C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 28, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 256 Headlines AT&T INC: Subsidiaries Accused of Monopoly Conspiracy in TX Suit BEAR STEARNS: Appellate Court Revives Shareholders' Lawsuit BIOENVISION INC: Lead Plaintiff in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit Named DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP: Part-Timers File Lawsuit in Michigan ECOST.COM INC: Sued for Labor Code Violations in California ELECTRONICS COS: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in California EMPIRE SILVER: Recalls Teething Rings Due to Choking Hazard HIGHMARK INC: Feb. 2008 Hearing Set for Deal on Rick Love Suit HSBC FINANCE: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Interchange Fee Lawsuit HSBC FINANCE: Expert Discovery in Ill. Suit to End in December HSBC FINANCE: Faces Discrimination Lawsuits in Calif. & Mass. INTUIT INC: QuickBooks Error Caused Huge Data Loss, CA Suit Says KEY ENERGY: Feb. 2008 Hearing Set for TX Class Action Settlement KOST TIRE: Agrees to Settle Former Employee's Overtime Lawsuit MAN'S TRADING: Recalls Super Magnet Toys That Could Be Swallowed NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Gives Securities Fraud Suits Update PC MALL: Calif. Court Order Arbitration, Stay in Hanzy Lawsuit PC MALL: Calif. Court Order Arbitration, Stay in Whitmill Case RIVER VALLEY: Faces Suit in Ind. Over Money Lost in Trust Fund ROGERS INT'L: Watkins Class Action in N.Y. Still Stayed ROGERS INT'L: Jan. 9, 2008 Status Conference Set for Lanes Suit ROLLING STONE: Bands File Calif. Litigation Over Cigarette Ads SPECIALTY MERCHANDISE: Recalls Candle Sets Due to Fire Hazard SPRINT COMMS: March 3, 2008 Hearing Set for $25M USF Settlement VALLEY PACIFIC: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Unpaid Meal Breaks VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces Lawsuit in N.J. Over Customer Fraud Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSK Auto Still Has Product Liability Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Rules Against P.P.C. in Zuluaga Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Court Favors Plaintiff in Kessel Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.C. Court Dismisses Ex-inmate's Complaint ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Favoring GE Upheld on Appeal in Ky. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Deere & Co. Faces Product Liability Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Over 1,000 Suits Are Pending v. Joy Global ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Esterline Subject to Potential Liabilities ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Feldman Mall Accrues $1.71M for Remediation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SC Junks Deschenes Award in Favor of Reed ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Garlock in Wright Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Appeals Court Ruling Favors Pneumo Abex ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Couple Sues 14 Companies in W.Va. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Pipes Left in U.K. Road Pose Risks ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Court Cases Up By Over 100 Since 2006 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Research Medical Faces $84T Fine for Breach ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Widow Not Satisfied with Payout Hike ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CARD Clinic Set to Receive Federal Money ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Woodford to Build 164 Homes on Ex-Akzo Site ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Firefighters Concerned About Exposure ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Students Exposed to Hazard at Calif. School ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Lawyer to Urge Judge to Nullify Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wis. Residents to Evacuate Homes by Jan. 7 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bridgemarts Ltd. Fined GBP3,442 for Breach ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of Village Hall Area ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Former Judges to be Imprisoned for Bribery ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Sewage Treatment Plant Workers Exposed ASBESTOS LITIGATION: T.H. Agriculture to Amend Notice of Removal ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Summary Judgment Bids OK'd in Clemens Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Dismisses Preston Action to Favor BAE ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Ingram Action New Securities Fraud Cases WSB FINANCIAL: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in WA ********* AT&T INC: Subsidiaries Accused of Monopoly Conspiracy in TX Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a/ AT&T Southwest d/b/a AT&T Texas d/b/a AT&T Datacomm (AT&T Southwest), is facing a class-action complaint filed Dec. 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas accusing it of conspiring with managers of apartments and gated communities in five states to monopolize Internet, video and voice services in multiple- dwelling complexes by paying de facto bribes to exclude competing providers, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Also named defendants in the complaint: -- AT&T Video Services, Inc. d/b/a AT&T Home Entertainment -- SBC ADvanced Solutions, Inc. d/b/a AT&T Advanced Solutions -- AT&T, Inc. -- Parkmeed Malibu Canyon LLC, II -- Parkmeed Malibu Canyon LLC -- Richard H. Moran -- Robert and Christa Wells as trustees of the Wells Revocable Trust dated July 2, 2002 -- Castle Hills, LP -- GE-CWS Pool, LLC -- Renaissance at West Avenue Apartments, LP -- Buca Weest Avenue Genpar, LLC Named plaintiffs Wampler and Michael J. Peacock brought the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of owners, residents, and tenants: (1) currently residing in or owning a unit or dwelling place in MDU located in Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas or Missouri; (2) for which MDU defendants have contracted with the AT&T defendants for exclusive rights, or honored the contract. The Plaintiffs ask the court to rule on: (a) whether the exclusive contracts are illegal; (b) whether the exclusive contracts are against public policy; (c) whether the exclusive contracts are void; (d) whether the exclusive contracts are unenforceable; (e) whether the exclusive contracts violate the antitrust laws of the United States of America; (f) whether the exclusive contracts constitute an unfair and unlawful method of competition; (g) whether the AT&T defendants have any valid defenses to the violations of antitrust laws resulting from the exclusive contracts; and (h) whether the MDU defendants have any valid defenses to the violations of antitrust laws resulting from the exclusive contracts. The Plaintiffs seek a temporary and permanent injunction to enjoin the AT&T defendants, the MDU defendants, and their respective subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all those in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise from: (i) engaging in unlawful conduct of which is complained of; or (ii) enforcing the exclusive access and provider contracts and easements complained of. The Plaintiffs seek trial by jury. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter judgment awarding them: -- temporary and permanent injunction; -- disgorgement and award of any profits, benefits, payments, residuals, or kick-backs received by the MDU defendants as a result of these agreements; -- disgorgement and award of any profits received by the AT&T defendants as a result of these agreements; -- actual damages as trebled; -- pre-judgment interest; -- post-judgment interest; -- costs of suit including attorneys' fees; -- all writs necessary to effectuate the judgment; and -- other and further relief, both general and special, at law or in equity, to which plaintiffs may be entitled. The suit is "Lindsey Wampler et al v. Southwestern Bell Telephone company et al., Cause No. A07CA1039LY," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Representing the plaintiffs are: Randall A. Pulman, Esq. Elliott S. Cappucciom, Esq. Lance H. Beshara, Esq. Pulman, Cappuccio & Pullen, LLP 2161 NW Military Highway, Suite 400 San Antonio, Texas 78213 Phone: (210) 222-9494 Fax: (210)892-1610 E-mail: rpulman@pulmanlaw.com or ecappuccio@pulmanlaw.com or lbeshara@pulmanlaw.com Web site: http://www.pulmanlaw.com -- and -- Royal B. Lea, III, Esq. Bingham & Lea, PC 319 Maverick Street San Antonio, Texas 78212 Phone: (210) 224-1819 Fax: (210) 224-0141 E-mail: royal@binghamandlea.com BEAR STEARNS: Appellate Court Revives Shareholders' Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Appeals Court for the Second Circuit revived a class action against Bear Stearns & Co. after overturning a federal judge's order granting settlement with shareholders who implicated the broker in a fraud scheme that led to the collapse of now-defunct securities firm Sterling Foster & Co., Christine Caulfield of Securities Law360 reports. The appeals court vacated the settlement and returned the case to the lower court, ruling that the settlement was reached before sufficient inquiry into evidence of Bear Stearns' wrongdoing and is, accordingly, unfair. The case was appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which denied a 2004 bid by plaintiffs The Levitt Group to be appointed lead plaintiff and gave final settlement approval in October 2006, Ms. Caulfield said. According to the report, the Second Circuit found that the District Court had not given adequate consideration to the likelihood of success against Bear Stearns on the merits. The Second Circuit noted that certain Sterling Foster representatives, who have since been convicted of crimes related to the case, could now provide additional information against the firm. The Second Circuit also vacated the lower court's decision denying the Levitt Group's bid for lead plaintiff status. After the claims of the major class were dismissed by the District Court as time-barred, it had the largest financial stake in the outcome of the case, the Second Circuit said. The case is "Robert Levitt et al. v Thomas Rogers et al., case number 06-cv-5298," in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. (NYSE: BSC) -- http://www.bearstearns.com/-- is the parent company of Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., a global investment banking, securities trading and brokerage firm. Headquartered in New York City, Bear Stearns has offices in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Juan. Bear Stearns maintains an international presence with offices in Beijing, Dublin, Hong Kong, London, Lugano, Milan, Sao Paulo, Shanghai, Singapore, and Tokyo. Bear Stearns' Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands-based Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Master Fund Ltd. and Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund Ltd. filed filed winding up petitions under the Companies Law (2007 Revision) of the Cayman Islands on July 30, 2007. The Bear Stearns Funds are open-ended investment companies, which sought high income and capital appreciation relative to the London Interbank Offered Rate, and designed for long-term investors. Simon Lovell Clayton Whicker and Kristen Beighton at KPMG were appointed joint liquidators in the Cayman Islands proceedings. The joint liquidators filed for Chapter 15 petitions before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York the next day. On August 30, 2007, the Honorable Burton R. Lifland denied the Funds protection under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. Fred S. Hodara, Esq., Lisa G. Beckerman, Esq., and David F. Staber, Esq., at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, represent the liquidators in the United States. The Funds' assets and debts are estimated to be more than $100,000,000 each. (Bear Stearns Funds Bankruptcy News; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service Inc.; http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000). BIOENVISION INC: Lead Plaintiff in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit Named ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has named Gary Thesling as lead plaintiff in a securities fraud class action against Bioenvision, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIVN), Daniel Wise of the New York Law Journal reports. Judge Peck has selected the shareholder with the largest losses despite "sloppy drafting" that gave rise to a charge that the proposed class representative was seeking an inappropriate stake in the action. In July, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of persons who sold shares of Bioenvision between May 1, 2007 and May 28, 2007, inclusive (Class Action Reporter, July 19, 2007). The class period may be expanded to extend for some period of time before May 1, 2007, such that it is possible that those who sold Company shares for some indefinite period of time before May 1, 2007, may be included in the class ultimately before the Court. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market about the Company and by failing to disclose material information about the Company's plan to merge with Genzyme and that when the market learned the truth, the price of Bioenvision securities increased substantially. The complaint, filed by Squitieri & Fearon, claimed that Bioenvision's shareholders had sustained losses because the biopharmaceutical company had failed to timely disclose "a definitive" merger agreement, causing them to sell shares at an "artificially" deflated price. The class members claim they sold their Bioenvision stock at an average of $4 per share during periods relevant to the lawsuit when they could have realized a price of $5.60 had they held their shares until the merger was completed, said Olimpio Lee Squitieri. The result, he said, was a loss of approximately 40 percent per share sold. Bioenvision, Inc. -- http://www.bioenvision.com-- is a product- orientated biopharmaceutical company primarily engaged in the acquisition, development, distribution and marketing of compounds and technologies for the treatment of cancer, autoimmune disease and infection. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP: Part-Timers File Lawsuit in Michigan ---------------------------------------------------------- DaimlerChrysler Corp. and DaimlerChrysler, LLC are facing a class-action complaint filed Dec. 21 in the Wayne County Circuit Court for the State of Michigan alleging the automaker cheated workers by promising them full-time jobs if they worked as part- timers for two years, and refusing to make good on the promise, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiffs John Hyde and John Kawam brought the action on behalf of a class consisting of all temporary part-time hourly employees at DaimlerChrysler's facility located at 21500 Mound Road, Warren, Michigan, who were: (i) employed in such capacity between Feb. 1, 2002 and Dec. 31, 2002; (ii) had been continuously employed in such position from a date prior to Dec. 21, 2000; and (iii) were denied employment as full-time permanent employees following the completion of two years of employment, in breach of their contract with defendant. The Plaintiffs want the court to rule on whether: (a) defendant's practice and policy from 1997 through 2002 was to promise, individuals hired as temporary part- time hourly employees, both orally and in writing, that, if they worked for defendant in that capacity for two years, defendant would hire them as permanent full- time hourly employees prior to hiring new full-time hourly employees; (b) from Feb. 2002 to Dec. 31, 2002, defendant hired in excess of 200 individuals as full-time hourly employees; (c) during the period from Feb. 2002 to Dec. 31, 2002, defendant refused to hire or even consider for hire any of the temporary part-time employees who had worked for defendant for at least two years prior to date defendant hired a full-time permanent hourly employee; and (d) representative plaintiffs and the class are entitled to monetary damages, which can be calculated arithmetically. The Plaintiffs request: -- acceptance of jurisdiction of this cause; -- certification of the case as a class action on behalf of the proposed plaintiff class, and designation of the plaintiffs as representatives of the class and their counsel as class counsel; -- judgment that defendant has breached its contract with plaintiff class; -- an award of back pay, front pay, the value of lost benefits and other equitable relief for the plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent; -- an award of litigation costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiffs and class members; -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and -- other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "John Hyde et al. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., Case No. 07-733424," filed in the Wayne County Circuit Court, in the State of Michigan, under Judge Gershwin A. Drain. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ronald Reosti, Esq. Ralph Sirlin, Esq. Reosti, James & Sirlin, PC 23880 Woodward Avenue Pleasant Ridge, Michigan 48069 Phone: (248) 691-4200 -- and -- Barry S. Fagan, Esq. Darcie R. Brault, Esq. Dib, Fagan, & Brault, PC 25982 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, Michigan 48067 Phone: (248) 542-6300 ECOST.COM INC: Sued for Labor Code Violations in California ----------------------------------------------------------- eCOST.com, Inc., a subsidiary of PFSweb, Inc., faces a purported class action in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, entitled, "Darral Frank and Joseph F. Keeley, Jr. v. PC Mall, Inc. d/b/a eCOST.com and eCOST.com, Inc." The purported class consists of all of current and former sales representatives who worked for the defendants in California from July 24, 2003 through July 24, 2007. The lawsuit, filed on July 25, 2007, alleges that the defendants failed to pay overtime compensation and interest, failed to timely pay compensation to terminated employees and failed to provide meal and rest periods, all in violation of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. The complaint seeks unpaid overtime, statutory penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, punitive damages, restitution and injunctive relief, according to PFSweb, Inc.'s Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. PFSweb, Inc. -- http://www.pfsweb.com/-- is an international provider of integrated business process outsourcing services to companies seeking to maximize their supply chain efficiencies and to extend their traditional and e-commerce initiatives. It is also a multi-category online discount retailer of new, close- out and recertified brand-name merchandise. ELECTRONICS COS: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Nichols, Kaster & Anderson, PLLP filed, on Dec. 19, 2007, a putative collective action and class action overtime lawsuit on behalf of current and former employees of Flextronics International USA, Inc. and Solectron Corporation. Solectron and Flextronics are both providers of electronics manufacturing services with locations across the country and the world. Together the two companies have at least 20 locations in United States. The lawsuit alleges that Flextronics and Solectron violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and corresponding state laws by paying employees by their shift time, rather than the time they actually worked. The lawsuit also alleges that the Defendants did not compensate employees for the time they spent putting on and taking off protective gear such as smocks, wrist straps and ankles straps, and the time employees spent going through electro-static discharge testing. The lawsuit seeks damages related to violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and other state laws. The lawsuit was brought by four assembly, repair, and technician employees who worked for the Defendants in California, North Carolina and Kentucky. They brought the action as a nationwide collective action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, as well as a class action in California and Kentucky. The Plaintiffs' attorney Jessica Clay explained, "These corporations required their employees to arrive at work early in order to put on special protective gear and go through electro- static discharge testing. Although these activities were solely for the benefit of the employer, Solectron and Flextronics did not compensate their employees for this time. As a result, we believe that non-exempt employees of Solectron and Flextronics across the country were wrongfully denied overtime pay for the hours they worked." The suit is "Gil et al v. Solectron Corporation et al., Case Number: 5:2007cv06414," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, under Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd. Representing the plaintiffs are: James Kaster Jessica Clay Matt Helland Nichols, Kaster & Anderson, PLLP Phone: (612) 256-3202 or (612) 256-3233 or (415) 277-7235 EMPIRE SILVER: Recalls Teething Rings Due to Choking Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------- Empire Silver Company, of Brooklyn, N.Y., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,000 Sterling Silver Teething Rings. The company said the silver ball that holds the ring in place can separate and release the beads inside, posing a choking and aspiration hazard to infants. No injuries have been reported. The recalled sterling silver teething rings were sold in three styles: single ring with ball, single ring with heart and ball, and three rings with ball. The hollow ring has small beads inside that make a rattling sound and a ball soldered between the rings. The recalled teething rings were manufactured in the United States and sold at independent jewelry, gift, specialty and department stores nationwide during November 2007 for between $50 and $120. Picture of recalled teething rings: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08148.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately take the teething rings from infants and return them to the store where purchased for a full refund or replacement. For additional information, contact Empire Silver Company at (800) 255-9475 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the company's Web site: http://www.empiresilver.com HIGHMARK INC: Feb. 2008 Hearing Set for Deal on Rick Love Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 11, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. for the proposed settlement by certain defendants in the class action, "Rick Love, M.D., et al., v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, et al., Case No. 03-21296." The hearing will be held in the U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom IV, Tenth Floor, Federal Justice Building, 99 Northeast Fourth Street, Miami, Florida 33132. The Defendants involved in the proposed settlement are: -- Highmark Inc., -- Keystone Health Plan West, Inc., -- Highmark West Virginia, Inc. (d/b/a/ Mountain State Blue Cross Blue Shield), and -- Parker Benefits, Inc. (d/b/a/ Super Blue HMO). The case is over payments to physicians, physicians groups, and physician organizations. The suit generally alleges that during a period of 8-1/2 years beginning in May 1999, Highmark and other insurers "engaged in a conspiracy to improperly deny, delay and/or reduce payment to physicians, physician groups and physician organizations by engaging in several types of allegedly improperly conduct" (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 3, 2007). The suit further alleges that the improper conduct violated the federal statute known as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Though denying all allegations, representatives of Highmark, and its affiliated companies, including Keystone Health Plan West, Highmark West Virginia Inc., doing business as Mountain State Blue Cross Blue Shield, along with Parker Benefits Inc., doing business as Super Blue HMO, recently opted to settle the matter, citing significant costs involved in litigating the lawsuit. According to a preliminary settlement obtained by The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: -- Highmark and its affiliated defendants agree to set up a settlement fund totaling nearly $10 million. -- Highmark and its affiliated defendants agreed to pay attorney's fees not to exceed $3.8 million. -- The insurers agreed to pay $7,500 per plaintiff. It's unknown how many plaintiffs could be part of this agreement. In a prepared statement, Highmark said that "Like other commercial insurers and the majority of Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Highmark has entered into a settlement agreement of a national class action lawsuit brought by physicians, pending final approval by the U.S. District Court in Miami." For more details, contact: Highmark/Mountain State Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 3775 Portland, OR 97208-3775 Phone: (866) 486-1725 Web site: http://www.highmarkphysiciansettlement.com/ Harley S. Tropin, Esq. Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 372-1800 or (305) 377-0662 Fax: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: hst@kttlaw.com Archie Lamb, Esq. 2900 1st Avenue Birmingham, AL 35233 Phone: (205) 324-4644 or (800) 324-4425 Fax: (205) 324-4649 E-mail: Alamb@ArchieLamb.com -- and -- Edith M. Kallas, Esq. Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC 1540 Broadway, 37th Floor New York, New York 10036 Phone: 212-447-7070 Fax: 212-447-7077 E-mail: ekallas@whatleydrake.com Web site: http://www.whatleydrake.com HSBC FINANCE: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Interchange Fee Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the class action "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL- 1720," involving HSBC Finance Corp. and two of its affiliates as defendants. Since June 2005, the company, HSBC North America Holdings Inc., and HSBC Holdings plc, as well as other banks and the Visa and Master Card associations, were named as defendants in four class actions filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New York. The suits are: -- "Photos Etc. Corp. et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al., (D. Conn. No. 3:05-CV-01007 (WWE))"; -- "National Association of Convenience Stores, et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV 4520 (JG))"; -- "Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521 (JG))"; and -- "American Booksellers Ass'n v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-5391 (JG))." Numerous other complaints containing similar allegations �€“ in which no HSBC entity is named -- were filed across the country against Visa, MasterCard and other banks. The actions principally allege that the imposition of a no- surcharge rule by the associations or the establishment of the interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes the merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at supra- competitive levels in violation of the Federal antitrust laws. In response to motions of the plaintiffs on Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order consolidating these suits and transferred all of the cases to the Eastern District of New York. The consolidated case is known as "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y." The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 24, 2006. Discovery has begun since. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Master Docket No. 1:05- md-01720-JG-CLP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge John H. Gleeson. Representing the company is: David Sapir Lesser, Esq. Wilmer Cutler of Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-230-8800 Fax: 212-230-8811 E-mail: david.lesser@wilmerhale.com HSBC FINANCE: Expert Discovery in Ill. Suit to End in December -------------------------------------------------------------- Expert discovery in a consolidated securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against HSBC Finance Corp. and other defendants is expected to end by December 2007. In August 2002, the company restated previously reported consolidated financial statements. The restatement related to certain MasterCard and Visa co-branding and affinity credit card relationships and a third-party marketing agreement, which were entered into between 1992 and 1999. All were part of the company's Credit Card Services segment. In consultation with its prior auditors, Arthur Andersen LLP, the company treated payments made in connection with these agreements as prepaid assets and amortized them in accordance with the underlying economics of the agreements. Its current auditor, KPMG LLP, advised the company that, in its view, the payments should have either been charged against earnings at the time they were made or amortized over a shorter period of time. The restatement resulted in a $155.8 million, after-tax, retroactive reduction to retained earnings at Dec. 31, 1998. As a result of the restatement, and other corporate events, including, e.g., the 2002 settlement with 50 states and the District of Columbia relating to real estate lending practices, HSBC Finance Corp., and its directors, certain officers and former auditors, have been involved in various legal proceedings, some of which purport to be class actions. A number of the actions allege violations of federal securities laws, were filed between August and October 2002, and seek to recover damages in respect of allegedly false and misleading statements about the company's common stock. The legal actions have been consolidated into a single purported class action, "Jaffe v. Household International, Inc., et al., No. 02-C-5893 (N.D. Ill., filed Aug. 19, 2002)." A consolidated and amended complaint was filed on March 7, 2003. On Dec. 3, 2004, the court signed the parties' stipulation to certify a class with respect to the claims brought under Section 10 and Section 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The parties stipulated that plaintiffs will not seek to certify a class with respect to the claims brought under Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in this action or otherwise. The amended complaint purports to assert claims under the federal securities laws, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities between Oct. 23, 1997 and Oct. 11, 2002, arising out of alleged false and misleading statements in connection with the company's sales and lending practices, the 2002 state settlement agreement, the restatement and the HSBC merger. The amended complaint, which also names as defendants Arthur Andersen LLP, Goldman, Sachs & Co., and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., did not specify the amount of damages sought. In May 2003, the company, and other defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 19, 2004, the court granted in part, and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The court dismissed all claims against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co. The court also dismissed certain claims alleging strict liability for alleged misrepresentation of material facts based on statute of limitations grounds. The claims that remain against some or all of the defendants essentially allege the defendants knowingly made a false statement of a material fact in conjunction with the purchase or sale of securities, that the plaintiffs justifiably relied on the statement, the false statement caused the plaintiffs damages, and that some or all of the defendants should be liable for those alleged statements. On Feb. 28, 2006, the Court also dismissed all alleged Section 10 Claims that arose prior to July 30, 1999, shortening the class period by 22 months. The bulk of fact discovery concluded on Jan. 31, 2007. Expert discovery is expected to conclude on December 2007, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is "Jaffe v. Household Int'l Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-05893," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Ronald A. Guzman. Representing the plaintiffs is: Gary L. Specks, Esq. Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 558-1584 HSBC FINANCE: Faces Discrimination Lawsuits in Calif. & Mass. ------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Finance Corp., and one or more of its subsidiaries have been named as defendant in three discrimination class actions filed in either the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California or the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10- Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Since July 2007, the company and its subsidiaries have been facing these purported class actions: -- "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, et al. including HSBC Finance Corporation (C.D. Ca., No. SACV07-0794AG(ANx))," -- "Toruno v. HSBC Finance Corporation and Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC (C.D. Ca., No. CV07- 05998JSL(RCx)," and -- "Suyapa Allen v. Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC, HSBC Finance Corporation, et al. (D. Mass., C.A. 07- 11669)." Each suit alleges that the defendants racially discriminated against their customers by using loan pricing policies and procedures that have resulted in a disparate impact against minority customers. Violations of various federal statutes, including the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, are claimed. HSBC Finance Corp. -- http://www.hsbcusa.com/-- is an indirect subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings Inc., a bank holding company, and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC Holdings plc. The Company provides middle-market consumers in the U.S., the United Kingdom, Canada and the Republic of Ireland with several types of loan products. HSBC Finance Corp. is the principal fund raising vehicle for the operations of its subsidiaries. INTUIT INC: QuickBooks Error Caused Huge Data Loss, CA Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Intuit, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the company sent a faulty code to its "QuickBooks for Macintosh" users on Dec. 15, which deleted all of the QuickBooks data and all other data on users' computers when they opened the program, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiffs Create-A-Card, Inc., AGSJ, Inc. and Philanthropic Focus, LLC claim that the faulty code was sent "to all QuickBooks for Macintosh users" on Saturday, Dec. 15. "Though the cause of the faulty code sent out by Intuit is still unclear, the impact on users was uniform - upon opening Quickbooks, users received a message that an update was available, and were asked whether the used wished to download the update. Regardless of whether the user clicked 'yes' or 'no,' the damage had already been done - the faulty code had already deleted all files on the user's desktop. Intuit has represented that there was no update available, and that its server simply sent out a code. Intuit has provided no explanation for why the code was sent out from its servers. "The resulting loss of data was catastrophic to members of the Class." It was even more devastating because the data wipeout came at the end of the accounting year, during the Christmas rush, the complaint states. It claims that Intuit was barraged with emails from horrified customers, telling them of the destruction of data and begging Intuit to close down its server, but that Intuit ignored their pleas until Wednesday, Dec. 19, when it told them to go to an Apple store and offered to reimburse them for a $99 data recovery program. The Plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of all individuals and entities whose files or data became inaccessible or were damaged, corrupted, or lost, whether temporarily or permanently, as a result of pending QuickBooks and receiving Intuit's Dec. 2007 faulty code. They want the court to rule on: (a) whether Intuit took proper steps to avoid catastrophic data losses for its customers; (b) whether Intuit trespassed by creating and allowing its code to enter users' computers and destroy data and files; (c) whether Intuit breached warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose; (d) whether Intuit's failure to warn its users to avoid opening QuickBooks or Intuit's failure to shut down its server before catastrophic losses constituted an unfair business practice; (e) whether Intuit's creation of a code that destroyed data on users' desktops, its allowing such code to intrude into users' computers without the consent of the users, its failure to warn its users to avoid opening QuickBooks or its failure to shut down its server before catastrophic losses, constituted negligence; and (f) whether Intuit is liable under a theory of products liability for its creation of a code that destroyed data on users' desktops, its allowing such code to intrude into users' computers without the consent of the users, its failure to warn its users to avoid opening QuickBooks or its failure to shut down its server before catastrophic losses. The Plaintiff seek: -- certification of the class and any subclasses the court deems appropriate; -- compensatory damages in an amount sufficient to compensate all class members for lost data, and time and money spent attempting to recover lost data, according to proof; -- an injunction requiring Inuit to take institute policies and practices to: (a) prevent codes such as the Dec. 2007 QuickBoooks code from being disseminated to the public; and (b) immediately address any further catastrophic data loss events, through warning customers or shutting down its server; -- prejudgment interest at the maximum legal rate; -- punitive damages according to proof; -- reasonable costs and attorney fees, as allowed by law, or from the common fund and for all costs associated with administration of the common fund; -- a declaration of financial responsibility on the part of Intuit for the costs of class notification regarding the defective QuickBooks software and the Dec. 2007 destruction code, and for the costs of repair and replacement of all affected files; and -- other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. The suit is "Create-A-Card v. Intuit, Inc., Case No. CV 07 6452," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael W. Sobol, Esq. Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Phone: (415) 956-1000 Fax: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: msobol@lchb.com James A. Quadra, Esq. Moscone, Emblidge & Quadra, LLP Mills Tower 220 Montgomery Street, Ste. 2100 San Francisco, California 94104 Phone: (415) 3599 Fax: (415) 362-2006 E-mail: quadra@meqlaw.com -- and -- Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. Rebcca Bedwell-Coll, Esq. Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP 780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10017-2024 Phone: (212) 355-9500 Fax: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com or rbcoll@lchb.com KEY ENERGY: Feb. 2008 Hearing Set for TX Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 26, 2008 for the proposed $15,425,000 settlement of a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Key Energy Services, Inc. The hearing will be held before Judge A. Junell in Courtroom 3 of the District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland-Odessa Division, U.S. Courthouse, 200 East Wall, Midland, Texas. Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be made on or before Jan. 25, 2008. Deadline for the submission of a proof of claim is on April 4, 2008. Case Background Since June 2004, the company has been named as a defendant in six class action complaints for alleged violations of federal securities laws, which have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 3, 2007). The six actions have been consolidated: On Nov. 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from May 29, 2003 to June 4, 2004. The complaint generally alleges that the company made false and misleading statements and omitted material information from the company's public statements and SEC reports during the class period in violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including alleged: -- overstatement of revenues, net income, and earnings per share, -- failure to take write-downs of assets, consisting of primarily idle equipment, -- failure to amortize the Company's goodwill, -- failure to disclose that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and therefore was unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company, -- material inflation of the Company's financial results at all relevant times, -- misrepresentation of the value of acquired businesses, and -- failure to disclose misappropriation of funds by employees. On Sept. 7, 2007, the Company reached agreements in principle to settle all pending securities class actions and some derivative lawsuits in consideration of payments totaling $16.6 million in exchange for full and complete releases for all defendants. The Company's contribution to the settlement, net of payments by its insurers and contributions from other defendants, will amount to $1.0 million. The suit is "Kaltman v. Key Energy Serv., In, et al., Case No. 7:04-cv-00082-RAJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas under Judge Robert A. Junell. Representing the plaintiffs are: Stuart L. Berman, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (610) 667-7706 Fax: (610) 667-7056 -- and -- Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. Hoeffner, Bilek & Eidman, L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 1302 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 227-7720 Fax: 713-227-9404 E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com Representing the defendants are: James Devin Alsup, Esq. Lynch Chappell & Alsup 300 North Marienfeld, Suite 700 Midland, TX 79701 Phone: (432) 683-3351 Fax: 432/683-2587 E-mail: dalsup@lcalawfirm.com -- and -- Robert R. Burford, Esq. Gibbs & Bruns, L.L.P. 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 5300 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 650-8805 Fax: (713) 750-0903 E-mail: rburford@gibbs-bruns.com KOST TIRE: Agrees to Settle Former Employee's Overtime Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Kost Tire and Muffler has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by a former employee alleging the company improperly calculated payments for hours worked, Terrie Morgan- Besecker of the Law & Order reports. The settlement impacts persons who worked at Kost locations between July 1, 2005, and Aug. 30, 2007, who were paid overtime under the calculation method in dispute or who worked through unpaid lunch breaks. In May, Brandon Malec of Larksville filed the suit, alleging Kost calculated overtime pay based on an employee's hourly rate without figuring into that calculation the commissions they earned for sales. He also alleged he was required to work through unpaid lunch breaks. Mr. Malec alleged both acts violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the report, the proposed settlement calls for Mr. Malec to receive $2,500 to compensate him for bringing the case forward. According to the settlement, Kost continues to dispute the allegations and does not admit any liability. It says the company has agreed to settle the case because it believes the agreement is fair and reasonable and will avoid prolonged litigation. Other employees, who are still being identified, will be eligible for a one-time payment that will be calculated by a company named by both parties to be the settlement administrator. Ms. Morgan-Besecker said the proposal was submitted by Mr. Malec's attorney, Peter Winebrake of Dresher, and attorneys for Kost. The settlement must approved by a federal judge before it takes effect. To contact Mr. Winebrake: Peter D. Winebrake The Winebrake Law Firm, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 114 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025-1831 Phone: (215) 884-2491 or (570) 343-4308 Fax: (215) 884-2492 MAN'S TRADING: Recalls Super Magnet Toys That Could Be Swallowed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Man's Trading Company, of Brisbane, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 2,800 Super Magnets. The company said the magnet attached to the bottom of a small toy panda can detach. If swallowed or aspirated by young children, the magnets can attract each other internally and cause intestinal perforations or blockages, which can be fatal. No injuries have been reported. The toys are shaped and painted to resemble panda bears. A small magnet is attached to the bottom of the toy. "Super Magnets" and the MTC logo are printed on the front of the packaging. The magnet toys are sold eight to a package. The super magnets were manufactured in China and sold at dollar and gift stores nationwide from September 2005 through November 2007 for about $1. Picture of recalled super magnets: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08149.jpg Consumers should take the recalled toy away from children immediately and return them to the store where purchased for a full refund. For additional information, contact MTC at (800) 388-7228 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday. Consumers can also e-mail: mtcmans@aol.com NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Gives Securities Fraud Suits Update -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington has yet to rule on motions seeking for the consolidation of several purported securities fraud class actions filed against Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. On Aug. 13, 2007, a complaint was filed, naming the Company, the Chairperson of its Board of Directors, Linda Powers, and its Chief Executive Officer, Alton Boynton as defendants in a class action for violation of federal securities laws. After the complaint was filed, five additional complaints were filed in other jurisdictions alleging similar claims. The complaints were filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 9, 2007 and July 18, 2007 and allege violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses. Motions are currently pending to consolidate the complaints into a single action and to designate a lead plaintiff, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is "Michael C. Rosenblat, et al. v. Northwest Biotherapeutics Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-01254," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Representing the plaintiffs are: Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-7292 Fax: 206-623-0594 E-mail: info@hbsslaw.com Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross 1515 Locust Street, 2nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 215-561-3600 Fax: 215-561-3000 E-mail: bmgross@bernardmgross.com Law Offices of Clifford A. Cantor, P.C. 627 208th Ave. SE Sammamish, WA 98074 Phone: 425.868.7813 Fax: 425.868.7870 The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212.686.1060 Fax: 212.202.3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com PC MALL: Calif. Court Order Arbitration, Stay in Hanzy Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles has ordered the action, "Lee Hanzy, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. PC Mall, Inc., a Delaware corporation dba MACMALL, and Does 1 through 200, inclusive, Defendants, Case No., BC373935," to arbitration and stayed all proceedings in the matter. The suit was filed on July 6, 2007 by Lee Hanzy as a purported class action lawsuit. The potential class consists of current and former account executives in California who worked for PC Mall, and in particular, the MacMall operating division of PC Mall. The lawsuit alleges that PC Mall improperly classified members of the putative class as "exempt" employees and failed to provide putative class members with meal and rest breaks. The Complaint asserts three causes of action: -- failure to pay wages, including overtime, in violation of California Labor Code sections 201 through 203, and section 1194(a); -- failure to provide meal and rest periods in violation of California Labor Code section 226.7; and -- violation of section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. The lawsuit seeks unpaid overtime, statutory penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, punitive damages, restitution and injunctive relief. While the case was originally filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, on Aug. 30, 2007, the Superior Court ordered the action to arbitration and stayed all proceedings in superior court, according to the PC Mall, Inc.'s Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. PC Mall, Inc. -- http://www.pcmall.com-- is a direct marketer of computer hardware, software, peripherals, electronics, and other consumer products and services. It offers products and services to businesses, government and educational institutions, as well as individual consumers, through outbound and inbound telemarketing account executives, the Internet, direct marketing techniques, direct response catalogs, a direct sales force and three retail showrooms. PC MALL: Calif. Court Order Arbitration, Stay in Whitmill Case -------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles has ordered the action, "Zekiya Whitmill and Lee Hanzy, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. PC Mall Gov, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Does 1 through 200, inclusive, Defendants, Case No., BC373934," to arbitration and stayed all proceedings in the matter. The suit was filed on July 6, 2007 by Zekiya Whitmill and Lee Hanzy as a purported class action. The potential class consists of current and former account executives in California who worked for PC Mall Gov, Inc., one of the PC Mall, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiaries. The lawsuit alleges that PC Mall Gov. improperly classified members of the putative class as "exempt" employees and failed to provide putative class members with meal and rest breaks. The complaint asserts three causes of action: -- failure to pay wages, including overtime, in violation of California Labor Code sections 201 through 203, and section 1194(a); -- failure to provide meal and rest periods in violation of California Labor Code section 226.7; and -- violation of section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. The lawsuit seeks unpaid overtime, statutory penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, punitive damages, restitution and injunctive relief. While the case was originally filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, on Sept. 26, 2007, the Superior Court ordered the action to arbitration and stayed all proceedings in superior court, according to the PC Mall, Inc.'s Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. PC Mall, Inc. -- http://www.pcmall.com-- is a direct marketer of computer hardware, software, peripherals, electronics, and other consumer products and services. It offers products and services to businesses, government and educational institutions, as well as individual consumers, through outbound and inbound telemarketing account executives, the Internet, direct marketing techniques, direct response catalogs, a direct sales force and three retail showrooms. RIVER VALLEY: Faces Suit in Ind. Over Money Lost in Trust Fund -------------------------------------------------------------- River Valley Financial Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of River Valley Bancorp, faces a purported class action in Superior Court in Marion County Circuit in Indiana over the loss of money in a trust fund. Jefferson county resident Cecilia Means on behalf of herself and thousands of Madison, Indiana residents, who paid money in trust for burial services and merchandise to be provided upon their death, filed the lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, April 25, 2007). Specifically, the suit named as defendants: -- River Valley Financial Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of River Valley Bancorp; -- The Friendship State Bank; -- Monroe Bank; -- National City Bank f/k/a First America Bank Corp.; -- Carriage Cemetery Services, Inc. f/k/a Carriage Funeral Services of Indiana, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Carriage Services, Inc.; -- Madison Funeral Service, Inc.; and -- Grandview Memorial Gardens, LLC National City Bank, River Valley National Bank, The Frienship State Bank and Monroe Bank have served as trustees of the cemetery trust fund since 1992. The complaint alleges that owners and operators of Carriage Cemetery Services and Grandview Memorial Gardens swiped more than $4 million from "thousands" of people who deposited money as advance payments for burial services. The Plaintiff allege that the defendants did not deposit the money in trust accounts at all, or deposited it and then withdrew it themselves in return for bogus services they provided for funerals that never took place. The alleged frauds were revealed when the Plaintiff sought trust funds to buy a casket for her husband, only to be told she already had bought that casket. The Plaintiff, represented by attorneys at Cohen & Malad, LLP, claims that when the fraudulent actions came to light, the cemetery office and its records were destroyed in an arson on April 1, 2007. The Plaintiff brought the suit on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased burial services or burial merchandise to be provided upon death at the Grandview Memorial Gardens cemetery. The complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought. The Plaintiff believes the trust fund has an estimated $4 million in unfunded liabilities, River Valley Bancorp says in its Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The Plaintiff asks the Court to find: (a) whether the Cemetery Owner Defendants failed to hold money in trust and failed to deposit trust funds into the cemetery trust fund; (b) whether the Cemetery Owner Defendants improperly withdrew funds from the cemetery trust fund in violation of Indiana law; (c) whether the Cemetery Owner Defendants breached their pre-arrangement contracts with plaintiff and class members; (d) whether the Trustee Defendants owed a fiduciary duty to plaintiff and class members; (e) whether the Trustee Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to plaintiff and class members; (f) whether the Cemetery Owner Defendants participated in what they knew or should have known was a breach of fiduciary duty to plaintiff and class members; (g) whether defendants violated Indiana law regarding the sale of burial services and merchandise in advance of need; and (h) the type and amount of relief to which class members are entitled. The Plaintiff asks the Court: -- to enter judgment against trustee defendants in favor of the plaintiff and the class members requiring them to provide an accounting of the Grandview Pre-Arrangement Trust Fund since 1992, and to remedy any deficiency in the assets of the Grandview Pre-Arrangement Trust Fund; -- to enter judgment against Cemetery Owner Defendants and in favor of the plaintiff and class members in an amount equal to the greater of three times actual damages or $1,000 per class member per violation; -- to enter judgment against Cemetery Owner Defendants and in favor of the plaintiff and class members in an amount sufficient to compensate the plaintiff and the class members for damages caused by the breach of contract; -- to enter judgment against all defendants and in favor of the plaintiff and class members in an amount sufficient to compensate the plaintiff and class members for the damages caused by the negligence per se of all defendants; -- to enter judgment against all defendants and in favor of the plaintiff and class members in an amount sufficient to compensate the plaintiff and class members for the damages caused by the breaches of fiduciary duties owed by defendants; and -- for an award for prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, the costs of the action and for other relief as the court finds just and proper; A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1dc7 For more details, contact: Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. Cohen & Malad, LLP One Indiana Square, Ste. 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636-2593 ROGERS INT'L: Watkins Class Action in N.Y. Still Stayed ------------------------------------------------------- A class and derivative action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. (Partnership) remains stayed. Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., Walter Thomas Price III, James Beeland Rogers, Jr., Robert Mercorella and Allen Goodman have been named as defendants, and the Partnership as a nominal defendant in a lawsuit filed by Connie M. Watkins and John V. Watkins. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary obligations to the Partnership in causing or allowing the transfer of Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets. The Watkinses seek judgment and other relief declaring the defendants responsible for the loss of any Partnership assets, or, alternatively, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, the plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees and other relief. Following several status hearings, the Court set April 2, 2007, for the Watkinses to file any further amendments to their complaint, and May 15, 2007 for the defendants to respond. On April 9, 2007, the case was stayed at the Watkinses' request pending the resolution of personal jurisdiction issues in a similar case filed by Steven L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane, as Trustees of the Lane Family Trust, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The Lane Case The Lanes filed a class action and derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Partnership in the management of the Partnership and were negligent in connection with the transfer of Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets and seeks judgment for damages in an unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees and class certification of the Partnership's limited partners. Following the defendants' motion to dismiss, the Lanes voluntarily withdrew their complaint from federal court and filed a similar complaint in the Law Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The Defendants also filed a motion to stay the Lanes' suit in light of the Watkinses' case pending in the Southern District of New York. On March 1, 2007, the Court granted the Lanes certain discovery related to personal jurisdiction over defendant James Rogers. On May 4, 2007, the Court granted the Lanes leave to file an amended complaint. A status hearing is scheduled for Aug. 8, 2007. The Partnership reported no development in the Watkins dispute in its Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. ROGERS INT'L: Jan. 9, 2008 Status Conference Set for Lanes Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A Jan. 9, 2008 status conference has been set for a purported class action pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. (Partnership). Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., Walter Thomas Price III, Allen D. Goodman and James Beeland Rogers, Jr. have been named as defendants, and the Partnership as a nominal defendant, in a class action and derivative action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Steven L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane, as Trustees of the Lane Family Trust dated April 10, 2001. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Partnership in the management of the Partnership and were negligent in connection with the transfer of Partnership assets to Refco Capital Markets and seeks judgment for damages in an unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees and class certification of the Partnership's limited partners. Following defendants' motion to dismiss, the Lanes voluntarily withdrew their complaint from federal court and filed a similar complaint in the Law Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Walter Thomas Price was not named as a defendant in the state court complaint. The Defendants successfully moved to have the case reassigned to the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The Defendants also filed a motion to stay the Lanes' suit in light of a related case pending in the Southern District of New York. On March 1, 2007, the Court granted the Lanes certain discovery related to personal jurisdiction over defendant James Rogers. On May 4, 2007, the Court granted the Lanes leave to file an amended complaint. On June 1, 2007, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in which the Watkins joined as plaintiffs and added additional breach of fiduciary duty allocations and related claims. A status hearing is scheduled for Jan. 9, 2008, according to the Partnership's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. ROLLING STONE: Bands File Calif. Litigation Over Cigarette Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- Rolling Stone magazine, and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. face a purported class action in Alameda County Superior Court, filed by two bands alleging that their names were used in a cigarette ad in a magazine insert without their authorization. The suit was filed by the popular Toronto-based punk band Fucked Up and the experimental San Francisco group Xiu Xiu over a four- page spread that appeared in the magazine's Nov. 15 issue. The Plaintiffs claim that R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, which makes the Camel cigarettes featured in the ads, and Wenner Media, which publishes Rolling Stone, used the bands' names for commercial advantage and unfair business practices. Christopher Hunt, a San Francisco attorney for the two bands, said that he and his clients are seeking class action status for the case, which, if granted, would allow members from the more than 150 bands featured in the ad to join the suit. The suit claims that R.J. Reynolds and Rolling Stone used the names of the groups "without their authorization, consent or even prior knowledge in the four-page foldout centerpiece of a bannered 'Indie Rock Universe' and hawking Camel cigarettes, which occupied a prominent place in the Nov. 15, 2007, fortieth anniversary issue of Rolling Stone." The use of the bands' names "was illegal under settled, unambiguous California statutory and common law," according to the complaint. The suit also alleges that members of the two groups have suffered "embarrassment, shock and anger" because the ad makes it seem like they are endorsing a commercial product -- cigarettes -- that many of them have taken a stand against. The ads make the band members appear to be hypocrites and have caused a loss of goodwill and reputation, the suit states. According to the suit, venue is proper in Alameda County "because the offending issue of Rolling Stone was at all material times marketed, distributed and sold in Alameda County." In general, the lawsuit aims to hold the cigarette maker and the magazine to account "to the artists whose names they wrongfully traded on for their own commercial advantage" and also seeks unspecified monetary damages. For more details, contact: Christopher J. Hunt, Esq. Bartko, Zankel, Tarrant & Miller, 900 Front Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111-1427 Phone: 415-956-1900 Fax: 415-956-1152 Web site: http://www.bztm.com SPECIALTY MERCHANDISE: Recalls Candle Sets Due to Fire Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- Specialty Merchandise Corporation, of Simi Valley, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 13,000 Christmas Candle Sets. The company said the snowman candle could tip over and the exterior coating on both candles can ignite, posing a fire hazard. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves the 2-pieced Snowman and Christmas tree candle set. The snowman candle measures about 6 inches high and the Christmas tree candle measures 7 inches high. The recalled Christmas candle sets were manufactured in China and sold though SMC's catalog from October 2003 through September 2007 for between $4 and $13. Picture of recalled Christmas candle sets: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08144.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the candles immediately and contact SMC to return the candle for a refund of the original purchase price. For additional information, contact SMC at (888) 839-8757 or visit the company's Web site: http://www.smcorp.com/recall SPRINT COMMS: March 3, 2008 Hearing Set for $25M USF Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas will hold a fairness hearing on March 3, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. for the proposed $25,000,000 settlement by Sprint Communications Co., L.P. in the matter, "In re Universal Service Fund Telephone Billing Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1468." The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, U.S. Courthouse, 500 State Avenue, Room 517, Kansas City, Kansas. Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be made on or before Jan. 21, 2008. Deadline for the submission of a proof of claim is on July 1, 2008. Case Background The multi-district litigation, which involves billions of dollars in alleged overcharges by long distance carriers, is a consolidation of dozens of lawsuits filed throughout the U.S. since November 2001. The claims in "In re Universal Service Fund Telephone Billing Practices Litigation," relate to charges by Sprint, AT&T Corp., and MCI Worldcom Network Services, Inc., and others for contributions the carriers make to the federal Universal Service Fund, which Congress created to subsidize telecommunications services for rural, low-income, and public service customers. The Plaintiffs allege that the long distance carriers bill customers for a percentage of charges for interstate and international calls but pay a far lower percentage into the Universal Service Fund, pocketing the difference. In general, the plaintiffs allege: -- that defendants violated the antitrust laws by engaging in an illegal scheme and conspiracy to inflate the Universal Service Fund (USF) charges paid by their customers and to include arbitration clauses in their customer contracts; -- Sprint and AT&T breached their contracts with Class Plaintiffs and the class members by overcharging customers for USF charges; -- Sprint violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act by making misleading and deceptive statements regarding the USF charge; and -- AT&T violated state consumer protection acts by making misleading and deceptive statements regarding the USF charge. The Plaintiffs argue that Sprint and AT&T are liable for compensatory, statutory, and related damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under various statutory and common law theories, and they seek to prevent Sprint and AT&T from continuing their practices in the future. For more details, contact: USF Telephone Billing Practices Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi & Co LLC P.O. Box 8060 San Rafael, CA 94912-8060 Phone: 1-800-961-7416. Web site: http://www.usflitigation.com/ Vincent J. Esades, Esq. Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C. 3550 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 338-4605 Fax: (612) 338-4692 Web site: http://www.heinsmills.com - and - Mark D. Hinderks, Esq. Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP 12 Corporate Woods, 10975 Benson, Suite 550 Overland Park, KS 66210 Phone: (913) 344-6706 Fax: (913) 344-6794 E-mail: mhinderks@stinson.com Web site: http://www.stinson.com/ VALLEY PACIFIC: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Unpaid Meal Breaks ------------------------------------------------------------ Valley Pacific Petroleum is facing a class-action complaint filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin alleging it stiffed workers for overtime and two of its Mormon mangers, Mike Eliason and Dan Elmer, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Ms. Langston claims that she would never advance in the company unless she converted to their religion and wore more "revealing clothing," CourtHouse News Service says. She claims Valley Pacific has routinely violated state labor laws, on a workforce-wide basis, by failing to: (i) provide uninterrupted meal periods, pay premium compensations for missed meal periods; (ii) maintain records of hours actually worked; (iii) provide employees with accurate itemized statements of earnings, including premium pay; and (iv) pay final wages due. The Plaintiff brought the action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 on behalf of all current or former employees of Valley Pacific Petroleum who worked throughout California, at any time during the past four years, in a professional, semi-professional, technical, clerical, mechanical position or other kindred position -- that is, accountant, account managers, attendants, bookkeepers, clerks, distributors, sales persons, sales agents, secretaries, solicitors, typists -- and were not exempt from overtime. The Plaintiff asks the court to rule on: (a) whether Valley Pacific's pay practices conform to the requirements of the California Labor Code; (b) whether Valley Pacific failed to pay members of the plaintiff class their full wages when due in violation of Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 204, and 1194; (c) whether Valley Pacific failed to pay waiting time penalties for class members whose employment was terminated as required by Labor Code Section 203; (d) whether Valley Pacific violated Labor Code by failing to pay minimum and overtime wages as required by Wage Order 4-2001, and Labor Code Section 558, 1197, and 1198; (e) whether Valley Pacific failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements to members of the plaintiff class, as required by Labor Code Section 226; (f) whether Valley Pacific violated Labor Code Section 1174 by failing to keep accurate records of employees' hours of work and other required documentation; (g) what relief is necessary to remedy Valley Pacific's unfair and unlawful conduct as alleged; and (h) other questions of law and fact. The Plaintiff seeks: -- certification of the action as a class action on behalf of the proposed class as to the causes of action; -- an injunction requiring defendants to immediately cease and desist from engaging in the unlawful and unfair business practices complained of; -- restitution of all unpaid wages, including unpaid premium compensation owed to members of the plaintiff class in an amount according to proof; -- waiting time penalties on monies due upon termination to plaintiff and members of the plaintiff class who quit or have been discharged, pursuant to Labor Code Section 203, in an amount according to proof; -- restitution of all other wages and benefits due and restitution of all profits acquired by means of any unfair business practice, in an amount according to proof; -- actual or liquidated damages pursuant to Labor Code Section 226(e); -- interest accrued on damages and penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 21806 and Civil Code Section 3287; -- all applicable civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code Sections 225.5, 226.3, 558, 1174.5 and 1197.1; -- attorneys' fees, statutory costs, and litigation expenses in an amount the court determines to be reasonable, pursuant to Labor Code Sections 218.5, 226, 226.7, and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5; -- for special damages according to proof; -- punitive damages; and -- for other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper, including by not limited to injunctive relief. The suit is "Alice Langston et al v. Valley Pacific Petroleum et al., Case No CV034246," filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin. Representing the plaintiffs are: William J. Smith, Esq. Shelley G. Bryant, Esq. Amanda B. Newell, Esq. W.J. Smith & Associates 2350 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 132 Fresno, California 93711 Phone: (559) 432-0986 Fax: (559) 432-4871 VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces Lawsuit in N.J. Over Customer Fraud ----------------------------------------------------------- Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless is facing a class- action complaint filed Dec. 19 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging it defrauds customers, the CourtHouse News Service reports. The class action lawsuit alleges statutory violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, NJSA Section 56:8-1, et seq., as a result of defendant's uniform misrepresentations and omissions of material fact directed to purchasers of mobile telephones regarding the secret locking of mobile phone handsets, which makes it impossible for purchasers to use the handsets when they switch cell phone service providers. Named plaintiff Theresa Simpson alleges Verizon sells cell phones through misrepresentations and omissions, CourtHouse News Service relates. The Plaintiff says the company fails to disclose that if customers change to another service company, the "mobile phone handsets" lock out the new service and become useless. The Plaintiff brought the action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all purchasers of mobile telephones from defendant in the United States since Dec. 19, 2001. The Plaintiff asks the court to rule on: (a) whether Verizon made misrepresentations to consumers about the Verizon handsets' inability to be used with other service providers; (b) whether Verizon concealed facts from consumers about the Verizon handsets' inability to be used with other service providers; (c) whether Verizon had a duty to disclose to consumers the facts relating to the locking of the handsets; (d) whether Verizon's misrepresentations and omissions were material; (e) whether Verizon's misrepresentations and omissions were likely to deceive the public; and (f) whether plaintiff and the other members of the class have suffered an ascertainable loss. The Plaintiffs asks the court to enter an order: -- certifying the case as a class action and appointing plaintiff and her counsel to represent the class; -- awarding plaintiff and other members of the class damages and all other relief available under the claims alleged; -- awarding plaintiff and other members of the class statutory damages; -- awarding plaintiff and other members of the class pre- judgment and post-judgment interest as a result of the wrongs complained of; -- awarding plaintiff and other members of the class their costs and expenses in this litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs of litigation; -- enjoining defendant from engaging in the conduct described; and -- awarding other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. The suit is "Theresa Simpson et al v. Cellco Partnership," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Representing the plaintiffs are: James C. Shah Nathan C. Zipperian Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC 475 white HOrse Pike Collingswood, NJ 08107 Phone: (856) 858-1770 Fax: (856) 7012 E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com or nzipperian@sfmslaw.com -- and -- Roger J, Bernstein Jeffey S. Feinberg Bernstein Nackman & Feinberg, LLP The Woolworth Building 233 Broadway, Suite 2701 New York, NY 10279 Phone: (212) 748-4800 Fax: (646) 417-7890 E-mail: rbernstein@bnfcounsel.com or jfeinberg@bnfcounsel.com Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSK Auto Still Has Product Liability Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- CSK Auto Corp. is involved in litigation incidental to the conduct of its business, including but not limited to asbestos and similar product liability claims, according to the Company�€™s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Dec. 19, 2007. The Company, currently and from time to time, also faces slip and fall and other general liability claims, discrimination and employment claims, vendor disputes, and miscellaneous environmental and real estate claims. The damages claimed in some of this litigation are substantial. Phoenix-based CSX Auto Corp. is a holding company that owns CSK Auto Inc. Auto is a specialty retailer of automotive aftermarket parts and accessories. At Nov. 4, 2007, the Company operated 1,342 stores in 22 states, with its principal concentration of stores in the Western United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Rules Against P.P.C. in Zuluaga Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York considered the remaining arguments of P.P.C. Construction LLC, in an action filed by Cesar Zuluaga involving asbestos- removal work, and found them unavailing. The suit was styled Cesar Zuluaga, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. P.P.C. Construction LLC, Defendant-Appellant, Parkchester Preservation Co. LP, Defendant. Judges Tom, Mazzarelli, Saxe, Marlow, and Williams entered judgment of the case on Nov. 27, 2007. An Aug. 7, 2006 Supreme Court, Bronx County, ruling granted Mr. Zuluaga's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law causes of action, and denied PPC's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, on May 17, 2007, also denied PPC's motion to renew. Partial summary judgment was properly granted to Mr. Zuluaga on his Labor Law claim in this action where he, while performing asbestos removal work on the building's first floor, was injured when he was struck by a six-foot long pipe that fell from several floors above where other workers were performing demolition work, including the cutting and removal of pipes from the pipe chase. Partial summary judgment was properly granted to Mr. Zuluaga on his Labor Law cause of action based on sufficiently specific violations of the Industrial Code. The motion to renew was properly denied because PPC did not offer a reasonable justification for the failure to obtain foundation evidence for the accident report until after the court's decision on the underlying motion and nearly five years after Mr. Zuluaga's accident. Miller & Associates P.C., New York (William C. Mahlan, Jr. of counsel), represented P.P.C. Constuction LLC. Monaco & Monaco LLP, Brooklyn (John Tumelty of counsel), represented Cesar Zuluaga. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Court Favors Plaintiff in Kessel Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the Montana Workers' Compensation Court ruling, which denied Liberty Northwest Insurance Corp. summary judgment, in an asbestos-related compensation action filed by Duane J. Kessel. The suit is styled Duane J. Kessel, Petitioner and Appellee, v. Liberty Northwest Insurance Corp., Respondent, Insurer and Appellant. Justices Patricia O. Cotter, John Warner, James C. Nelson, Jim Rice, and W. William Leaphart entered judgment of Case No. DA 06-0531 on Nov. 27, 2007. This was an appeal from Montana Workers' Compensation Court, WCC No.2004-1189. Mr. Kessel worked for Stimson Lumber Co. in Libby, Mont., from 1993 until January 2001 during which time he asserted he contracted asbestos-related lung disease. He submitted a claim for occupational disease benefits on Dec. 3, 2001. On Aug. 2, 2002, an adjuster for Liberty wrote a letter to Mr. Kessel. The letter stated, �€œBased on the healthcare information received as of this date, this letter is to notify you that your claim for asbestos related disease is denied. It is our opinion there is not sufficient evidence to indicate this is related to your employment at Stimson Lumber Co.�€ On Aug. 22, 2002, the Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI) notified Mr. Kessel and Liberty that a medical panel examination of Mr. Kessel had been scheduled for Sept. 20, 2002. Mr. Kessel contacted Liberty and requested cancellation of the evaluation. On Aug. 2, 2004, Mr. Kessel submitted a Petition for Workers' Compensation Mediation Conference to the DOLI. The conference took place on Aug. 27, 2004. The mediator issued a recommendation on Aug. 31, 2004, and mailed it to the parties on Sept. 2, 2004. On Oct. 18, 2004, Mr. Kessel underwent an occupational disease panel evaluation. The doctor who conducted the evaluation concluded that Mr. Kessel was suffering from asbestos- related lung disease as a result of his employment. On Nov. 12, 2004, Mr. Kessel filed a Petition for Hearing with the WCC. On Jan. 31, 2005, Liberty moved for summary judgment on the ground that the two-year statute of limitations period had run prior to Mr. Kessel filing his Petition. Liberty requested a hearing on its motion which was held on March 28, 2005. On Aug. 4, 2005, the WCC denied Liberty's motion and ruled that Mr. Kessel's Petition had been filed within the applicable statute of limitations period. The trial scheduled for the week of Oct. 31, 2005, was vacated by agreement of counsel so that the parties could resolve the statute of limitations issue before proceeding to trial. Counsel stipulated to certification, and on July 10, 2006, current-WCC Judge Shea ordered that the Aug. 4, 2005 ruling denying Liberty's motion for summary judgment be certified as final for purposes of appeal. Liberty filed a Notice of Appeal with the Supreme Court on July 12, 2006. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Workers' Compensation Court. Larry W. Jones, Law Offices of Larry W. Jones, Missoula, Mont., represented Liberty Northwest Insurance Corp. Laurie Wallace, Bothe & Lauridsen PC, Columbia Falls, Mont., Jon Heberling, McGarvey, Heberling, Sullivan & McGarvey, Kalispell, Mont., represented Duane J. Kessel. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.C. Court Dismisses Ex-inmate's Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, M.D. North Carolina, dismissed an asbestos-related action in the defendants�€™ favor, in which the case was filed by Timothy John Pulliam, a former prisoner of the State of North Carolina and current federal inmate. The suit was styled Timothy John Pulliam, Plaintiff, v. Superintendent of Hoke Corrections, Doctor Wilson, P.A. Mackey, Sgt. Croff, Lieutenant Jacobs, Asst. Supt. Webb, Defendants. Magistrate Judge Eliason entered judgment of Case No. 1:05CV01000 on Nov. 20, 2007. Mr. Pulliam was housed in the Hoke Correctional Institution from Feb. 11, 2003 until May 29, 2003. During most of that time, he had a prison job cleaning and mopping. As part of his job, he washed and rinsed mops in a small room with overhead pipes. He alleged that those pipes were covered with asbestos, which was knocked loose on a regular basis whenever mop handles inadvertently struck it. According to Mr. Pulliam, he began suffering from various symptoms like sore throat, nasal sores, chest pain, and breathing difficulties. A grievance form dated April 30, 2003, asserted that Mr. Pulliam filed a request to be seen on April 26, 2003, but had not been seen. Medical records attached to the complaint indicated that Mr. Pulliam was seen by medical personnel on May 2, 2003 and that he was given several prescriptions to help with sores, a sore throat, a cough, and headaches. He was also seen on May 6, 2003, May 13, 2003, and May 23, 2003. Mr. Pulliam blamed the Defendants for various forms of inaction in relation to his alleged suffering. Dr. Wilson was previously dismissed from the case. Ms. Mackey has now filed a motion to dismiss while the remaining Defendants have filed a separate motion to dismiss. The District Court ordered that Ms. Mackey's motion to dismiss is granted and that the motion to dismiss filed by the Superintendent, Asst. Supt. Webb, Sgt. Groff, and Lieutenant Jacobs is granted. The District Court dismissed the action. Timothy John Pulliam, Petersburg, Va., pro se. James Philip Allen, N.C. Department of Justice, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, Young, Moore and Henderson PA, Raleigh, N.C., represented the Defendants. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Favoring GE Upheld on Appeal in Ky. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Kentucky upheld the Greenup Circuit Court�€™s ruling, which granted summary judgment to General Electric Co., in an asbestos-related action filed by Ballard Wright and Faye Wright. The case is styled Ballard Wright; Faye Wright, Appellants v. General Electric Co., Appellee. Judges Rosenblum, Acree, and Thompson entered judgment of Case No. 2006-CA-000080-MR on Nov. 30, 2007. Robert H. Miller II of Charleston, W.V., represented Ballard Wright and Faye Wright. Scott T. Dickens, Gregory Scott Gowen, Louisville, Ky., represented General Electric Co. Mr. Wright worked for CSX Transportation Inc. and its predecessor Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Co. in Shelby, Ky., from 1947 to 1982. During his first four years of employment, he worked as a helper on Chesapeake�€™s steam engines. Mr. Wright�€™s duties during this period included servicing the coal tenders on the engines, including removing and installing gasket