/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/071207.mbx 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 environmental claims at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with a gross of US$164.7 million at Sept. 30, 2006. The Company recorded a net of US$158.6 million as loss reserves for A&E claims at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with a net of US$152.6 million at Sept. 30, 2006. The Company has received A&E liability claims arising out of general liability coverage primarily written in the 1970s and into the mid-1980s. The Company has a specialized claims unit that investigates and adjusts A&E claims. Beginning in 1986, nearly all standard liability policies contained an express exclusion for A&E related claims. All policies currently being issued by the Company's insurance subsidiaries contain this exclusion. In addition to the previously described general uncertainties encountered in estimating reserves, there are significant additional uncertainties in estimating the amount of the Company's potential losses from A&E claims. The Company completed its annual actuarial analysis of the A&E reserves during the three months ended Sept, 30, 2007, and as a result strengthened its A&E liabilities by US$26 million. Included in losses and loss adjustment expenses for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006 was US$7.7 million in reserve strengthening for the asbestos exposure as a result of a 2006 actuarial study. Based in Pembroke, Bermuda, Argo Group International Holdings Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides catastrophe and property/casualty insurance to primary insurers in the U.S. and Europe. The Company operates seven subsidiaries, including primary and specialty property/casualty insurance, and excess and surplus lines. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Affinia Still Involved in Dana's Bankruptcy ---------------------------------------------------------------- Affinia Group Intermediate Holdings Inc. continues to be involved in Dana Corp.'s bankruptcy, which includes asbestos- related matters. On March 3, 2006, Dana and 40 of its domestic subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Case No. 06-10354). On Sept. 26, 2007 Dana filed an adversary complaint against Company subsidiaries Affinia Group Inc. and Affinia Canada Corp. (Adv. Pr. No. 07-02059) seeking turnover under the Purchase Agreement and section 542(a) of the Bankruptcy Code of a tax refund in the amount of US$32.5 million. Dana alleges that the tax refund is an excluded asset that was not transferred under the Purchase Agreement. In addition, on Oct. 3, 2007, Dana filed a motion under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code to reject both the Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement and the Spicer Trademark License Agreement, the rejection of which would enable Dana to disavow and abandon its obligations under these agreements. Under these agreements, Dana is contractually obligated to: (a) indemnify the Company for specified liabilities; including, (i) liabilities arising out of legal proceedings commenced prior to the Acquisition, and (ii) liabilities for death, personal injury or other injury to persons (including, but not limited to, such liabilities that result from human exposure to asbestos) or property damage occurring prior to the Acquisition relating to the use or exposure to any of Dana’s products designed, manufactured, served or sold by Dana; and (b) license the Company's use of the “Spicer” trademark. Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Affinia Group Intermediate Holdings Inc.'s subsidiary, Affinia Group Inc., designs, manufactures, and distributes on and off highway replacement products and services. The Company's replacement products are sold in e sold in North America, Europe, South America and Asia. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Has 18,791 Claims at Oct. 19 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp. was defending against 18,791 asbestos-related claims as of Oct. 19, 2007, compared with 18,813 claims as of July 27, 2007, and 19,120 claims as of April 27, 2007. The Company is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos- containing products previously made by the Company. The Company produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. These suits allege a variety of lung and other diseases based on alleged exposure to products previously made by the Company. As of Oct. 19, 2007, about 12,612 of the claims pending against the Company are pending in Mississippi. Of these, about 12,031 are in federal court, at the multidistrict litigation panel, either through removal or original jurisdiction. In addition to the 12,031 Mississippi claims pending against the Company at the MDL, there are about 850 claims pending against the Company at the MDL removed from various U.S. District Courts in other states. As of Oct. 19, 2007, the Company had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 21,613 claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was US$6,706,000. Of this amount, US$6,671,000, or 99 percent, was paid by the Company’s insurance carrier. The Company has about US$130 million in confirmed insurance coverage that should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage that it should be able to access. Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing (PMC, custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each phase of production). The Company also makes industrial fabric doors (Rapid Roll Doors), like aircraft hangar doors and dock doors, as well as synthetic insulation, and industrial fabric filters. The Company is based in Albany, N.Y. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brandon Drying Has 8,741 Claims at Oct. 19 ---------------------------------------------------------------- An affiliate of Albany International Corp., Brandon Drying Fabrics Inc., was defending against 8,741 asbestos-related claims as of Oct. 19, 2007, compared with 9,023 claims as of July 27, 2007, and 9,089 claims as of April 27, 2007. Brandon, a wholly owned subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a subsidiary of the Company, is a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which the Company is named as a defendant. The Company acquired Geschmay, formerly known as Wangner Systems Corp., in 1999. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney Mills, a South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney’s wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales Inc., which had sold dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney. It is believed that Abney ceased production of asbestos- containing fabrics before the 1978 transaction. As of Oct. 19, 2007, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 8,822 claims for a total of US$152,499. Brandon’s insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2 percent of the total indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings, subject to the standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8 percent of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004, Brandon’s insurance carriers agreed to cover 100 percent of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related to these proceedings. Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing (PMC, custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each phase of production). The Company also makes industrial fabric doors (Rapid Roll Doors), like aircraft hangar doors and dock doors, as well as synthetic insulation, and industrial fabric filters. The Company is based in Albany, N.Y. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Still Has Mount Vernon Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Inc. is named both as a direct defendant and as the “successor in interest” in asbestos-related cases involving Mount Vernon Mills, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007. The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years before this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising out of such products. The Company denies any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon before the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets. Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, the Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions. Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing (PMC, custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each phase of production). The Company also makes industrial fabric doors (Rapid Roll Doors), like aircraft hangar doors and dock doors, as well as synthetic insulation, and industrial fabric filters. The Company is based in Albany, N.Y. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Has $446M Reserves at Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Financial Group Inc.'s asbestos and environmental reserves for its property and casualty group amounted to US$446 million, net of reinsurance recoverables, at Sept. 30, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 9, 2007. The Company's property and casualty group's A&E reserves, at June 30, 2007, amounted to US$455.6 million, net of reinsurance recoverables. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007) In July 2007, the Company completed a comprehensive study of its A&E exposures relating to the run-off operations of its property and casualty group and its exposures related to former railroad and manufacturing operations and sites. As a result of the study, the Company recorded a US$44.2 million charge (net of reinsurance) in the 2007-2nd quarter to increase the property and casualty group's asbestos reserves by US$30.8 million. At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company's three year survival ratio was 17 times paid losses for the asbestos reserves and 11.1 times paid losses for the total A&E reserves. These ratios compare favorably with A.M. Best's most recent report on A&E survival ratios (March 2007) which were 9 for asbestos and 8 for total industry A&E reserves. In addition to the property and casualty group, the study encompassed reserves for A&E exposures of the Company's former railroad and manufacturing operations. As a result of the study, the Company recorded a 2007-2nd quarter charge of US$43 million (included in other expenses) to increase the A&E reserves related to these former operations. The US$19 million increase in asbestos reserves was the result of increasing estimates of the cost of mesothelioma claims partially offset by lower estimated overall claim counts. As previously reported under "Legal Proceedings" in the Company's 2006 Form 10-K, Great American Insurance Co. entered into an agreement in 2003, which was approved by the bankruptcy court, for the settlement of coverage litigation related to A.P. Green asbestos claims. The settlement is for US$123.5 million (Great American has the option to pay in cash or over time with 5.25% interest). The agreement allows up to 10 percent of the settlement to be paid in AFG Common Stock. The settlement agreement is conditioned upon confirmation of a plan of reorganization that includes an injunction prohibiting the assertion against Great American of any present or future asbestos personal injury claims under policies issued to A.P. Green and related companies. During the 2007-3rd quarter, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the A.P. Green Plan of Reorganization which includes the injunction required by Great American's settlement agreement. Counsel for the Debtor notified Great American that it is likely that such confirmation will be appealed. Great American is not required to fund the settlement agreement until confirmation is final and non-appealable. Cincinnati-based American Financial Group Inc., through the Great American Insurance Group of Companies and Great American Insurance Co., offers property/casualty insurance focused on specialty commercial lines like workers' compensation, professional liability, ocean and inland marine, and multiperil crop insurance. The Company also provides car insurance, especially nonstandard motorist insurance. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Claims Pending v. Anadarko Petroleum ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anadarko Petroleum Corp. is named as a defendant in personal injury claims, including claims by employees of third-party contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica and benzene. These employees had worked at refineries (previously owned by predecessors of acquired companies) located in Texas, California and Oklahoma. Litigation charges and adjustments of US$22 million were expensed for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2007, and US$56 million were expensed for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007. Litigation charges and adjustments of US$6 million were expensed for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, and US$9 million were expensed for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., which is based in The Woodlands, Tex., is engaged in the exploration, development, production, gathering, processing and marketing of natural gas, crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids (NGLs). The Company also engages in the hard minerals business through non-operated joint ventures and royalty arrangements. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tecumseh Defends v. Asbestos-Related Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tecumseh Products Co. is the subject of, or a party to, a number of pending or threatened legal actions involving various matters, including asbestos-related claims and class actions. No other matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 14, 2007. Tecumseh Products Co. makes compressors, small engines, power- train products, and pumps. The Company makes compressors for use in refrigerators and freezers, air conditioners, dehumidifiers, and vending machines. The Company is headquartered in Tecumseh, Mich. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus Metering Still Has Exposure Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sensus Metering Systems Inc. and other third parties continue to face several lawsuits filed related to illnesses from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 14, 2007. The complaints fail to specify which plaintiffs allegedly were involved with the Company’s products. Since the cases are in initial stages, it is uncertain whether any plaintiffs have asbestos-related illnesses or dealt with the Company’s products, much less whether any plaintiffs were exposed to an asbestos- containing component part of the Company’s product or whether such part could have been a substantial contributing factor to the alleged illness. Although the Company is entitled to indemnification for legal and indemnity costs for asbestos claims related to these products from certain subsidiaries of Invensys plc, under the stock purchase agreement pursuant to which the Company acquired Invensys Metering Systems, such indemnities, when aggregated with all other indemnity claims, are limited to the purchase price paid by the Company in connection with the acquisition of Invensys Metering Systems. Raleigh, N.C.-based Sensus Metering Systems Inc. provides metering, Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) and Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) system solutions for water, gas, electric, and heat utilities as well as sub-metering entities worldwide. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reunion Ind. Records $225T for Settlements ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reunion Industries Inc. states that the gross cost of 179 asbestos-related case settlements was US$225,000, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 14, 2007. The gross amount of legal fees and costs incurred during the first nine months of 2007 was US$699,000. Since the end of 2006, 306 new cases have been opened, 398 cases have been dismissed, and 179 cases have been settled for a net reduction of 271 cases during the first nine months of 2007. The Company's insurance carriers cover the significant majority of these costs and the Company's total share of the US$924,000 in settlement and other costs in the first nine months of 2007 was US$132,000. Pittsburgh-based Reunion Industries Inc. makes machined and fabricated industrial products like fluid power cylinders, gratings, and steel pressure vessels. The Company serves customers in the transportation, power generation, chemicals, metals, and electronics industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shell Still Indemnifies Kraton Polymers LLC ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kraton Polymers LLC continues to be indemnified by Shell Chemicals on claims alleging workplace asbestos exposure at the Company's Belpre, Ohio facility, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 14, 2007. Under the sale agreements between the Company and Shell Chemicals on the separation from Shell Chemicals in 2001, Shell Chemicals has agreed to indemnify the Company for certain liabilities and obligations to third parties or claims against the Company by a third party relating to matters arising before the closing of the acquisition by Ripplewood Chemical. Shell Chemicals has been named in several lawsuits relating to the elastomers business that the Company has acquired. In particular, claims have been filed against Shell Chemicals alleging workplace asbestos exposure at the Belpre, Ohio facility. In addition, the Company and Shell Chemicals have entered into a consent order relating to certain environmental remediation at the Belpre, Ohio facility. Houston-based Kraton Polymers LLC makes styrenic block copolymers, or SBCs, at its manufacturing facilities in six countries: Belpre, Ohio; Wesseling, Germany; Berre, France; Pernis, The Netherlands; Paulinia, Brazil; and the Company's joint venture in Kashima, Japan. The Company sells its products to customers for use in industrial and consumer applications. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hexion Specialty Deals w/ Liability Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hexion Specialty Chemicals Inc. is involved in various product liability, commercial and employment litigation, personal injury, property damage and other legal proceedings, including actions that allege harm caused by products the Company has allegedly made or used, containing asbestos, silica, vinyl, and chloride monomer. No other matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 14, 2007. Company Profile: Hexion Specialty Chemicals Inc. 180 E. Broad St. Columbus, Ohio Phone: 614-225-4000 http://www.hexionchem.com Description: Hexion Specialty Chemicals Inc. serves global industrial markets through thermoset technologies, specialty products and technical support for customers in a diverse range of applications and industries. The Company is owned by an affiliate of Apollo Management L.P. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DT Solutions Still Has Removal Suit in Md. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Diversified Thermal Solutions Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, DT Solutions Inc., still faces an asbestos-related removal action in the Circuit Court of Allegeny County, Md., according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 14, 2007. On Sept. 25, 2005, First Capital Insulation Inc. filed a complaint against DT Solutions and Mt. Savage Firebrick Co. DT Solutions entered into an agreement for the purchase of real property from Mt. Savage Firebrick Co. First Capital Insulation seeks about US$38,000 for its removal and disposition of asbestos containing material from two brick ovens. As of Sept. 30, 2007, this matter had not been resolved. Memphis, Tenn.-based Diversified Thermal Solutions Inc. makes refractory products, like clay and brick, for the linings of high-temperature furnaces and reactors. Before the refractory business, the Company was involved in providing international long distance communications service. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $6.45M Liabilities at Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Congoleum Corp.'s current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$6,454,000 at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$13,950,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 14, 2007. The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities totaled US$8,560,000 at June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 19, 2007) Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corp. makes flooring products for residential and commercial use. The Company's products include resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it-yourself vinyl tile, and commercial flooring. American Biltrite Inc. owns about 66 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Motion to Bar Suits v. Congeleum Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Official Bondholders' Committee, on Oct. 12, 2007, filed a motion seeking a bar order requiring all known holders of asbestos personal injury claims to file proofs of claim on or before Jan. 8, 2008 or be forever barred from asserting asbestos personal injury claims against Congoleum Corp. A hearing on the bar order motion was held on Nov. 5, 2007, at the conclusion of which the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey took the matter under advisement. Entry of a bar order and the subsequent filing of asbestos personal injury proofs of claim may affect the amount currently recorded for such liabilities in the Company's financial statements. The Bondholders' Committee represents holders of the Company's 8-5/8% Senior Notes due Aug. 1, 2008. Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corp. makes flooring products for residential and commercial use. The Company's products include resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it-yourself vinyl tile, and commercial flooring. American Biltrite Inc. owns about 66 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Faces 92 Hilco Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colonial Commercial Corp. records 92 plaintiffs in lawsuits relating to alleged sales of asbestos products, or products containing asbestos, by its predecessor, Hilco Inc., according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 14, 2007. Universal Supply Group Inc. is a wholly owned Company subsidiary. On June 25, 1999, Universal acquired substantially all of the assets of Universal Supply Group Inc., including its name, under the terms of a purchase agreement. Subsequent to the sale, Universal Supply Group Inc. (the selling corporation) formerly known as Universal Engineering Co. Inc., changed its name to Hilco. The Company understands that Hilco and many other companies have been sued in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Middlesex County) by plaintiffs filing lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos. Of the existing plaintiffs, 15 filed actions in 2007, seven filed actions in 2006, 15 filed actions in 2005, 38 filed actions in 2004, 15 filed actions in 2003, and two filed actions in 2002. There are 121 other plaintiffs that have had their actions dismissed and 11 other plaintiffs that have settled as of Sept. 30, 2007 for a total of US$3,327,500. There has been no judgment against Hilco. The Company's Universal subsidiary was named by 36 plaintiffs. Of these, 11 filed actions in 2007, six filed actions in 2006, 11 filed actions in 2005, five filed actions in 2001, one filed an action in 2000, and two filed actions in 1999. Six plaintiffs naming Universal have had their actions dismissed and, of the total US$3,327,500 of settled actions, two plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for US$26,500. No money was paid by Universal in connection with any settlement. Following these dismissed and settled actions, there currently exist 28 plaintiffs that name Universal. Based on advice of counsel, the Company said it believes that none of the litigation that was brought against the Company’s Universal subsidiary through Sept. 30, 2007 is material, and that the material litigation that was brought against Hilco through that date was Rhodes v. A.O. Smith Corp., filed on April 26, 2004 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket Number MID-L-2979-04AS. The Company was advised that the Rhodes case was settled for US$3,250,000 (Settlement) under an agreement reached in connection with a US$10 million jury verdict that was rendered on Aug. 5, 2005. The Company was not a defendant in the Rhodes case. On April 29, 2005, prior to the Rhodes case trial, Hilco filed a third party complaint against Sid Harvey Industries (Third Party Complaint) in an action demanding contributor payment in connection with the Settlement. Sid Harvey Industries moved successfully for summary judgment. Hilco filed an appeal as to the dismissal of its Third Party Complaint. In a decision dated Dec. 29, 2006, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed the dismissal of Hilco's Third Party Complaint and remanded the matter for further proceedings as to Hilco's claim for contribution. Hilco's majority shareholders, John A. Hildebrandt and Paul Hildebrandt, and Hilco have jointly and severally agreed to indemnify the Company's Universal subsidiary from and against any and all damages, liabilities and claims due to exposure to asbestos at any time prior to the June 25, 1999 closing of the purchase agreement. Insurance companies have, as of Sept. 30, 2007, defended the Company and Hilco, and have paid all settlement amounts and defense costs. The Company's Universal subsidiary has not engaged in the sale of asbestos products since its formation in 1997. Its product liability policies for all years since 1998 exclude asbestos claims. Hawthorne, N.J.-based Colonial Commercial Corp., through subsidiaries Universal Supply Group, RAL Supply Group, and American/Universal Supply, supplies HVAC products, climate- control systems, and plumbing fixtures to some 6,000 customers (mostly builders and HVAC contractors) in New York and New Jersey. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inactive Suit Still Pending v. Chase Corp. ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inactive asbestos-related lawsuit, filed in Ohio, is still pending against Chase Corp., according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 14, 2007. The Company is one of over 100 defendants in the personal injury lawsuit, which alleges personal injury from exposure to asbestos contained in certain Company products. The plaintiff in the case issued discovery requests to the Company in August 2005, to which the Company timely responded in September 2005. The trial had initially been scheduled to begin on April 30, 2007. However, that date had been postponed and no new trial date has been set. As of October 2007, there have been no new developments as this Ohio lawsuit has been inactive with respect to the Company. Bridgewater, Mass.-based Chase Corp. manufactures Specialty Tapes, Laminates, Sealants, and Coatings and provides electronic manufacturing services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,900 Claims Pending v. Building Materials ---------------------------------------------------------------- Building Materials Corporation of America, as of Sept. 30, 2007, still faces about 1,900 alleged bodily injury claims relating to the inhalation of asbestos fiber, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 14, 2007. The Company, as of July 1, 2007, has about 1,900 alleged asbestos-related bodily injury claims (relating to the inhalation of asbestos fiber) pending against it. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 31, 2007) In connection with its formation, the Company contractually assumed and agreed to pay the first US$204.4 million of liabilities for asbestos-related bodily injury claims relating to the inhalation of asbestos fiber (Asbestos Claims) of its indirect parent, G-I Holdings Inc. As of March 30, 1997, the Company paid all of its assumed asbestos-related liabilities. In January 2001, G-I Holdings filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code due to Asbestos Claims. On Feb. 7, 2001, G-I Holdings filed an action in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey seeking a declaratory judgment that BMCA has no successor liability for Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings and that it is not the alter ego of G-I Holdings (BMCA Action). One of the parties to this matter, the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants (creditors' committee), subsequently filed a counterclaim against the Company seeking a declaration that BMCA has successor liability for Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings and that it is the alter ego of G-I Holdings. On May 13, 2003 the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey overseeing the G-I Holdings' Bankruptcy Court withdrew the reference of the BMCA Action from the Bankruptcy Court, and this matter will therefore be heard by the District Court. On or about Feb. 8, 2001, the creditors' committee filed a complaint in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey against G-I Holdings and BMCA. The complaint requests substantive consolidation of BMCA with G-I Holdings or an order directing G-I Holdings to cause BMCA to file for bankruptcy protection. On March 21, 2001, the Bankruptcy Court denied plaintiffs' application for interim relief. In November 2002, the creditors' committee, joined in by the legal representative of future demand holders, filed a motion for appointment of a trustee in the G-I Holdings' bankruptcy. In December 2002, the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion. The creditors' committee appealed the ruling to the U.S. District Court, which denied the appeal on June 27, 2003. The creditors' committee appealed the denial to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal on Sept. 24, 2004. The creditors' committee filed a petition with the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing of its denial of the creditors' committee's appeal, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on Oct. 26, 2004. On July 7, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order authorizing the creditors' committee to commence an adversary proceeding against the Company and others challenging, as a fraudulent conveyance, certain transactions entered into in connection with the Company's formation in 1994, in which G-I Holdings caused to be transferred to the Company all of its roofing business and assets and in which the Company assumed certain liabilities relating to those assets, including a specified amount of asbestos liabilities (1994 transaction). On July 20, 2004, the creditors' committee appealed certain aspects of the Bankruptcy Court's order (and a June 8, 2004 decision upon which the order was based). G-I Holdings, the holders of the Company's bank and bond debt and BMCA cross- appealed. The District Court entered an order on June 21, 2006 affirming in part and vacating in part the Bankruptcy Court's July 7, 2004 order. In March 2007, after participating in a mediation which resulted in the parties agreeing to an outline of the principal terms of a settlement of the G-I Holdings bankruptcy and all related litigations, the parties agreed to a stay of proceedings pending the completion of their negotiations. The judges presiding over the G-I Holdings bankruptcy proceeding and the related litigations, including the BMCA action and the fraudulent conveyance action, have each entered stipulated orders dated March 22, 2007, March 23, 2007 and April 4, 2007, respectively, implementing the stay. Wayne, N.J.-based Building Materials Corporation of America (d/b/a GAF Materials), which deals in shingles and roofing systems, also makes flashing, vents, decorative stone for fireplaces, and wrought iron balusters. Founded in 1886, the Company is a subsidiary of G-I Holdings Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Liability Totals $10.66M ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities totaled US$10,660,000 at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$10,300,000 at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 14, 2007. The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos-related liabilities totaled US$9,320,000 at Sept. 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006. Wellesley, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc. produces Congoleum-brand vinyl tile flooring and sheet-vinyl floors, and it distributes fashion jewelry through its K&M Associates supplier. The Company also makes industrial products like adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes used to protect materials during handling and for varied applications. The Company owns 66 percent of Congoleum Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,363 Claims at Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Biltrite Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2007, is a co-defendant with other manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products in about 1,363 pending claims involving about 1,949 individuals. The claimants allege personal injury or death from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded 383 new claims, 15 settlements, and 337 dismissals. In the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 625 new claims, 30 settlements, and 966 dismissals. The Company faced about 1,415 pending asbestos claims involving about 2,001 individuals as of June 30, 2007, compared with 1,332 claims as of Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 19, 2007) The Company has primary and multiple excess layers of insurance coverage for asbestos claims. The total indemnity costs incurred to settle claims were US$2.1 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007 and US$2.1 million during the twelve months ended Dec. 31, 2006. The amounts were paid by the Company's insurance carriers under a February 1996 coverage-in-place agreement with the Company's applicable primary layer insurance carriers, as were the related defense costs. The Company will seek reimbursement for asbestos claims under its excess layer coverage upon exhaustion of its primary insurance coverage. The amount of indemnity coverage limits remaining at Sept. 30, 2007 under the Company's primary insurance coverage relating to policies underwritten from 1961 to 1985 was about US$500,000 to US$1.6 million, depending on the interpretation of the terms of the coverage-in-place agreement. Wellesley, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc. produces Congoleum-brand vinyl tile flooring and sheet-vinyl floors, and it distributes fashion jewelry through its K&M Associates supplier. The Company also makes industrial products like adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes used to protect materials during handling and for varied applications. The Company owns 66 percent of Congoleum Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Valentec in Litigation w/ La. Over Cleanup ---------------------------------------------------------------- Valentec Systems Inc. is engaged in ongoing litigation with the State of Louisiana on the responsibility for the rebuilding of a 65-year old facility in Louisiana and for debris removal because some of the original construction material contains small amounts of asbestos. On Aug. 14, 2006, the Company experienced a small detonation in an unattended (by personnel) granulation process at its Louisiana facility. This detonation occurred in a facility that had concrete walls and was self-contained. However, the resulting fire completely destroyed 75,000 square feet of space at this manufacturing facility, completely eliminating the Company's existing 40mm flare capability. The Company was leasing this facility from the State of Louisiana by the Company and had obtained the required insurance coverage. With regards to the asbestos issue, the Company said it believes that the asbestos removal and abatement is the responsibility of the property owner, the State of Louisiana. On June 29, 2007, The State of Louisiana formally issued a letter asserting a claim demanding US$7.5 million in clean-up and rebuilding compensation as a result of the Aug. 14, 2006 fire. The Company has responded to the State of Louisiana citing section 9 subsection b of the Lease, in affect at the time of the fire, that provides a hold harmless clause thereby releasing the Company from any and all responsibility above the stated US$50,000 that was paid by the initial cleanup. Based in Minden, La., Valentec Systems Inc. supplies conventional ammunition, pyrotechnic and related defense products, including systems management and integration programs. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Still Faces Personal Injury Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rockwell Automation Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to face lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components of the Company's products, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 19, 2007. Currently there are thousands of claimants in lawsuits that name the Company as a defendant, together with hundreds of other companies. Most of the cases do not allege exposure to any asbestos-containing product that the Company or its predecessors manufactured or sold. In addition, when Company products appear to be identified, in some cases they are from divested businesses, and the Company is indemnified for most of the costs. However, the Company has agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos claims associated with products manufactured or sold by the Company's Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by the Company, which occurred on Jan. 31, 2007. Historically, the Company has been dismissed from most of these claims with no payment to claimants. The Company has maintained insurance coverage that it believes covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured retentions, for most of these claims. The Company initiated litigation in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court on Feb. 12, 2004 to enforce the insurance policies against Nationwide Indemnity Co. and Kemper Insurance, the insurance carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to the Company's former Allen-Bradley subsidiary. As a result, the insurance carriers have paid some past defense and indemnity costs and have agreed to pay the substantial majority of future defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims, subject to policy limits. Milwaukee-based Rockwell Automation Inc. provides industrial automation power, control and information solutions. The Company has two operating segments: Architecture & Software and Control Products & Solutions. In 2007, the Company's total sales were US$5 billion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Maremont Drop to 27,912 at Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pending asbestos-related claims against ArvinMeritor Inc. subsidiary, Maremont Corp., dropped to about 27,912 claims at Sept. 30, 2007, from 51,895 claims at Sept. 30, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 19, 2007. Maremont had about 40,134 pending asbestos-related claims at June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007) Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business. Arvin Industries Inc. acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. The significant reduction in pending claims in fiscal year 2007 is primarily due to numerous dismissals of claims. Bates White LLC provided an estimate of the reasonably possible range of Maremont’s obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over the next three to four years of US$28 million to US$38 million. Maremont determined that, as of Sept. 30, 2007, the most likely and probable liability for pending and future claims over the next four years is US$37 million. Maremont's total asbestos-related reserves amounted to US$43 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$50 million as of Sept. 30, 2006. Maremont's asbestos-related insurance recoveries amounted to US$28 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$31 million as of Sept. 30, 2006. Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor Inc. supplies integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial truck, light vehicle, trailer and specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and certain aftermarkets. The Company's total sales from continuing operations in fiscal year 2007 were US$6.4 billion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Cites $12M for Rockwell Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- ArvinMeritor Inc. has recorded an insurance receivable related to Rockwell Automation Inc. legacy asbestos-related liabilities of US$12 million at Sept. 30, 2007, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 19, 2007. The Company has recorded an insurance receivable related to Rockwell legacy asbestos-related liabilities of US$7 million at June 30, 2007 and Sept. 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007) The Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell products many years ago. Liability for these claims was transferred to the Company at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business to Meritor Automotive Inc. from Rockwell in 1997. Thousands of claimants in lawsuits name the Company and many other companies as defendants. A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of Rockwell’s products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell’s products, and past experience has shown that the vast majority of the claimants will never identify any of Rockwell’s products. Historically, the Company has been dismissed from most of these claims with no payment to claimants. Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor Inc. supplies integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial truck, light vehicle, trailer and specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and certain aftermarkets. The Company's total sales from continuing operations in fiscal year 2007 were US$6.4 billion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Has $44M Liability at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ArvinMeritor Inc.'s long-term asbestos asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$44 million at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$46 million at Sept. 30, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 19, 2007. The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$39 million at June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007) The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$11 million at Sept. 30, 2007 and Sept. 30, 2006. The Company's long-term asbestos-related recoveries amounted to US$32 million at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$30 million at Sept. 30, 2006. The Company's current asbestos-related recoveries amounted to US$8 million at Sept. 30, 2007 and Sept. 30, 2006. Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor Inc. supplies integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial truck, light vehicle, trailer and specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and certain aftermarkets. The Company's total sales from continuing operations in fiscal year 2007 were US$6.4 billion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amerex Cleanup at Okla. Completed by Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amerex Group Inc. states that the asbestos-remediation project at its site in Pryor, Okla., was completed by Sept. 30, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 19, 2007. On Feb. 1, 2006, the Company acquired certain fixed assets located in Pryor, Okla., from Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Co. for US$700,000 plus related costs of US$12,070. Properties acquired contain asbestos, which the Company initially estimated the cost to remove to be US$875,000, such estimate being recorded as an environmental remediation liability. The US$1,587,070 fixed asset cost was allocated to the individual assets based on their estimated fair values. The Company identified selected assets to sell, to which it assigned a cost of US$656,062. As a result of sales, this amount has been reduced to US$220,889, which is presented as assets held for sale at Sept. 30, 2007 and included in the Amerex segment. The Company had originally intended to convert the property to be retained into a licensed waste management facility. However, Management has decided to sell the property and use the proceeds to pay down existing debt. Tulsa, Okla.-based Amerex Group Inc. makes outerwear for men, women, and children. Founded in 1946, the Company has licensing agreements with brands like Jones New York, London Fog, OshKosh, and Mudd. The Company also sells outerwear under its own labels (Static and Weather Tamer) and sports-oriented outdoor wear through subsidiary Gerry (Bombshell and Mambosok). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Lummus Pays $27.78M Liability at Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABB Lummus Global Inc. paid US$27,779,000 for asbestos liabilities during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$12,361,000 during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, according to a Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. report, on Form-8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 21, 2007. Chicago Bridge, on Nov. 19, 2007, announced it has completed the acquisition of the Lummus Global business from ABB Ltd. Lummus had been a co-defendant in a number of lawsuits claiming damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos. Lummus was included in the initial Pre-Packaged Plan of Reorganization for Combustion Engineering Inc., an affiliate company, which was filed on Feb. 17, 2003. When confirmation of the initial CE Plan was reversed by the Court of Appeals in December 2004, it was determined that Lummus would file its own prepackaged plan of reorganization. The Lummus Plan was filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware on April 21, 2006. On June 29, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued its order confirming the Lummus Plan and recommended that the District Court affirm the Bankruptcy Court’s Order. On Aug. 30, 2006, the District Court’s order affirming confirmation of the Lummus Plan became final and the Lummus Plan became effective on Aug. 31, 2006. Lummus' current asbestos obligations amounted to US$3,633,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006, compared with US$43,450,000 as of Dec. 31, 2005. Lummus' long-term asbestos obligations amounted to US$25,300,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006. Headquartered in Hoofddorp, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. is a specialty engineering and construction company that makes flat-bottom tanks for storing crude oil, gas, water, chemicals, and manufacturing feedstocks; cryogenic tanks and systems to maintain liquid gases; natural gas processing plants; elevated tanks for water storage; and pressure vessels for high-pressure/high-temperature applications. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Has 5,600 Liability Cases at Sept. 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tyco International Ltd., as of Sept. 28, 2007, had about 5,600 asbestos liability cases pending against it and its subsidiaries, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 27, 2007. The Company, as of June 29, 2007, recorded about 5,600 asbestos liability cases pending against it and its subsidiaries. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007) The Company and some of its subsidiaries and certain Covidien Ltd. subsidiaries are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. Under to the Separation and Distribution Agreement, Covidien has assumed all liabilities for pending cases filed against Covidien's subsidiaries. A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on a subsidiary's property. Most of the cases involve product liability claims, based on allegations of past distribution of heat-resistant industrial products incorporating asbestos or the past distribution of industrial valves that incorporated asbestos-containing gaskets or packing. The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because its subsidiaries did not mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims were never substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. To date, the Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims. Princeton, N.J.-based Tyco International Ltd., in mid-2007, was split up into three publicly held companies: Covidien Ltd. (formerly Tyco Healthcare Group), Tyco Electronics, and Tyco International, which retained the manufacturing conglomerate's Fire and Security and its Engineered Products and Services businesses. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Has 134,000 Claims at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc. faced 134,000 open asbestos-related claims during the year ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with 162,000 claims during the year ended Sept. 30, 2006, according to the Company's annual report dated Nov. 27, 2007. During the year ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company noted 4,000 new claims filed, 2,000 claims settled, and 30,000 claims dismissed. During the year ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company noted 6,000 new claims filed, 3,000 claims settled, and 25,000 claims dismissed. The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Those claims result from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley Stoker Corp., a former subsidiary. Although Riley neither produced nor manufactured asbestos, its industrial boilers contained some asbestos- containing components provided by other companies. Since Oct. 1, 2004, Riley has been dismissed as a defendant in 87 percent of the resolved claims. The Company's total reserves for asbestos claims amounted to US$610 million at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$635 million at Sept. 30, 2006. The Company incurred asbestos expenses of US$5 million at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$104 million at Sept. 30, 2006. The Company made asbestos payments of US$30 million at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$40 million at Sept. 30, 2006. The Company has estimated that it is reasonably possible that total future litigation defense and claim settlement costs on an inflated and undiscounted basis could range as high as about US$1 billion. Previously estimated to be US$1.9 billion, this high range approximation decreased primarily as a result of a change in the projected long-term inflation rate assumed by the Company. At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company's receivable for recoveries of litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers amounted to US$488 million, of which US$68 million relate to costs previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to US$474 million at Sept. 30, 2006. Covington, Ky.-based Ashland Inc.'s businesses consist of four wholly owned segments: Ashland Performance Materials, Ashland Distribution, Valvoline and Ashland Water Technologies. At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company and its consolidated subsidiaries had about 11,700 employees. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Pending Against Fairchild ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits are still pending against The Fairchild Corp. and its subsidiaries, according to the Company's quarterly report for the period ended March 31, 2007. On Jan. 21, 2003, the Company and one of its subsidiaries were served with a third-party complaint in an action brought in New York by a non-employee worker and his spouse alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. The defendant, who is one of many defendants in the action, had purchased a pump business from the Company, and asserts the right to be indemnified by the Company under its purchase agreement. The case was discontinued as to all defendants, thereby extinguishing the indemnity claim against the Company in the instant case. However, in September 2003, the purchaser has notified the Company of, and claimed a right to indemnity from the Company in relation to thousands of other asbestos-related claims filed against it. The Company has not received enough information to assess the impact, if any, of the other claims. During the last 42 months, the Company has been served directly by plaintiffs’ counsel in 55 cases related to the same pump business. Two of the 55 cases were dismissed as to all defendants based upon forum objections. The Company was voluntarily dismissed from 17 additional pump business cases during the same period, without the payment of any consideration to plaintiffs. During the last 42 months, the Company, or its subsidiaries, has been served with a total of 330 separate complaints in actions filed in various venues by non-employee workers, alleging personal injury or wrongful death as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products other than those related to the pump business. The plaintiffs’ complaints do not specify which, if any, of the Company’s former products are at issue, making it difficult to assess the merit and value, if any, of the asserted claims. During the same time period, the Company has resolved 206 similar, non-pump, asbestos-related lawsuits that were previously served upon the Company. In 201 cases, the Company was voluntarily dismissed, without the payment of any consideration to plaintiffs. The remaining five cases were settled for a nominal amount. The Company’s insurance carriers have participated in the defense of all of the aforementioned asbestos claims, both pump and non-pump related. Based in McLean, Va., The Fairchild Corp.'s business consists of three segments: PoloExpress; Hein Gericke; and Aerospace. Both PoloExpress and Hein Gericke are engaged in the design and retail sale of motorcycle apparel, protective clothing, helmets, and technical accessories for motorcyclists in Europe. Aerospace stocks aircraft parts and distributes them to commercial airlines and air cargo carriers, fixed-base operators, corporate aircraft operators, and other aerospace companies worldwide. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Met-Pro Faces 39 Pending Actions at Oct. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Met-Pro Corp. recorded a total of 39 pending asbestos cases filed against it as of Oct. 31, 2007, compared with 37 cases that were pending as of Jan. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Dec. 3, 2007. The Company recorded a total of 36 pending asbestos-related cases filed against it as of July 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 14, 2007) Beginning in 2002, the Company and one of its divisions began to be named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits filed in Mississippi on a mass basis by plaintiffs against a industrial companies including in particular those in the pump and fluid handling industries. More recently, the Company and this division have been named as one of many pump and fluid handling defendants in asbestos- related lawsuits filed in New York and Maryland by individual plaintiffs, sometimes husband and wife. To a lesser extent, the Company and this division have also been named together with many other pump and fluid handling defendants in these type of cases in other states as well. The complaints filed against the Company and this division have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that the Company, and the division, along with the numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries and loss to the plaintiffs. The Company and the division have been dismissed from or settled a number of these cases. The sum total of all payments through Oct. 31, 2007 to settle these cases was US$340,000, all of which has been paid by the Company’s insurers, with an average cost per settled claim of about US$24,000. For the nine-month period ended Oct. 31, 2007, 13 new cases were filed against the Company, the Company was dismissed from seven cases and settled four cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although several cases are on schedules leading to trial. Harleysville, Pa.-based Met-Pro Corp. produces professional cleaning products. The Company's product recovery and pollution- control segment makes products ranging from particle collectors (used in food preparation) to fans and blowers (used in semiconductor manufacturing plants). The fluid-handling equipment segment makes products for handling corrosive, abrasive, and high-temperature liquids. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sears Holdings Subject to Exposure Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sears Holdings Corp. is subject to asbestos exposure allegations and other consumer-based claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 30, 2007. These allegations or claims may seek compensatory, punitive or treble damage claims (potentially in large amounts) or as well as other types of relief. Hoffman Estates, Ill.-based Sears Holdings Corp. is the parent company of Kmart Holding Corp. and Sears, Roebuck and Co. The Company is a retailer with about 2,300 full-line and 1,100 specialty retail stores in the U.S. operating through Kmart and Sears and about 380 full-line and specialty retail stores in Canada operating through Sears Canada Inc., a 70 percent-owned subsidiary. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Defends Itself in Banton Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- An article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph on Nov. 28, 2007 has generated significant media attention about the claim made in that article that James Hardie Industries N.V. withheld a doctor’s report relating to the late Bernie Banton for the purpose of denying Mr. Banton compensation. James Hardie asserts that the allegation made in the article is wrong and appears to be designed solely to incite anger and adverse opinion against James Hardie, according to a Company statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 29, 2007. James Hardie added that it did not manage Mr. Banton’s asbestosis-related claim in 2000 or the recent mesothelioma- related claim settled last week. James Hardie does not have a copy of the doctor’s report referred to in the article. James Hardie said that it has made inquiries regarding the handling of the claims. Based on these inquiries, James Hardie understands that a doctor’s report commenting on Mr. Banton’s x- ray history was prepared in 2000. This report was not tabled in 2000 because Mr. Banton’s medical condition was not in question — there was no dispute concerning his diagnosis of asbestosis. In 2007, the report was tabled, but as part of a comprehensive tabling of all materials designed to enable the case to be expedited. It was in no way used to prevent or limit compensation to Mr. Banton as implied in the Nov. 28, 2007 article. The Company's inquiries also lead it to believe that it would be unusual for employees not to be presented with the results of x- rays which were taken regularly as part of Amaca’s standard health monitoring service. James Hardie assures all stakeholders that it intends to uphold its part of the funding agreement that Mr. Banton and others worked so hard to achieve. All those involved in the development of the agreement, including Mr. Banton, recognized that for the funding agreement to be viable over its lifetime of 40+ years, James Hardie has to remain strong and successful. Articles that incite vilification against James Hardie will make it more difficult to achieve this. James Hardie is repeatedly described in error as managing the claims by the late Mr. Banton for compensation. James Hardie did not manage Mr. Banton’s 2000 claim for compensation, or his recent 2007 claim. The compensation matters were handled by Allianz, the workers’ compensation insurer for Amaca, the former James Hardie subsidiary which employed Mr. Banton as part of the Hardie BI joint venture between James Hardie and CSR. Mr. Banton received compensation from Allianz in 2000. Because a further claim is uncommon, Amaca asked the NSW Court of Appeal to confirm the nature of damages to be paid in relation to his recent claim. Contrary to some media commentary that the request was designed to delay the matter, the reality is that the course of action was intended to ensure that the damages were assessed appropriately and paid according to law. The matter was settled on Nov. 22, 2007. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Has $28.9M Adjustments at 2Q08 ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Hardie Industries N.V.'s asbestos adjustments totaled US$28.9 million during the fiscal 2008-second quarter, compared with US$47.2 million during the fiscal 2007-second quarter, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 28, 2007. The asbestos adjustments are derived from an estimate of future Australian asbestos-related liabilities in accordance with the Amended Final Funding Agreement that was signed with the New South Wales Government on Nov. 21, 2006 and approved by the Company’s security holders on Feb. 7, 2007. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company's current asbestos restricted cash and cash equivalents totaled US$61.6 million and its current restricted short term investments totaled US$78.5 million. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company's current asbestos insurance receivable totaled US$10.3 million and its long-term insurance receivable totaled US$171 million. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded US$3 million as the current amount for asbestos workers' compensation. The Company also recorded US$83.7 million as the long-term amount for asbestos workers' compensation. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company's current asbestos deferred income taxes totaled US$9.1 million and its long-term deferred income taxes totaled US$342.5 million. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company's current asbestos liability amounted to US$69.5 million and its long-term asbestos liability totaled US$1.309 billion. Based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, James Hardie Industries N.V., a pioneer in cellulose-reinforced fiber cement, uses the material to create products for residential and commercial construction, including siding (Hardiplank), external cladding, walls, fencing, and roofing. The Company also makes fiber- reinforced concrete (FRC) pipe through its Hardie Pipe business. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PI Committee Objects to Dana Corp.'s Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Ad Hoc Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants disputes Dana Corp.'s contention that the asbestos personal injury claimants are not impaired by the Third Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization. According to Douglas T. Tabachnik, at Law Offices of Douglas T. Tabachnik, in Freehold, N.J., the Debtors have failed to demonstrate that the asbestos personal injury claimants are not impaired. He elaborates that under the Plan, the Debtors can engage in Court-sanctioned Restructuring Transactions that could readily leave holders of asbestos personal injury claims with little or no meaningful remedy for injuries. A Restructuring Transaction can extinguish a Reorganized Debtor's obligation to pay asbestos injury claims and the successor Acquiring Entity would have no obligation to assume those liabilities, Mr. Tabachnik points out. Accordingly, the Ah Hoc Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants asserts that the Plan should not be confirmed. (Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 64; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Urges Court to Disallow 1,064 Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Corp. asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to disallow 1,064 claims, totaling US$52,663,000, because these claims are Asbestos Personal Injury Claims and will be reinstated under the Plan. The Asbestos Personal Injury Claims include: -- Roy Adair (Claim No. 12079 - US$200,000) -- Gregorio Aguirre (Claim No. 11968 - US$200,000) -- David Alber (Claim No. 12043 - US$200,000) -- John Alexander (Claim No. 11989 - US$200,000) -- Clarence Allen (Claim No. 12371 - US$200,000) -- Naomi Ammerman (Claim No. 12076 - US$200,000) -- Johnnie Apodaca (Claim No. 11992 - US$200,000) -- Linda Atchley (Claim No. 12372 - US$200,000) -- Joseph Baca (Claim No. 11938 - US$200,000) -- Haroldine Bartlett (Claim No. 11977 - US$200,000) -- Walter Becker (Claim No. 12311 - US$200,000) -- Joseph Boutot (Claim No. 11991 - US$200,000) -- Leonard Chavez (Claim No. 11964 - US$200,000) -- Lyle Covington (Claim No. 1227 - US$200,000) -- Claude Dawson (Claim No. 11985 - US$200,000) (Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 64; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trustee to Appoint Tersigni Probe Examiner ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Judith Fitzgerald has authorized the U.S. Trustee for Region 3 to appoint an examiner to investigate the conduct of L. Tersigni Consulting P.C., in the asbestos cases of W.R. Grace & Co., Federal-Mogul Corp., and G-I Holdings, Inc. Tersigni was engaged by the asbestos creditors committees to provide accounting and business advisory services related to the Chapter 11 cases of Owens Corning, USG Corp., W.R. Grace & Co., ACandS Inc., Federal-Mogul Global Inc., The Flintkote Co. W.D. Pa., Global Industrial Technologies Inc., North American Refractories Co., Pittsburgh Corning Corp., Burns & Roe Enterprises Inc., Congoleum Corp., G-I Holdings Inc., Quigley Co. Inc., Armstrong World Industries Inc., Combustion Engineering Inc., Kaiser Aluminum Inc., Mid-Valley Inc., and Babcock & Wilcox Co. Upon preliminary investigation, the U.S. Trustee has suspected that Tersigni engaged in improper billing practices. In August 2007, the U.S. Trustee called for the appointment of an examiner to conduct a probe on the firm. At a hearing on Nov. 13, 2007, in the Pittsburgh Corning case, Joseph Sisca, representing the office of the U.S. Trustee, advised the Court of several concerns raised by certain parties- in-interest regarding the allocation of costs of the examiner. That same day, Tersigni filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, Bridgeport Division. The firm filed a plan of liquidation on Nov. 19, 2007. The Asbestos Committee in the Federal-Mogul cases has urged the Court to direct the U.S. Trustee to nominate the same person in any Chapter 11 case seeking an examiner for the review of Tersigni's conduct. Judge Fitzgerald directed the U.S. Trustee and the Examiner to meet and confer with the asbestos companies and other interested parties to discuss the scope of the Examiner's work and the appropriate allocation of its costs and fees and of any professional the Examiner may hire. Judge Fitzgerald further directed the Examiner to cooperate fully with any governmental agencies, provided that the Examiner's cooperation will not be deemed a "public disclosure" and that nothing in the Court order will prejudice any party-in- interest's right to protect documents, information or privileges. The U.S. Trustee is required to consult with the parties-in- interest to determine the appropriate candidate for the Examiner position and refer back to the Bankruptcy Court for approval. Judge Fitzgerald will hear any development made by the parties- in-interest on the matter on Dec. 11, 2007. The parties-in- interest and the U.S. Trustee, without the Court's involvement, held weekly conference calls on Nov. 19, 2006 and Nov. 26, 2006, and will hold conference calls on Dec. 3, 2006 and Dec. 10, 2006. (Owens Corning Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 165; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA Issues Penalties to N.M. Contractors ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued penalties to two Albuquerque, N.M., construction companies for 17 asbestos-related safety violations, New Mexico Business Weekly reports. OSHA announced that Maloy Construction Inc., a general contractor, and Deerfield Corp., a plumbing and construction company, had 17 violations of asbestos exposure at a Mescalero, N.M., hospital construction site. OSHA proposed a US$75,600 fine for Maloy Construction for five violations. OSHA proposed a US$81,900 fine for Deerfield Corp. for 12 violations. OSHA's El Paso, Tex., district office began an inspection of the site on June 9, 2007 after receiving a complaint alleging that employees were removing asbestos-laden materials without proper protective gear. Rich Tapio, OSHA's area director in Lubbock, Tex., said, “The OSHA inspection revealed that the two companies failed to take appropriate action to protect their employees. Employers must remain committed to keeping the workplace safe and healthful at all times.” The violations include failure to regulate an asbestos area, failure to assess initial exposure to asbestos, failure to provide protective equipment, failure to launder contaminated clothing, and failure to train employees in asbestos removal. The companies have 15 working days from receipt of the citations to comply, to request an informal conference with OSHA's area director in Lubbock or to contest the citations and penalties. The Occupational Safety and Health Act became law in 1970. OSHA conducted more than 39,000 inspections in fiscal year 2007, during which it found nearly 89,000 violations nationwide. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Whyalla Shipyard Worker Sues BHP Billiton ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scottish migrant Thomas Paul, who worked at the Whyalla shipyards in South Australia, is suing BHP Billiton claiming that he has asbestos disease that has left him 20 percent disabled, ABC News reports. Mr. Paul worked at the shipyards for periods between 1960 and 1987 as a welder and boilermaker. He says he was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers and developed benign asbestos pleural disease and other health problems. In an Adelaide court, Mr. Paul claims BHP failed to provide a safe workplace and did not properly clean or ventilate work areas. He is seeking damages to cover treatment costs and fears that he could contract mesothelioma. However, BHP is fighting the case. The Company says that if Mr. Paul is ill, it is due to his own negligence. BHP argues Mr. Paul should have known that being a smoker was harmful to his health. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Korean Firm Ordered to Pay KPW133M Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Daegu District Court, on Dec. 4, 2007, ordered an unnamed asbestos producer to pay KPW133 million in compensation to the family of a worker who died in 2006 from asbestos-related mesothelioma, The Chosun Ilbo reports. The ruling, Korea's first to recognize the danger of asbestos and hold an employer liable, paving the way for similar suits. The judge found the company negligent of its duty of care for the employee. Although it was aware of the danger of the substance, it did not provide protective gear to staff, install a ventilation system or try to raise awareness of the dangers. However, the judge admitted the victim's partial liability for failing to protect herself. The woman, named as Won, worked at the company in Busan, Korea, for two years from 1976. Although she was not diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma until 2004, 26 years after she had left the company, she sued for KPW210 million in compensation. The lawyer for the victim said it had been difficult to prove that Won's disease was related to asbestos exposure, since asbestos-related diseases like malignant mesothelioma can develop after a latency period of 10 to 40 years. The lawyer said the ruling sets an important precedent for asbestos victims to receive compensation. He said, “But asbestos affects not only the workers involved but also end-users and people who live near an asbestos plant. The government should conduct an inquiry into the dangers of asbestos.” Few asbestos victims have so far received damages, and Won was the first whose illness was recognized as a work-related disease by the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, adding malignant mesothelioma to a relatively short list. According to an environmental activist group in Daegu, 46 people have died of asbestos-related diseases in the last seven years. Among residents near an asbestos factory in Busan, one was recently diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. However, the number of patients is expected to grow given the swift development of the asbestos industry since the 1960s and the long latency period of related diseases. Korea only implemented measures over asbestos in July 2007. A basic survey of the damage is expected in 2008 and a systematic inquiry in 2009. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow's Compensation Hearing Set on Dec. 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Withers is to attend a hearing at London's Royal Courts of Justice on Dec. 10, 2007 to find out whether she will be due compensation over the death of her husband Thomas Withers, Norwich Evening News 24 reports. Mr. Withers was 61 when he died in June 2002 from malignant mesothelioma. Shortly after his death, Mrs. Withers enlisted the help of Sheffield-based asbestos-related claims specialist Irwin Mitchell to see if she was liable for compensation. However, no one came forward to admit responsibility for insuring the now defunct firm where Mr. Withers worked until 2006. When Zurich Insurance Co., which insured the London firm at the time, admitted responsibility, Mrs. Withers was told a six- figure payout was likely. However, a legal row has erupted because Zurich is now refusing to pay out because the claim for compensation to them was not made with the statutory three-year time period after Mr. Withers' death. Mr. Withers was exposed to asbestos whilst working as a lorry driver at Lawrence Brothers Transport Ltd. in London. Part of his work included transporting sacks of white asbestos. Irwin Mitchell's David Cass said, “The London firm folded in 1978 and we only found out this year that Zurich insured the firm when Mr. Withers was working there. I think it's despicable what the solicitors for the firm are doing.” A Zurich spokeswoman said, “This case is sub judice and therefore it would be inappropriate for us to comment. What we can say is that we hope that the court hearing scheduled for December 10 will give us clarity around the complicated issues associated with it.” ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Widow Gets Payout from British Rail ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Shergold, the widow of mesothelioma victim Herbert Shergold, has won substantial damages from British Rail, Gazette & Herald reports. Mr. Shergold died in November 2006 from mesothelioma. British Rail has accepted liability for Mr. Shergold's death and has agreed to pay out of court damages to Mrs. Shergold for wrongly exposing him to asbestos dust. Mr. Shergold worked at British Rail Swindon Works from 1942 to 1944 and again from 1946 to 1986 apart from five years between 1962 to 1967. Mr. Shergold worked in various capacities as an engine cleaner, fireman and laborer. He also worked in the notorious “A” Shop where there was extensive exposure to asbestos dust. A large number of men in “A” Shop have succumbed to asbestos disease where locomotives were dismantled and erected. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker Sues East Lancashire Hospitals Trust ---------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Brimelow, a 75-year-old suffering from mesothelioma, is suing East Lanchashire Hospitals Trust after he developed mesothelioma following years working as a maintenance builder at various U.K. Hospitals, Burnley Express reports. These hospitals are Burnley General Hospital, Victoria Hospital, Bank Hall, Hartley and Marsden hospitals. Mr. Brimelow was diagnosed with mesothelioma in June 2007 and is claiming damages for an undisclosed sum. According to a writ at London's High Court, Mr. Brimelow said he developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos when he worked for the Trust's predecessor. Mr. Brimelow worked in boiler houses containing boilers and pipework lagged with asbestos which he had to strip off. The writ explains how he and his colleagues could not avoid brushing against asbestos and how he also had to remove asbestos rope from boiler doors and pipework. Mr. Brimelow said he believes the health authority negligently exposed him to risk of injury, failed to warn him of the risks, failed to damp down dry asbestos and failed to give him effective protective equipment. Lynn Wissett, of the Trust, said, “The Trust can confirm we have received correspondence from a legal representative relating to employment between 1967 and 1987. This relates to a time period before the formation of East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust.” ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Australia Braces for New Wave of Deaths ---------------------------------------------------------------- Professor Paul Reynolds, an authority on lung disease, says Australia and other countries in the Asia Pacific region are bracing for a new wave of asbestos-related deaths, ABC News reports. Professor Reynolds says tradespeople and those who have worked on renovating homes are expected to be the "next wave of asbestos victims." Professor Reynolds is the convenor of an international medical conference on the Gold Coast that has explored asbestosis and other lung diseases. Professor Reynolds says asbestosis can take 30 or 40 years to develop but most victims are dead within 12 months of a diagnosis. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADFA Fears Closure Due to Lack of Funding ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia, which provides support to asbestos victims, is concerned that it may fall apart due to a lack of funding, ABC News reports. The Foundation survives entirely on donations from the community. President Barry Robson fears the Foundation may be forgotten in the wake of the death of its highest-profile campaigner, Bernie Banton. Mr. Robson said, “People think that with Bernie's passing that the fight's over. Well it's far from over and we're just a bit concerned that the donations to the Asbestos Diseases Foundation will dry up and we'll be struggling.” ASBESTOS ALERT: Injury Actions Ongoing v. Imperial Subsidiaries ---------------------------------------------------------------- Two of Imperial Industries Inc.'s subsidiaries, DFH Inc. and Premix-Marbletite Manufacturing Co., are engaged in legal actions and claims, including two claims against Premix and non- affiliated parties which allege bodily injury due to exposure to asbestos contained in products manufactured in excess of 30 years ago. The Company's insurance carriers have accepted coverage and are proving a defense in each lawsuit. None of Premix’s currently manufactured products contain asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 14, 2007. Company Profile: Imperial Industries Inc. 3790 Park Central Blvd. North Pompano Beach, Fla. Phone: 954-917-4114 Fax: 954-970-6565 http://www.imperialindustries.com Description: Imperial Industries Inc. is involved in the manufacture and sale of exterior and interior finishing wall coatings and mortar products for the construction industry, as well as the purchase and resale of building materials from other manufacturers. Sales of the Company’s and other products are made to customers primarily in Florida and the Southeastern United States. New Securities Fraud Cases FX ENERGY: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah on behalf of all purchasers of securities of FX Energy, Inc. from March 1, 2004 through January 5, 2006, inclusive. The Complaint charges FX Energy and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. FX Energy is an independent energy company with activities concentrated within the upstream oil and gas industry. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the methods used to estimate the Company's potential reserves were flawed and defective; (2) that given the Company's erroneous methodology for determining reserves, the Company's future business prospects were inherently uncertain and unachievable; (3) that the Company's estimated reserve numbers varied by orders of magnitude for the Company's Sroda, Zaniemysl and Winna Gora sites, and that their estimates were lacking in any reasonable basis; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On December 20, 2005, the Company shocked investors when it reported that its Lugi-1 well was determined to be "uneconomic," and that the well would be plugged and abandoned. The head of the Company's technical team stated that "[u]ntil the well results are better understood, the impact of the well on the major Rusocin -- Lugi pinchout play can not be fully determined." On this news, the Company's shares fell $2.34 per share, or 21.5 percent, to close on December 20, 2005 at $8.55 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then on January 5, 2006, the Company again shocked investors when it announced that a drill stem test on the Company's Sroda- 5 well in western Poland tested gas and brine. Additionally, the Company indicated that additional drilling would need to take place before the commerciality of the well could even be determined. On this news, the Company's shares fell an additional $2.19 per share, or over 26.5 percent, to close on January 5, 2006 at $6.07 per share, also on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than January 18, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com GENESCO INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Tenn. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of Genesco Inc. common stock during the period between April 20, 2007 and November 26, 2007. The complaint charges Genesco and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Genesco is a retailer of branded footwear, licensed and branded headwear, and a wholesaler of branded footwear. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements concerning Genesco's business and prospects. As a result of their representations, Genesco was seen as an attractive acquisition target for Foot Locker, Inc. Foot Locker ultimately made an offer and The Finish Line, Inc. and Headwind, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Finish Line, subsequently made an increased offer, based on Genesco's purported success. When the truth about Genesco's results began to be revealed, however, Finish Line indicated it would no longer pursue the acquisition. Then, on November 26, 2007, Genesco received a subpoena from the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York seeking documents related to its merger agreement and in connection with alleged violations of federal fraud statutes. On this news, Genesco's stock plunged to $25.44 per share on November 27, 2007, almost a 16% drop from the closing price of $30.17 on November 26, 2007, on volume of 2.4 million shares. According to the complaint, during the Class Period defendants concealed the following information, which caused their statements to be materially false and misleading: (a) the Company's stores were not performing well and would not produce the financial results being forecast for the Company; (b) the Journeys stores were performing poorly relative to plan with big same store sales declines; and (c) these poor results would be considered adverse events to potential acquirors, leading to significant share price declines at Genesco. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Genesco common stock during the Class Period. For more information, contact: Darren Robbins Coughlin Stoia Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 E-mail: djr@csgrr.com LEAP WIRELESS: Coughlin Stoia Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Leap Wireless International, Inc. common stock during the period between January 7, 2005 and November 8, 2007. The complaint charges Leap and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Leap is a wireless communications carrier that offers digital wireless service under the Cricket Communications, Inc. and Jump Mobile brands in the United States. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, prospects and financial results. As a result of defendants' false statements, Leap stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching its all-time high of $98.33 per share in July 2007. On August 7, 2007, Leap announced disastrous second quarter 2007 results, including missing its revenue projections, soaring expenses and a high customer turnover rate, causing its stock to decline from $80.36 per share on August 7, 2007 to $60.00 per on August 8, 2007 - a one-day decline of 25%. Then, on November 9, 2007, before the market opened, defendants disclosed that Leap would be required to restate its financial statements for fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006 and for the first and second quarters of fiscal year 2007 to correct for errors in its previously reported service revenues, equipment revenues and operating expenses, causing its stock to drop $21.38 per share. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company's financial statements were materially misstated due to its failure to properly account for its service revenue in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); (b) the Company's financial statements were materially misstated due to its failure to properly account for its equipment revenue and cost of equipment in violation of GAAP; (c) the Company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as a result, the Company's projections and reported results issued during the Class Period were based upon defective assumptions and/or manipulated facts; and (d) given the Company's exposure to subprime consumers and the intense competition in the low-cost cell carriers market Leap was facing, the Company had no reasonable basis to make projections about its ability to maintain its customer turnover rate and net customer additions. As a result, the Company's projections issued during the Class Period were at a minimum reckless. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Leap common stock during the Class Period Interested parties may move the court no later than60 days from November 27, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Darren Robbins Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 E-mail: djr@csgrr.com MORGAN ASSET: Lockridge Grindal Files Tenn. Securities Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. filed a class action against Morgan Asset Management, Inc., Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc., MK Holding, Inc., Regions Financial Corp., PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and certain individuals, officers and directors associated with the above entities in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The suit was filed on behalf of investors who purchased shares of the Regions Morgan Keegan Select Intermediate Bond Fund (MKIBX) and Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund (RHIIX) from December 6, 2004 through October 3, 2007. The Complaint alleges that Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating to: (i) the nature of the risk being assumed by an investment in the Funds, (ii) the illiquidity of certain securities in which the Funds invested, (iii) the extent to which the Funds' portfolios contained securities that were illiquid or exhibited the characteristics of illiquid securities so that they were highly vulnerable to suddenly becoming unsalable at the prices at which they were being carried on the Funds' records, (iv) the extent to which the Funds' portfolios were subject to fair value procedures, (v) the extent to which the values of such securities, and, consequently, the net asset values of the Funds, were based on estimates of value and the uncertainty inherent in such estimated values, and (vi) the concentration of investments in a single industry in excess of investment restrictions to which the Funds were subject. As of November 23, 2007, Morningstar reported RHIIX's NAV was down almost 55% year-to-date; from December 31, 2006 until November 30, 2007, the RHIIX's NAV per share declined from $10.14 to $3.91 for a loss of $6.23 per share, or 61.4%. For the same period, Morningstar reported MKIBX's NAV was down over 43%; MKIBX's NAV per share declined from $9.93 to $5.07 for a loss of $4.86 per share or 48.9%. The Complaint alleges that these extraordinary losses in share value were caused by the Funds' heavy investment in relatively new types of manufactured or structured fixed income securities that had not been tested through market cycles and by the failure of the Funds to have previously complied with required and disclosed procedures relating to the manner in which the Funds' assets were invested, the liquidity of their assets would be maintained, the lack of liquidity in the Funds' portfolios, the valuation procedures used to price their assets, the uncertainty inherent in the estimated value of their assets, violations of the Funds' investment restrictions on illiquid securities and investments in a single industry, and/or the failure to disclose such breaches and failures and conditions in the Funds' portfolios that rendered them extraordinarily vulnerable to changes in market conditions, far more vulnerable than other intermediate bond and high income funds affected by the same events and conditions in the subprime and other markets in 2007. The Funds revealed, for the first time, on October 3, 2007 that, as of June 30, 2006, and June 30, 2007, the magnitude of the Funds' securities that were fair valued and were, therefore, illiquid securities. For MKIBX, it was disclosed that 55.8% of its investment securities were fair valued at June 30, 2006, and 50.4% at June 30, 2007. For RHIIX, it was disclosed that 49.5% of its investment securities were fair valued at June 30, 2006, and 59.7% at June 30, 2007. Interested parties may move the court no later than February 4, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: gmfishbein@locklaw.com VIRGIN MOBILE: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of common stock of Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. pursuant or traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering on or about October 11, 2007 through November 15, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges Virgin Mobile and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Virgin Mobile is a provider of wireless communications services, offering prepaid, or pay-as-you- go, services targeted at the youth market. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company's IPO, the defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that the Company had already suffered an enlarged financial loss for the third quarter of 2007; (2) that the Company's expenses had significantly increased for the third quarter of 2007; (3) that the Company's subscriber growth trends had dramatically slowed; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's Registration Statement was false and misleading at all relevant times. On or about October 11, 2007, the Company conducted its IPO. In connection with its IPO, the Company filed a Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively referred to as the "Registration Statement") with the SEC. The IPO was a financial success for the Company, as it raised $412.5 million by selling 27.5 million shares of stock to the public at a price of $15.00 per share. Then on November 15, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it announced its quarterly financial and operational results for the third quarter of 2007 (ended September 30, 2007). For the quarter, the Company reported a net loss of $7.3 million, or ($0.15) per share, as compared to a net loss of $5.1 million, or ($0.10) per share, for the third quarter of 2006. On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $1.54 per share, or over 10 percent, to close on November 16, 2007 at $9.19 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Company's stock continued to decline following this disclosure, and closed on November 29, 2007 at $7.25 per share, a cumulative loss of $7.75 per share, or over 51 percent of the value of the Company's shares at the time of its IPO just weeks earlier. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than January 22, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, Editors. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *