from diarrhea. Consumers in possession of the recalled product should discard it or return it to the point of purchase. Individuals who think they may have become ill from eating these products should contact their health care provider for evaluation. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-415-979- 0781 Ext. 101. TEPPCO PARTNERS: Still Faces UnitHolder's Lawsuit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------- Texas Eastern Products Pipeline Co., LLC, the general partner of TEPPCO Partners, L.P. (Parent Partnership), continues to face a lawsuit that was filed by a TEPPCO unitholder in the Court of Chancery of New Castle County in the State of Delaware. On Sept. 18, 2006, Peter Brinckerhoff, a purported unitholder of TEPPCO Partners, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of New Castle County in the State of Delaware, in his individual capacity, as a putative class action on behalf of: -- Parent Partnership's other unitholders, and -- derivatively on its behalf. It concerns proposals made to its unit holders in its definitive proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Sept. 11, 2006 and other transactions involving the Parent Partnership and Enterprise or its affiliates. The complaint names as defendants: -- Texas Eastern Products Pipeline; -- the Board of Directors of Texas Eastern Products; -- the parent companies of Texas Eastern Products, including EPCO Inc., a privately held company controlled by Dan L. Duncan; -- Enterprise Products Partners L.P. and certain of its affiliates; and -- Mr. Duncan. The Parent Partnership is named as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that certain of the transactions proposed in the proxy statement, including a proposal to reduce the Texas Eastern Products's maximum percentage interest in the Parent Partnership's distributions in exchange for limited partner units, are unfair to its unit holders and constitute a breach by the defendants of fiduciary duties owed to its unit holders and that the Proxy Statement fails to provide its unit holders with all material facts necessary for them to make an informed decision whether to vote in favor of or against the proposals. The complaint further alleges that, since Mr. Duncan acquired control of Texas Eastern Products in 2005, the defendants, in breach of their fiduciary duties to the Parent Partnership and its unit holders, have caused the Parent Partnership to enter into certain transactions with Enterprise or its affiliates that are unfair to it or otherwise unfairly favored Enterprise or its affiliates over the Parent Partnership. These transactions are alleged to include the Jonah Gas Gathering Company joint venture entered into by the Parent Partnership and an Enterprise affiliate in August 2006, the sale by the Parent Partnership to an Enterprise affiliate of the Pioneer plant in March 2006 and the impending divestiture of our interest in MB Storage in connection with an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission. As more fully described in the Proxy Statement, the Audit and Conflicts Committee of the Board of Directors of Texas Eastern Products recommended the Issuance Proposal for approval by the Board of Directors of Texas Eastern Products. The complaint also alleges that Richard S. Snell, Michael B. Bracy and Murray H. Hutchison, constituting the three members of the Audit and Conflicts Committee of the Board of Directors of Texas Eastern Products, cannot be considered independent because of their alleged ownership of securities in Enterprise and its affiliates and their relationships with Mr. Duncan. The complaint seeks relief: -- requiring the Parent Partnership to issue a proxy statement that corrects the alleged misstatements and omissions in the Proxy Statement; -- enjoining the Oct. 26, 2006 meeting of unitholders provided for in the Proxy Statement; -- rescinding transactions in the complaint that have been consummated, or awarding rescissory damages in respect thereof, including the impending divestiture of our interest in MB Storage; -- awarding damages for profits and special benefits allegedly obtained by defendants as a result of the alleged wrongdoings in the complaint; and -- awarding plaintiff costs of the action, including fees and expenses of his attorneys and experts. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. TEPPCO Partners, L.P. -- http://www.teppco.com/-- is a common carrier pipeline of refined products and liquefied petroleum gases in the U.S. THRESHOLD PHARMACEUTICALS: N.Y. Securities Suits Sent to Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered the transfer of several purported securities fraud class actions against Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to the the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suits were filed between July 5 and July 18, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the federal securities laws. They were filed against the company, its chief executive officer Harold E. Selick and its former chief financial officer Janet I. Swearson. The securities lawsuits, which the company expects will be consolidated into a single proceeding, allege claims arising under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the Companys common stock from the date of the Company's initial public offering of securities on Feb. 4, 2005 through July 14, 2006. Plaintiffs allege generally that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by, among other things, making material misstatements or omissions concerning the Companys Phase II and Phase III clinical trials of Lonidamine (TH-070). On Sept. 14, 2007, these lawsuits were ordered transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The reference complaint is “Jerry Twinde, et al. v. Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. Case No. 07-CV-04972,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. Representing the plaintiffs are: Brodsky & Smith, LLC 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39 Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 Phone: 610.668.7987 Fax: 610.660.0450 E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY, 11747 Phone: 631.367.7100 Fax: 631.367.1173 - and - Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel 273 Montgomery Ave. Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 Phone: 610.660.8000 Fax: 610.660.8080 E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net TIME WARNER: Continues to Face Privacy Rights Violation Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York declined to grant final approval to a settlement reached in a purported nationwide class action alleging violation of subscribers privacy rights by Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., and Time Warner Cable. The suit, “Andrew Parker and Eric DeBrauwere, et al. v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. and Time Warner Cable,” alleges that the company sold its subscribers' personally identifiable information and failed to inform subscribers of their privacy rights in violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 and common law. The plaintiffs are seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On Aug. 6, 1998, the company filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied on Sept. 7, 1999. On Dec. 8, 1999, the company filed a motion to deny class certification, which was granted on Jan. 9, 2001 with respect to monetary damages, but denied with respect to injunctive relief. On June 2, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the court's decision denying class certification as a matter of law and remanded the case for further proceedings on class certification and other matters. On May 4, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which Time Warner Cable has opposed. On Oct. 25, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of a class settlement arrangement on terms that were not material to the company. A final settlement approval hearing was held on May 19, 2006, and on Jan. 26, 2007, the court denied approval of the settlement. The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 1, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is Parker, et al. v. Time Warner Entertai, et al., Case no. 1:98-cv-04265-ILG-JMA, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge I. Leo Glasser. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael G. Lenett, Esq. Cuneo Waldman & LaDuca LLP 507 C. Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Phone: 202-789-3960 - and - Peter Steven Linden, Esq. Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP 830 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 371-6600 Representing the company are: Landis Cox Best, Esq. Jonathan D. Their, Esq. Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP 80 Pine Street New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 701-3694 Fax: (212) 269-5420 E-mail: lbest@cahill.com jthier@cahill.com - and George W. Sampson, Esq. Hagens Berman LLP 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Fax (206) 623-0594 WALT DISNEY: Workers File Lawsuit in Calif. Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Disney Worldwide Services, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 26 in the U.S. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles over unpaid wages and unpaid overtime compensation, TMZ.com reports. Named plaintiff Amber Galloway alleges that Disney ignored California labor laws when they didn't permit breaks, overworked the staff and made them toil "off the clock" during lunch breaks. Ms. Galloway also alleges that the company didn't keep an accurate count of hours worked by employees, and further claims that Disney "injured" her and was "unfair, unlawful, and harmful." Ms. Galloway brings this action on behalf of all hourly employees who are employed or have been employed by Disney at Goofy's Kitchen in the State of California and for at least four years prior to the filing of this action. She wants the court to rule on whether: (a) defendant's failed to pay members for all hours worked; (b) defendants violated Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512, IWC Wage Order 5-2001 or other applicable IWC Wage Orders, by failing to provide meal periods on days they worked in excess of five hours and failing to compensate said hourly employees one hour wages in lieu of meal periods; (c) defendants violated Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512, IWC Wage Order 5-2001 or other applicable IWC Wage Orders, by failing to provide meal periods on days they worked in excess of five hours and failing to compensate said hourly employees one hour wages in lieu of rest periods; (d) defendants violated Section 2269a) of the Labor Code by failing to maintain accurate and itemize time records for each employee; (e) defendants violated Sections 201-203 of the Labor Code by failing to pay compensation die and owing at the time that any proposed class member's employment with defendants terminated; (f) defendants violated Section 17200 et seq. of the Business & Professions Code by failing to provide wages and compensation to hourly employees; and (g) plaintiff and the members of the proposed class are entitled to equitable relief pursuant to Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. Ms. Galloway prays for the following relief: -- for compensatory damages in the amount of unpaid wages and overtime not paid to plaintiffs from at least four years prior to the filing of this action to the present as may be proven; -- for compensatory damages in the amount of plaintiffs' hourly wage for each meal period missed or taken late from at least four years prior to the filing of this action to the present as may be proven; -- for compensatory damages in the amount of plaintiffs' hourly wage for each shift where rest period(s) were missed from at least four years prior to the filing of this action to the present as may be proven; -- for relief from defendants failure to keep and maintain accurate, complete and itemized records as required by statute including the presumption that where breaks were not properly recorded, they were not actually taken; -- for penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 203 for all hourly employees who quit or were fired equal to their daily wage times 30 days; -- an award of prejudgment and post judgment interest; -- an order enjoining defendant and its agents, servants, and hourly employees, and all persons acting under, in concert with, or for it from providing plaintiffs with proper meal and rest breaks pursuant to Labor Code Sections 512, 226(a), 226.7 and IWC 5-2001; -- for restitution for unfair competition pursuant to Business & Professions code Section 17200, including disgorgement or profits, in an amount as may be proven; -- an award providing for payment of costs of suit; -- an award of attorneys' fees; and -- such other and further relief as the court may deem proper and just. The suit is "Amber Galloway et al. v. Disney Worldwide Services, Inc.," filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles. Representing plaintiffs are: George R. Kinsgley, Esq. Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. Darren M. Cohen, Esq. Kingsley & Kingsley, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Phone: (818) 990-8300 Fax: (818) 990-2903 WASHINGTON MUTUAL: 401(k) Members Claim Losses of at Least $150M ---------------------------------------------------------------- Washington Mutual employees participating in the company's 401(k) plan filed a class action against the company, its chief executive, board members and all other fiduciaries, claiming the organization failed to adequately monitor the plan and advise participants when the company stock investment was no longer prudent. As a result, employee participants suffered total financial losses in excess of $150 million. Filed on November 29, 2007 in District Court in Seattle, Wash., the suit seeks to represent all WaMu employees whose 401(k) plan accounts include investments in company stock from April 18, 2006 until present. The suit claims that under ERISA fiduciaries are obligated to eliminate imprudent investment vehicles from 401(k) plans and to warn plan participants of risky investments. The suit alleges that the fiduciaries are legally responsible to restore any losses to the plan resulting from mismanagement. As of December 31, 2006 the plan held $341,404,922 in company stock and has since plummeted 60 percent. "In recent months WaMu has been hit with investigations and lawsuits that call many of its basic business practices into question," said lead attorney and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro managing partner Steve Berman. "Now the effects of the company's mismanagement are trickling down to employees and WaMu is forcing them to take a hit where it hurts most -- through retirement and savings plans." The suit alleges that while CEO Kerry Killinger and the insider- appointed benefits committee members had a fiduciary responsibility to warn employees of the company's precarious financial health they intentionally concealed information from plan participants. Plaintiff Barbara Alexander, like many WaMu employees, deferred a portion of her salary and invested in the company savings plan. WaMu offers employees company stock funds as an investment option and plan fiduciaries are responsible for monitoring investment options and eliminating those that become imprudent. According to the complaint, WaMu's involvement in the subprime mortgage industry contributed to the decrease in stock value and employee savings plans. WaMu held billions of dollars in subprime loans that it had originated and in the last year has seen many of those go into foreclosure. The complaint goes on to explain that WaMu's risk was exacerbated by the fact that the company engaged in a fraudulent appraisal scheme under which it artificially inflated the appraised values of homes. This means the loans in WaMu's portfolio were inherently overvalued but when WaMu securitized those loans and sold them to investors they were perpetuating a massive fraud on investors that created another risk -- WaMu would have to re-assume ownership of those loans if the scheme was revealed. "As the WaMu appraisal scheme has recently been unfolding and the subprime mortgage crisis has been in the limelight for the past year the company had the obligation to warn employees and investors that stock prices would be negatively affected," said Berman. "Not notifying employees of the potential risk is a clear violation of ERISA law and is explicitly stated as one of the roles of a fiduciary." According to the complaint WaMu's troubles have been pushed into the spotlight, and with increasing severity since September 2007. On September 13, 2007 the company announced it was cutting 1,000 jobs and closing a once-prized loan subsidiary. On October 5, 2007 WaMu announced its third-quarter sales would be severely impacted due to the subprime market, as much as 75 percent from the prior year. Not two weeks later WaMu announced its net income for the third quarter had dropped $210 million from $748 million in the third quarter of 2006. In a final blow on November 1, 2007, the Attorney General for the State of New York sued Washington Mutual's main appraisers for conspiring to provide the company with rigged and inflated appraisals. Within a day of the announcement company stock collapsed more than 15 percent which created a loss for investors and plan participants of almost $4 billion. The suit makes several claims of wrongdoing by WaMu's fiduciaries, including: failure to prudently and loyally manage the plan's assets; failure to provide complete and accurate information to participants and beneficiaries; failure to monitor the investment and administration committees and provide them with accurate information; breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest; and, co-fiduciary liability. Under ERISA law a plan participant can bring a civil action on behalf of a retirement plan against companies and individuals that breach any of the duties outlined for a fiduciary. According to the complaint Alexander is seeking compensation for any losses the plan suffered, imposition of a constructive trust on any amount by which the defendants were unjustly enriched and for the court to require defendants to appoint one or more independent fiduciaries to participate in the management of the WaMu stock. Defendants are Washington Mutual Inc., Washington Mutual Inc. Human Resources Committee, Washington Mutual Inc. Plan Administration Committee, Kerry K. Killinger, Stephen E. Frank, Thomas Casey, James B. Corcoran, Charles M. Lillis, Phillip D. Mathews, Regina T. Montoya, Michael K. Murphy, Margaret Osmer McQuade, Mary E. Pugh, William G. Reed, Jr., Orin G. Smith, James H. Stever, Daryl D. David, John Does and Jane Does. The suit is "Alexander v. Washington Mutual Inc. et al., Case No. 2:2007cv01906," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington before Hon. Ricardo S. Martinez. For more information, contact: Steve Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro Phone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Mark Firmani Firmani + Associates Inc. Phone: (206) 443-9357 E-mail: Mark@firmani.com Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaanapali Land, D/C Still Face Injury Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kaanapali Land LLC, as successor by merger to other entities, and subsidiary D/C Distribution Corp. continue to face personal injury actions allegedly from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007. While there are few such cases that name the Company, there are in excess of 70 cases against D/C that are pending on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against the Company are allegedly based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on D/C's prior distribution business operations primarily in California. On Feb. 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled American & Foreign Insurance Co. v. D/C Distribution and Amfac Corp., Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central Justice Center. No other purported party was served. In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief, reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on exposure to asbestos containing products. Plaintiff alleged that because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of the material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed. Plaintiff sought a declaration: of the material terms, rights, and obligations of the parties under the terms of the policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted; that plaintiff was not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys' fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its obligation of cooperation with plaintiff. D/C filed an answer and an amended cross-claim. In addition, D/C said it believed that it was entitled to amounts from plaintiffs for reimbursement and recoupment of amounts expended by D/C on the lawsuits previously tendered. In order to fund such action and its other ongoing obligations while such suit continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security Agreement with Kaanapali Land, in August 2006, whereby Kaanapali Land provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered by D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance policy at issue in this lawsuit. In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the amount of US$1,618,000. Such settlement amount was paid to the Company in partial satisfaction of the secured indebtedness. Chicago-based Kaanapali Land LLC is the reorganized entity resulting from the Joint Plan of Reorganization of Amfac Hawaii LLC, certain of its subsidiaries, and FHT Corp. The Company's continuing operations are in three business segments: agriculture, Property and Golf, all of which operate in the State of Hawaii. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: “Premises” Cases Ongoing v. Huntsman Corp. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Huntsman Corp. has been named as a "premises defendant" in a number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by non- employees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007. In the past, these cases typically have involved multiple plaintiffs bringing actions against multiple defendants, and the complaints have not indicated which plaintiffs were making claims against which defendants, where or how the alleged injuries occurred, or what injuries each plaintiff claimed. These facts generally have been learned through discovery. Changes in Texas tort procedures have required many pending cases to be split into multiple cases, one for each claimant, increasing the number of pending cases. Where the alleged exposure occurred prior to the Company's ownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners generally have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and to indemnify the Company against, asbestos exposure claims. The Company has cases for which service has been received that the Company has tendered to the prior owner, all of which have been accepted. In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded three case tendered, 38 cases resolved, and 1,207 unresolved cases. In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded 990 cases tendered, 170 cases resolved, and 1,396 unresolved cases. The Company has not made any payments with respect to these cases. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had an accrued liability of US$12.5 million relating to these cases and a corresponding receivable of US$12.5 million relating to its indemnity protection with respect to these cases. The Company has made no accruals with respect to unasserted asbestos exposure claims as of Sept. 30, 2007. Certain cases in which the Company is a "premises defendant" are not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators. In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded one case filed, 51 cases resolved, and 41 unresolved cases. In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded 18 cases filed, nine cases resolved, and 43 unresolved cases. The Company paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure cases that are not subject to indemnification of US$2.6 million and during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007 and US$10,000 during the nine months ended September 30, 2006. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had an accrual of about US$900,000 relating to these cases. The Company has made no accruals with respect to unasserted asbestos exposure claims as of Sept. 30, 2007. Salt Lake City-based Huntsman Corp. manufactures chemical products and inorganic chemical products. The Company's products comprise chemicals and formulations and are used in various applications. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harris Corp. Faces Cases Product Sale/Use ---------------------------------------------------------------- From time to time, various claims or charges are asserted and litigation commenced against Harris Corp. arising from or related to the sale of use of product containing asbestos. The Company also is involved in litigation in matters including product liability; personal injury; patents, trademarks or trade secrets; labor and employee disputes; commercial or contractual disputes; breach of warranty; or environmental matters. Melbourne, Fla.-based Harris Corp., together with its subsidiaries, is a communications and information technology company serving government and commercial markets in more than 150 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Reserves $20.1M at Sept. 30 for A&E ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hanover Insurance Group Inc.'s asbestos and environmental reserve for losses and loss adjustment expenses amounted to US$20.1 million at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$24.7 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's A&E reserve for losses and LAE, net of reinsurance, amounted to US$13.8 million at Sept. 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006. In addition, the Company has established loss and LAE reserves for assumed reinsurance and pool business with asbestos, environmental damage and toxic tort liability of US$56.6 million at Sept. 30, 2007 and US$57 million at Dec. 31, 2006. Based in Worcester, Mass., The Hanover Insurance Group Inc. (f/k/a Allmerica Financial Corp.) is a property/casualty insurance holding company. Through Hanover Insurance Co., the Company provides personal and commercial automobile, homeowners, workers' compensation, and commercial multiple-peril insurance coverage. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enstar Continues to Face Coverage Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Enstar Group Ltd. says that it anticipates it will continue to face litigation and arbitration proceedings, including litigation generally related to the scope of coverage with respect to asbestos and environmental claims. No other matters were discussed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007. Hamilton, Bermuda-based Enstar Group Ltd. (f/k/a Castlewood Holdings Ltd.) invests in firms that acquire and manage domestic and international reinsurance companies that are in run-off. The Company provides claims administration, adjustment and settlement, and collection services for the companies. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re Reserves $558.1M for A&E Losses ---------------------------------------------------------------- Everest Re Group Ltd.'s net asbestos and environmental loss reserves totaled US$558,101,000 in the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$480,271,000 in the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006. The Company's net A&E loss reserves amounted to US$529,020,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$440,015,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007) The Company's gross A&E loss reserves totaled US$652,192,000 in the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$643,096,000 in the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006. The Company's gross A&E loss reserves amounted to US$637,888,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$619,879,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007) At Sept. 30, 2007, the gross reserves for A&E losses were comprised of US$133.9 million representing case reserves reported by ceding companies, US$145.9 million representing additional case reserves established by the Company on assumed reinsurance claims, US$195.5 million representing case reserves established by the Company on direct excess insurance claims, including Mt. McKinley Insurance Co., and US$176.9 million representing incurred but not recorded reserves. With respect to asbestos, at Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had gross asbestos loss reserves of US$586.4 million, of which US$339.4 million was for assumed business and US$247 million was for direct excess business. The gross incurred losses for A&E exposures were US$40 million for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2007 and US$47 million for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006. The gross incurred losses for A&E exposures were US$80 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007 and US$63.4 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006. The Company has continued to experience adverse development on its asbestos exposures. In particular, the Company experienced US$25 million of development on the Mt. McKinley reserves in the 2007-2nd quarter, and US$15 million (2007-2nd quarter) and US$40 million (2007-3rd quarter) on the reinsurance reserves. The Company's A&E liabilities stem from Mt. McKinley’s direct insurance business and Everest Reinsurance Co.’s assumed reinsurance business. In connection with the acquisition of Mt. McKinley, which has significant exposure to A&E claims, LM Property and Casualty Insurance Co. provided reinsurance to Mt. McKinley covering 80 percent (US$160 million) of the first US$200 million of any adverse development of Mt. McKinley’s reserves as of Sept. 19, 2000 and The Prudential Insurance Company of America guaranteed LM’s obligations to Mt. McKinley. Cessions under this reinsurance agreement exhausted the limit available under the contract at Dec. 31, 2003. The Company's net three year survival ratio on its asbestos exposures was five years for the period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Incurred losses and loss adjustment expense increased US$36.6 million, or 6.7 percent for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2007 as compared to the same period in 2006 and was due to a US$60 million increase in attritional losses, a US$17.7 million decrease in catastrophe losses and a US$5.7 million decrease in A&E losses. Incurred losses and LAE decreased by US$21.1 million, or 1.2 percent for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007 compared to the same period in 2006 due to a US$71.5 million decrease in catastrophe losses, partially offset by a US$33.2 million increase in attritional losses and a US$17.2 million increase in A&E losses. Hamilton, Bermuda-based Everest Re Group Ltd. is the holding company for Everest Reinsurance Co., an underwriter of property & casualty reinsurance and insurance. The Company offers specialized underwriting in several areas, including property & casualty, marine, aviation, and surety, as well as medical malpractice, directors and officers liability, and professional errors and omissions liability. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Claims Still Pending v. Duke Energy ---------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corp. continues to face numerous claims relating to damages for personal injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted by Duke Energy Carolinas LLC on its electric generation plants during the 1960s through the 1980s. Amounts recognized as asbestos-related reserves related to Duke Energy Carolinas in the Consolidated Balance Sheets totaled about US$1.143 billion as of Sept. 30, 2007 and US$1.159 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006. These reserves are based upon the Company's best estimate of the probable liability for future asbestos claims through 2021. The Company has third-party insurance to cover losses related to Duke Energy Carolinas’ asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self insured retention of US$476 million. Through Sept. 30, 2007, the Company has made about US$450 million in payments that apply to this retention. The insurance policy allows for potential insurance recoveries of up to US$1.107 billion in excess of the self insured retention. Probable insurance recoveries of about US$1.040 billion (as of Sept. 30, 2007) and US$1.020 billion (as of Dec. 31, 2006) related to this policy are classified in the Consolidated Balance Sheets primarily in Other within Investments and Other Assets. Subsidiaries Duke Energy Indiana Inc. and Duke Energy Ohio Inc. have also been named as defendants or co-defendants in lawsuits related to asbestos at their electric generating stations. The Company has recorded reserves, including reserves related to the aforementioned asbestos-related injuries and damage claims, of about US$1.2 billion as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$1.3 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company has insurance coverage for certain of these losses incurred. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company has recognized about US$1.040 billion of probable insurance recoveries related to these losses. Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy Corp. serves 3.9 million electric customers in the South and Midwest of the United States. The Company's Commercial Power unit has 8,700 MW of unregulated generation. Duke Energy International has 4,200 MW of generation (mostly in Latin America). Crescent Resources manages land holdings and develops real estate projects. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Domtar Corp. Affiliates Face Injury Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Domtar Corp. states that several asbestos-related personal injury claims have been filed in U.S. state and federal courts against Domtar Industries Inc. and certain other Company affiliates, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007. These claims are filed in connection with alleged exposure by current and former employees of the Company to asbestos. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had a provision of US$89 million for environmental expenditures, including certain asset retirement obligations (such as for land fill capping and asbestos removal). Most of Montreal, Quebec-based Domtar Corp.'s sales come from its paper segment, which produces communication and specialty papers, including offset printing paper, photocopying paper, fine paper, and technical papers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Curtiss-Wright Still Faces Injury Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Curtiss-Wright Corp. or its subsidiaries continue to face a number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007. To date, the Company has not been found liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any case. The Company said it believes that the minimal use of asbestos in its operations and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in its products makes it unlikely that it will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate. The Company does maintain insurance coverage for these potential liabilities and it believes adequate coverage exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability. Roseland, N.J.-based Curtiss-Wright Corp., with its subsidiaries, is a multinational manufacturing and service company that designs, manufactures, and overhauls precision components and systems. The Company provides products and services to the aerospace, defense, automotive, shipbuilding, oil and gas processing, agricultural equipment, transportation, power generation, security, and metalworking industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Int'l. Still Faces Injury Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bucyrus International Inc. continues to face personal injury liability cases alleging damages caused by exposure to asbestos and other substances, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007. The selling and servicing of complex, large scale equipment used in various locations and climates, and integrating a variety of manufactured and purchased components, entails an inherent risk of lawsuits and liability relating to the operation and performance of the equipment and the health and safety of the workers who operate and come into contact with the equipment. The Company's subsidiary, DBT GmbH, is subject to product liability and personal injury claim including those relating to alleged asbestos and silicosis exposure. South Milwaukee, Wis.-based Bucyrus International Inc. manufactures and markets excavation equipment used in surface mining. As a result of its acquisition of DBT GmbH on May 4, 2007, the Company designs, manufactures, and markets high technology system solutions for underground coal mining. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argo Records $169.5M A&E Reserves at Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Argo Group International Holdings Ltd.'s recorded a gross of US$169.5 million as loss reserves for asbestos and environmenta