/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/071228.mbx 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 gaskets from the journal boxes, and removing and installing pipe insulation on the steam pipes. Mr. Wright worked with and around pipe insulation on the steam engines on a daily basis from about 1947 to 1951. As a helper, he also assisted with oil changes, handled oil pan gaskets, and worked on manifolds and gear boxes, which the Wrights also claimed exposed him to asbestos. >From about 1951 to 1982, Mr. Wright worked as a Freight Car Inspector. In that capacity, one of his primary jobs was testing air brakes. General Electric was one of the manufacturers of the air brakes used on the cars. According to Mr. Wright, the General Electric steam locomotives were heavily insulated with asbestos. The diesel locomotives used by Chesapeake and CSX from the 1950s through Mr. Wright�€™s retirement were likewise manufactured by General Electric. Mr. Wright alleged that these locomotives, too, contained asbestos-containing products, such as oil pan gaskets. In January 2001, Mr. Wright was diagnosed with lung cancer. He attributed the disease to his exposure to asbestos during his employment by Chesapeake, including his exposure to the steam and diesel locomotives designed and manufactured by General Electric. On Jan. 16, 2002, the Wrights filed a Complaint in Greenup Circuit Court seeking damages for his lung cancer. The Complaint named 18 defendants, including CSX, General Electric, Pneumo Abex Corp. and Garlock Sealing Technologies Inc. The Complaint alleged that General Electric was negligent in that even though it knew of the dangers of exposure to asbestos, it failed to warn Mr. Wright of the dangers and inform him of the precautions which should be taken to avoid injury. The Complaint also alleged that General Electric was subject to strict liability on the basis that General Electric placed into the stream of commerce an asbestos-containing product (a) exposure to which caused lung cancer, and (b) with no or inadequate warning to users or persons exposed to the product. In due course General Electric moved for summary judgment. On Dec. 6, 2005, the circuit court entered an order granting the motion. The order concluded that General Electric was entitled to summary judgment on the basis that its common law tort claims sounding in negligence and strict liability were barred in that they were preempted by the federal Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act. This appeal followed. The Appeals Court agreed that the claims are preempted and affirmed the judgment of the Greenup Circuit Court. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Deere & Co. Faces Product Liability Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Deere & Co. is subject to unresolved legal actions that are linked to product liability, including asbestos-related liability, according to the Company�€™s annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Dec. 20, 2007. The Company is also subject to legal actions involving retail credit, software licensing, patent, and trademark matters. Moline, Ill.-based Deere & Co. makes farm equipment and also produces industrial, forestry, and lawn-care equipment. The Company�€™s farm equipment includes tractors, tillers, harvesting machinery, and soil-preparation machinery. The construction equipment includes backhoes and excavators. The Company also makes drivetrain components, diesel engines, chain saws, and leaf- and snowblowers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Over 1,000 Suits Are Pending v. Joy Global ---------------------------------------------------------------- Product liability cases, including over 1,000 asbestos- and silica-related cases, are still pending against Joy Global Inc., according to the Company�€™s annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Dec. 21, 2007. The Company is also involved in employment and commercial matters. Milwaukee-based Joy Global Inc. manufactures and services high productivity mining equipment for the extraction of coal and other minerals and ores. The Company operates in two business segments: underground mining machinery (Joy Mining Machinery) and surface mining equipment (P&H Mining Equipment). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Esterline Subject to Potential Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Esterline Technologies Corp. is subject to potential liabilities relating to certain products it manufactured containing asbestos, according to the Company�€™s annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Dec. 21, 2007. To date, the Company�€™s insurance has covered claims against it relating to those products. Commencing Nov. 1, 2003, insurance coverage for asbestos claims has been unavailable. However, the Company continues to have some insurance coverage for exposure to asbestos contained in its products before Nov. 1, 2003. The Company continues to manufacture for one customer a product that contains asbestos. The Company has an agreement with the customer for indemnification for certain losses the Company may incur as a result of asbestos claims relating to that product. COMPANY PROFILE: Esterline Technologies Corp. City Center Bellevue 500 108th Ave. NE, Ste. 1500 Bellevue, Wash. Phone: 425-453-9400 Fax: 425-453-2916 http://www.esterline.com Description: Formed in 1967, Esterline Technologies Corp. is a specialized manufacturing company principally serving aerospace and defense customers. The Company designs, manufactures, and markets highly engineered products and systems for application within the industries the Company serves. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Feldman Mall Accrues $1.71M for Remediation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Feldman Mall Properties Inc. accrued about US$1,711,000 for the cost of asbestos remediation for a parcel of land it acquired in July 2007, of which amount was added to the book value of the land, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Dec. 24, 2007. The Company owns certain properties that contain asbestos and could require it to perform future remediation. In July 2007, the Company purchased the land and building adjacent to its Northgate Mall for US$1.5 million in cash. The Company is in the process of demolishing the existing building with the intention of replacing it with a movie theater. The Company expects that the demolition and asbestos removal will be completed by March 30, 2008. COMPANY PROFILE: Feldman Mall Properties Inc. 1010 Northern Blvd., Ste. 314 Great Neck, N.Y. 11021 Phone: 516-684-1239 Fax: 516-684-1059 http://www.feldmanmall.com Description: Feldman Mall Properties Inc. and its affiliates and subsidiaries are principally engaged in the acquisition and management of retail malls. Tenants include national and regional retail chains as well as local retailers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SC Junks Deschenes Award in Favor of Reed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the Compensation Review Board's ruling, which awarded compensation for a 25 percent permanent partial disability in each lung to George Deschenes, to favor Reed and Greenwood Insulation Co. and AC&S Inc. The case is styled George Deschenes v. Transco Inc., et al. Judges Rogers, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Zarella entered judgment of Case Nos. Nos. 17852 and 17853 on Nov. 27, 2007. Mr. Deschenes, who was born in 1945, joined Local 33 of the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers in 1967. After he joined the union, he worked until 1985 as an insulator on numerous commercial construction sites for multiple employers, including Reed and AC&S. During that time, Mr. Deschenes was exposed to significant amounts of asbestos, with his last exposure occurring in 1985, while he was employed by Transco Inc. He has not been able to work full-time since 1994, when he was diagnosed with asbestos related pleural lung disease. However, asbestos is not the only toxic substance to which Mr. Deschenes�€™ lungs have been exposed. He started smoking cigarettes at the age of 17 or 18, and he smoked one and one- half to two packs per day from the age of 25 until 1991, when he had a heart attack requiring coronary artery bypass surgery. At that point, Mr. Deschenes reduced his smoking, and currently is down to one cigarette after each meal. However, he had developed emphysema as a result of his cigarette smoking. Mr. Deschenes filed a claim for compensation with the workers' compensation commission in 1994. After a hearing held in 2003, the commissioner for the 8th district, Amado Vargas, found that Mr. Deschenes had suffered a lung injury as a result of his asbestos exposure at work, and "another lung injury" that resulted from his "long history of cigarette smoking...." Reed and AC&S appealed from the decision of the Board affirming the decision of the workers' compensation commissioner for the 2nd district, Stephen Delaney. The Supreme Court concluded that further findings of fact are required because apportionment of benefits is appropriate when a respondent employer is able to prove that: (1) a disability has resulted from the combination of two concurrently developing disease processes, one that is nonoccupational, and the other that is work related; and (2) the conditions of the claimant's occupation have no influence on the development of the nonoccupational disease. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the board and remanded the case for further proceedings. Lucas D. Strunk, with whom was John W. Greiner, represented the appellants in each case (defendant Reed and Greenwood Insulation Co. et al.). Christopher Meisenkothen represented George Deschenes. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Garlock in Wright Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Kentucky upheld the Greenup Circuit Court's ruling, which granted summary judgment to Garlock Sealing Technologies Inc., in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Ballard Wright and Faye Wright. The case is styled Ballard Wright; Faye Wright, Appellants v. Garlock Sealing Technologies Inc., Appellee. Judges Roseblum, Acree, and Thompson entered judgment of Case No. 2006-CA-000206-MR on Nov. 30, 2007. 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, Mr. Wright worked as a Helper on Chesapeake's steam engines. His duties during this period included servicing the coal tenders on the engines, including removing and installing gaskets from the journal boxes, and removing and installing pipe insulation on the steam pipes. He worked with and around pipe insulation on the steam engines on a daily basis from about 1947 to 1951. >From about 1951 to 1982, Mr. Wright worked as a Freight Car Inspector. Garlock was one of the manufacturers of the gaskets and similar materials used on the cars. Mr. Wright state that during his employment with CSX, he was never given any kind of protective breathing equipment. In January 2001, Mr. Wright was diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer. He attributed the disease to his exposure to asbestos during his employment by CSX/Chesapeake, including his exposure to the gaskets and similar materials made by Garlock. On Jan. 16, 2002, the Wrights filed a Complaint in Greenup Circuit Court seeking damages for his lung cancer. The Complaint named 18 defendants, including CSX, Garlock, General Electric Co., and Pneumo Abex Corp. The Complaint alleged that Garlock was negligent in that even though it knew of the dangers of exposure to asbestos, it failed to warn Mr. Wright of the dangers and/or inform him of the precautions which should be taken to avoid injury. In due course Garlock moved for summary judgment. On Dec. 29, 2005, the circuit court entered an order granting the motion. The order concluded that Garlock was entitled to summary judgment on the basis that its common law tort claims sounding in negligence and strict liability were barred in that they were preempted by the federal Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act. The Wrights appealed from an order of Greenup Circuit Court granting summary judgment to Garlock upon their common law tort claims for injuries allegedly sustained by Mr. Wright from exposure to asbestos during his employment as a railroad worker for CSX and Chesapeake. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Garlock based upon its conclusion that common law tort claims against railroad component parts manufacturers, such as Garlock, are preempted by the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act. The Appeals Court agreed that the claims are preempted and affirmed the judgment of the Greenup Circuit Court. Robert H. Miller II, Charleston, W.Va., represented Ballard Wright and Faye Wright. John K. Gordinier, Louisville, Ky., represented Garlock Sealing Technologies. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Appeals Court Ruling Favors Pneumo Abex ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Kentucky upheld the Greenup Circuit Court's ruling, which granted summary judgment to Pneumo Abex LLC, in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Ballard Wright and Faye Wright. The case is styled Ballard Wright; Fay Wright, Appellants v. Pneumo Abex LLC, Appellee. Judges Rosenblum, Acree, and Thompson entered judgment of Case No. 2006-CA-000081-MR on Nov. 30, 2007. 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 gaskets from the journal boxes, and removing and installing pipe insulation on the steam pipes. Mr. Wright worked with and around pipe insulation on the steam engines on a daily basis from about 1947 to 1951. As a Helper, he assisted with oil changes, handled oil pan gaskets, and worked on manifolds and gear boxes, which the Wrights also claimed exposed him to asbestos. >From about 1951 to 1982, Mr. Wright worked as a Freight Car Inspector. In that capacity, one of his primary jobs was testing air brakes. Abex was one of the manufacturers of the brake shoes used on the cars. During his years as an inspector, Mr. Wright, on a daily basis, observed from close proximity while other employees serviced diesel locomotive engines, including while they worked on the engines' intercoolers, crankcases, manifolds and bearings. Mr. Wright stated that during his employment with CSX, he was never given any kind of protective breathing equipment. In January 2001, Mr. Wright was diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer. He attributed the disease to his exposure to asbestos during his employment by Chesapeake, including his exposure to the brake shoes manufactured by Abex. On Jan. 16, 2002, the Wrights filed a Complaint in Greenup Circuit Court seeking damages for his lung cancer. The Complaint named 18 defendants, including CSX, Abex Corp., General Electric Co., and Garlock Sealing Technologies Inc. The Complaint alleged that Abex was negligent in that even though it knew of the dangers of exposure to asbestos, it failed to warn Mr. Wright of the dangers and/or inform him of the precautions which should be taken to avoid injury. The Complaint also alleged that Abex was subject to strict liability on the basis that Abex placed into the stream of commerce an asbestos-containing product (a) exposure to which caused lung cancer, and (b) with no or inadequate warning to users or persons exposed to the product. In due course Abex moved for summary judgment. On Dec. 22, 2005, the circuit court entered an order granting the motion. The order concluded that Abex was entitled to summary judgment on the basis that its common law tort claims sounding in negligence and strict liability were barred in that they were preempted by the federal Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act. This appeal followed. The Appeals Court agreed that the claims are preempted and affirmed the Greenup Circuit Court's decision. Robert H. Miller II, Charleston, W.Va., represented Ballard Wright and Faye Wright. J. Christian Lewis, Lexington, Ky., represented Pneumo Abex LLC. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Couple Sues 14 Companies in W.Va. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Flatwood, Ky.-based couple, Phyllis Mae and Harold Dean Branham, on Dec. 5, 2007, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 14 companies in Kanawha Circuit Court, The West Virginia Record reports. The Branhams claim that the defendants are responsible for the illness Mrs. Branham developed. Some of the defendants include Nitro Industrial Coverings Inc., UB West Virginia Inc. (f/k/a Union Boiler Co.), and Vimasco Corp. Mr. Branham worked for CSX Transportation Inc. as a railroad fireman and engineer from 1946 to 1991. He also worked for Ford Motor Co. as an inspector and in various other industrial settings. During that time, Mr. Branham was exposed to dust from the use and removal of asbestos-containing products manufactured, distributed, supplied, used and installed by the defendants. Mrs. Branham claims she was exposed to the dust brought home by her husband. In the seven-count suit, Mr. Branham claims he has lost the general services, companionship and society of his wife. Mrs. Branham claims she suffered medical expenses, extreme nervousness and mental anguish, and her enjoyment of life has been greatly impaired. The Branhams seek compensatory and punitive damages against all the defendants. Attorney R. Scott Marshall represents the Branhams. Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-2600 will be assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Pipes Left in U.K. Road Pose Risks ---------------------------------------------------------------- Broken asbestos water pipes were left lying beside a residential street in Holmes Chapel, U.K., for more than a week, this is Cheshire.co.uk reports. United Utilities dug up asbestos cement pipes, which would have been installed in the 1960s, after a water main burst in Sandiford Avenue, Holmes Chapel. However, United Utilities did not take them away until about a week later because it was waiting for guidance on disposing of the debris. John Coote, who lives on nearby Alumbrook Avenue, complained to Congleton Borough Council, United Utilities, and the Health and Safety Executive. An unnamed neighbor also pursued the authorities and was told that workmen were seeking approval to remove the pipes. The Environment Agency says asbestos material should be double- bagged and labeled. It cannot be taken to an ordinary landfill site. Mr. Coote said he thought United Utilities had not followed the correct procedure when they removed the pipes. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Court Cases Up By Over 100 Since 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos-related cases have increased by more than 100 in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., since 2006, Belleville News- Democrat reports. In 2007, 444 asbestos cases were filed, an increase of more than a third from the 325 filed the previous year. Ed Murnane, president of the pro-business Illinois Civil Justice League, said, �€œThe numbers don't always tell the whole story. The fact is that any attorney can file a suit, but it is the court that decides what it is going to do with that suit.�€ As for the number of asbestos cases, attorney Kevin Conway, former president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, said the numbers have actually shown to be going down across the nation. Mr. Conway credited the use of a plural registry in Madison County, which allows people to place their name on the list as soon as they gain first knowledge of an asbestos-related illness, as required by statute. He said the use of a plural registry has become more common throughout the country. Madison County Chief Judge Ann Callis said, �€œAs to asbestos, if you look back to 2001-2003, there were approximately 800-900 asbestos cases filed per year. In 2006 and 2007, it is close to half of those previous years, so I believe the trend is still decreased filings in asbestos.�€ ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Research Medical Faces $84T Fine for Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kansas City, Mo.-based Research Medical Center faces a US$84,000 federal fine for allowing some of its workers to be exposed to asbestos contamination, Associated Press reports. A Kansas City Health Department inspector found the asbestos problem last June 2007, noticing what appeared to be asbestos in construction debris. Research Medical has 15 days to respond to findings by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA described the hospital's violations as "serious" and "willful." The hospital can either pay the fine, dispute the findings or seek a lower penalty. The hospital said it notified 85 of its workers that they had potentially been exposed to asbestos after receiving OSHA's report. It is not clear whether hospital patients and visitors were exposed, because OSHA's investigation only covered employee exposure. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Widow Not Satisfied with Payout Hike ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ann Craig, a South Tyneside, U.K., widow, on Dec. 21, 2006, stated that a GBP1,800 increase in asbestos bereavement compensation as �€œa slap in the face,�€ The Shields Gazette reports. Mrs. Craig received GBP10,000 in compensation after her husband David Craig died from mesothelioma in February 2002. However, she says she finds it "shocking" that people in Scotland receive tens of thousands of pounds more in compensation. Mrs. Craig's comments follow the U.K. Government's decision to increase bereavement compensation by GBP1,800 in England and Wales to GBP11,800. However, Scottish widows and widowers of mesothelioma victims receive up to GBP30,000 compensation for bereavement. Mrs. Craig has backed a campaign by Newcastle-based Thompsons Solicitors to bridge the compensation gap between England, Wales and Scotland. Mr. Craig was 54 years old when he died from the disease he contracted after working as an electrician at Swan Hunter, Wallsend. However, he did not discover he had the killer disease until more than 30 years after his initial exposure to asbestos dust. Ian McFall, head of asbestos policy at Thompsons Solicitors, has slammed the GBP1,800 increase in compensation for bereavement in England and Wales as "an insult." This follows an announcement by the Government that the level of bereavement damages paid under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 will rise from GBP10,000 to GBP11,800 from Jan. 1, 2007, the first increase since 2002. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CARD Clinic Set to Receive Federal Money ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Center for Asbestos-Related Disease (CARD) Clinic, which is located in Libby, Mont., is set to receive federal money, Montana News Station reports. Montana Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester made the announcement. The funding will be used by the CARD Clinic to continue serving victims of asbestos related diseases in the Libby area. The CARD Clinic tests and cares for victims of asbestos poisoning and is regarded as a national leader in the field of asbestos-related disease research. Asbestos has killed and sickened hundreds of Libby residents who were exposed to the substance until W.R. Grace & Co.'s nearby vermiculite mine closed in down 1990. The US$248,580 in funding for the CARD Clinic is contained in an overall spending bill that's now headed to President George W. Bush's desk. Sen. Baucus said, �€œIt's good to see that my friends at the CARD Clinic will get the dollars they need to continue their work. You can bet that Jon and I are doing everything we can in Washington to help out Libby.�€ ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Woodford to Build 164 Homes on Ex-Akzo Site ---------------------------------------------------------------- Woodford Land, a subsidiary of Woodford Group PLC and the firm hoping to build more than 164 homes on a former Akzo Nobel N.V. plant site, has sought to quell asbestos-related concerns about its proposals, Rochdale Observer reports. Bosses at Woodford Land say they are �€œvery confident�€ measures they intend to put in place will protect the public from asbestos contamination on the former Akzo Nobel plant in Littleborough, U.K. The Company has applied for outline planning permission to build 164 homes, a pub/restaurant, hotel and retail units at the Hollingworth Road site. However, the proposals have sparked protests from residents, who fear measures to decontaminate the land do not go far enough. Speaking a public meeting called by MP Paul Rowen to discuss the concerns, Dave Rix, managing director of Woodford Remediation, said any contaminated soil which could not be treated would be taken away to a hazardous waste tip with the rest being buried under a capping layer of soil and stone. Woodford�€™s assurances were backed up by Rochdale Council�€™s contaminated land officer Mark Brown. Roger Chadwick, chairman of the Spotland Area Forum, is involved with the campaign against plans to build on the former Turner Brothers asbestos factory. The planning application is expected to go before committee in January 2008. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Firefighters Concerned About Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- The City of New Haven, Conn., and fire union officials are concerned that several firefighters were exposed to asbestos while fighting a Dec. 12, 2007 fire at the former Kresge department store building, Associated Press reports. As many as 60 firefighters who fought the Dec. 12 blaze at the site were exposed to thick, acrid smoke for several hours. Firefighters have air packs to protect them from smoke, but the packs last only 30 minutes. Two of a dozen samples of debris sent to the state Department of Public Health were positive for asbestos, said Andy Rizzo, the head of New Haven's Livable City Initiative. Daily monitoring since the fire has shown safe air quality levels, he said. Rick Scavetta, spokesman for the Hospital of Saint Raphael, said seven city firefighters were checked after the fire. Firefighter Patrick Egan, the union's president, said the union is considering filing a blanket claim to put the asbestos exposure on record in the event of future illness. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Students Exposed to Hazard at Calif. School ---------------------------------------------------------------- Victoria DeLuca, a speech therapist at Highlands Elementary School in San Mateo, Calif., has complained that she and students she works with had been exposed to high levels of asbestos in a room and that the school did not act quickly enough to warn them, San Mateo County Times reports. The district confirmed surface asbestos was found in the room used by Ms. DeLuca. However, testing before and after abatement actions were taken indicated no airborne asbestos, said Joan Rosas, San Mateo- Foster City School District assistant superintendent of student services. Ms. DeLuca has taken issue with the district's testing methods, and at least one asbestos expert familiar with the case recommends the room undergo a more involved follow-up examination. She has also lodged a complaint with the state Division of Occupational Safety and Health. Cal-OSHA spokesman Dean Fryer said an investigation started Nov. 6, 2007 and could take up to several months. Ms. DeLuca, who joined Highlands this school year but has served the district for 21 years, said she first spotted what appeared to be asbestos on a cut pipe along the ceiling in her room on Aug. 28, 2007 and reported it to the principal. She said a nearby vent was blowing air on the pipe, sending dust particles �€œall over the room.�€ An Oct. 26, 2007 analysis report ordered by the district confirmed the substance in the room to be asbestos. However, Ms. DeLuca said she was not notified of that result until Nov. 6, 2007. Ms. DeLuca said she works with about 30 kindergarten pupils to fifth-graders. On average, she meets with a student twice a week in the room. The room has not been used since Nov. 6, 2007. In a Nov. 14, 2007 letter, Highlands Principal Mary Pat O'Connell told parents asbestos was found in the insulation surrounding a ceiling pipe. Ms. Rosas said, �€œBottom line, any school or any district is responsible for creating a safe environment for staff and students. When we learned there was asbestos in the speech room, we followed (Cal-OSHA) process to do air testing and abatement. The air samples taken of the room prior and after abatement showed there was no airborne asbestos.�€ However, Ms. DeLuca argued that a more aggressive type of testing should have been done to measure potential airborne asbestos. Arnold Den, a senior science adviser for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who specializes in asbestos issues, said that kind of testing requires stirring up the air with a leaf-blower and fans to mimic people's movements in a room and then taking samples. Mr. Den recommended that strategy based on results that Ms. DeLuca got after she independently sent samples to Asbestos TEM Laboratories Inc. in Berkeley, Calif. Ms. DeLuca said she got her own samples by wiping a printer and shelf. She also got samples from a foil cap she used to cover the pipe. According to the results from the Berkeley lab, Ms. DeLuca's samples revealed 610,000 asbestos particles per square centimeter. Mr. Den described wiped samples showing 10,000 particles per square centimeter as a "warning flag." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Lawyer to Urge Judge to Nullify Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Bernick, the lawyer for W.R. Grace & Co., in a hearing set for January 2008, will try to persuade a Delaware bankruptcy judge to value as worthless tens of thousands of asbestos- related claims, Forbes reports. Grace used asbestos in spray-on fireproofing and Zonolite insulation and other fireproofing products. Mr. Bernick is mounting a frontal assault on the system that has driven Grace and many other asbestos-tainted companies into bankruptcy and enriched plaintiff lawyers who recruited thousands of clients with mass X-ray screenings and quickie medical diagnoses. Plaintiffs put the Company's liability at US$6 billion, making it insolvent, while Grace says it can settle the mess for as little as US$500 million. Mr. Bernick argues that many of the claimants have not submitted evidence that they handled Grace's building materials, and if they did they often provided questionable or no evidence of a link between asbestos and any medical problems. If Mr. Bernick succeeds, he could win rulings making it harder to press dubious claims in court. If he fails, Grace's US$1.8 billion in shareholder value, up tenfold over the past five years, likely will be wiped out and handed over to asbestos claimants. The Columbia, Md.-based Company tried to avoid bankruptcy throughout the 1990s by settling some 150,000 cases, many for as little as US$3,000. However, after getting hit with a wave of tens of thousands of new lawsuits between 1999 and 2001, the Company filed for protection in 2001, joining many other companies that have paid out an estimated US$80 billion to settle asbestos claims. Lester Brickman, a professor at Yeshiva University's law school, said, �€œMy research suggests something like 90 percent of the last 200,000 to 300,000 asbestosis claims that have been paid are bogus.�€ Grace has commissioned reports that attempt to make the same point. In a September 2007 filing, for example, Dr. Howard William Ory, an epidemiologist retired from the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, contended there were no more than 28,000 medically plausible cases of asbestosis in the U.S. male population between 1989 and 2001--a period when Grace was hit with more than 200,000 lawsuits. His conclusion was based on a U.K. database that showed asbestosis was quite rare. Grace also hired three academic lung experts to examine X-rays of 471 plaintiffs who said they had contracted lung cancer from asbestos. Plaintiff experts diagnosed asbestos exposure in 82 percent of the plaintiffs, yet the academics could only find opacities, a possible indication of calcified asbestos fibers, in seven percent of the films. Under special rules for asbestos bankruptcies, 75 percent of the claimants must approve Grace's plan of reorganization. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wis. Residents to Evacuate Homes by Jan. 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------- At a Dec. 20, 2007 meeting, city inspectors in New London, Wis., told residents to evacuate the Villa Apartments by Jan. 7, 2007 due to the presence of asbestos, WBAY reports. What started out as a heating problem, now forced an evacuation. There is a lot of anger at the Villa Apartments, where tenants of the apartment complex were told to vacate after high levels of asbestos were found. Resident Sharon Blink said, �€œI was kind of shocked because I only got three weeks' notice to find a different shelter, a different house to live in, so I was a little bit upset.�€ Sandy Kurth, a former complex manager, said, �€œHis position was, if you don't change the boiler, which is the steam system, he didn't think any permits but as soon as he started cutting on 1930 pipes, which were asbestos pipes, I think that caused the problem.�€ Once the building is vacated, city inspectors say it should be empty for 30 to 60 days for cleaning. Then it's up to residents to decide if they will move back. Tenants were also told to decontaminate their clothing, furniture, and other personal possessions. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bridgemarts Ltd. Fined GBP3,442 for Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- A �€œforgotten�€ skipload of asbestos waste has landed Bridgemarts Ltd., d/b/a Gowing and Pursey, with a GBP3,442 bill, Materials Handling World reports. On Dec. 18, 2007, Bridgemarts pleaded guilty to keeping waste without a waste management license and was fined GBP1,500. The Company also pleaded guilty to contravening their waste management license by storing the hazardous waste on the site and was fined a further GBP500. The Company was also ordered to pay GBP1,442 costs. Uxbridge Magistrates Court heard how Environment Agency officers discovered the skip on the premises of Bridgemarts on routine inspections at the Hillingdon Waste Transfer Station, in Civic Way, South Ruislip, U.K. The skip had been stored for nearly a month in an unlicensed area designed to hold empty skips. During interview, the Company director said the skip, collected from a site in London SW19, should have been taken to a landfill site but it was closed due to high winds on Jan. 16, 2007. The skip was brought back to their site for storage until the landfill reopened. However, a letter from the company contradicted this saying that the driver simply did not have time to take the skip to the landfill. The skip of hazardous waste was brought on to the site, stored illegally and forgotten about until it was discovered on Feb. 9, 2007 by the Environment Agency officers. Environment Officer Jackie Lawrence said, �€œBridgemarts Ltd. made a catalog of errors that has seen them in court. They stored the waste illegally, failed in their duty to turn the waste away, failed to store it properly when it was on site and then failed to remove it. �€œThis situation was unacceptable as who knows how long an open skip containing asbestos would have remained unsecured if we had not found it on our routine inspections. There was no paperwork of its existence and it had simply been forgotten.�€ The skip was safely disposed of on Feb. 13, 2007. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of Village Hall Area ---------------------------------------------------------------- Assistant Administrator Blaine Wing said that a bathroom at Cary's village hall in Chicago remained closed on Dec. 19, 2007 after workers found asbestos in the flooring, Daily Herald reports. On Dec. 18, 2007, workers found the hazardous substance in the bathroom while repairing the floor's tiling, Mr. Wing said. The asbestos was underneath the floor within resin glued to tiles. Mr. Wing said that this particular bathroom is situated in the part of village hall that houses the police department. Police officers primarily use this main-floor bathroom. Removal was scheduled for Dec. 21, 2007. Mr. Wing said, �€œWe just took the appropriate precautions. We realized with our building being so old it wasn't as simple as gluing the tile back to the floor.�€ Five years ago, the village hired an asbestos abatement team to remove all known traces of the substance in the 100-year-old building that was formerly a farmhouse, Mr. Wing said. However, the team missed the asbestos because it was hidden under the floor. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Former Judges to be Imprisoned for Bribery ---------------------------------------------------------------- Former Circuit Judge John Whitfield and former Chancery Judge Wes Teel, both of Harrison County, Miss., were set to report to federal prison on Dec. 27, 2007 to begin serving sentences for their roles in a judicial bribery scandal, Associated Press reports. Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Teel were convicted in March 2007 of bribery and mail fraud. The 45-year-old Mr. Whitfield was sentenced to more than nine years. The 57-year-old Mr. Teel was sentenced to almost six years. Paul Minor, who was convicted of bribing the judges, is already serving an 11-year sentence in a federal prison in Tallahassee, Fla. The 61-year-old Mr. Minor was once considered among the top trial lawyers in Mississippi, amassing a fortune from tobacco, asbestos and other litigation. Prosecutors say Mr. Minor orchestrated a complicated scheme in which he guaranteed loans for the judges, then used cash and third parties in an attempt to conceal the fact that Mr. Minor paid off the loans. The judges were convicted of giving Mr. Minor's clients favorable rulings in civil cases in exchange for the money. The men were all sentenced in September 2007. However, U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate allowed the former judges to report to prison after Christmas so they could get their affairs in order. As of Dec. 26, 2007, it was not clear where Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Teel will serve their time. Mike Truman, a spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, said that information would not be made public until the two were processed into a facility. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Sewage Treatment Plant Workers Exposed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Six or seven government employees in Amherst, N.Y., were exposed to asbestos earlier in December 2007 while doing demolition work as part of a US$5 million upgrade to the town�€™s Sewage Treatment Plant, The Buffalo News reports. Meanwhile, town officials said no plant administrators were aware that asbestos concrete pipe was in the building. They have since sealed off the asbestos-contaminated area and received Town Board approval on Dec. 24, 2007 to hire an asbestos removal contractor for US$16,482. Town Engineer Jeffrey Burroughs said that the work the employees were doing is part of a larger project to replace six failing filters at the treatment plant. Mr. Burroughs said there was a backwash pipe assembly attached to each filter that is made of asbestos concrete pipe. A work crew spent a couple of hours taking out the pipe before realizing that it probably contained asbestos, he said. When an employee complained, Mr. Burroughs added, plant managers referred to a manual for the filter equipment that confirmed that the type of pipe attached to the filters was made with concrete mixed with asbestos. Mr. Burroughs said none of the plant managers was aware that asbestos was in the pipe until that moment. He added that asbestos concrete pipe is usually buried. When Mr. Burroughs talked with employees a few days later, he said, a few were angry that their health may have been compromised since none of the employees wore protective equipment to shield them from asbestos exposure. Mr. Burroughs said that as far as he understands, the asbestos found in the pipe is not the most hazardous kind and does not break into tiny pieces that can be easily inhaled. Mr. Burroughs denied accusations that employees were exposed to the asbestos because the town was trying to do demolition work on the cheap by having its own work crews remove the old filter systems instead of hiring professional contractors to do the work. Mr. Burroughs said Empire Building Diagnostics Inc. finished removing the asbestos concrete piping. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: T.H. Agriculture to Amend Notice of Removal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, S.D. Illinois, ordered T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition L.L.C. to file an amended notice of removal, in an asbestos-related case filed by Sylvia Pruitt. The case is styled Sylvia Pruitt, individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Chester Black, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Kelly Moore Paint Co., R.T. Vanderbilt Company Inc. and T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition L.L.C., Defendants. District Judge Murphy entered judgment of Civil Case No. 07-768- GPM on Nov. 13, 2007. This case is an action for wrongful death brought by Ms. Pruitt, under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act, in connection with Chester Black's death from mesothelioma allegedly as a result of employment-related exposure to asbestos. T.H. Agriculture has removed the case from the Circuit Court of the 3rd Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Ill., to the District Court in federal diversity jurisdiction. R.T. Vanderbilt Company Inc. has consented to the removal. Kelly Moore Paint Co., which, according to T.H. Agriculture's notice of removal, has not been served with summons in this case, has not consented to the removal. By order entered Nov. 13, 2007, the District Court directed T.H. Agriculture to file an amended notice of removal correcting various defects in its allegations regarding the citizenship of certain parties to this case for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction. Randy L. Gori, Goldenberg, Heller, et al., Edwardsville, Ill., represented Sylvia Pruitt. James Tomaska, John D. Wendler, Lathrop & Gage, St. Louis, represented Kelly Moore Paint Co., R.T. Vanderbilt Company Inc., and T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition L.L.C. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Summary Judgment Bids OK'd in Clemens Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex County, allowed Vermont Mutual Insurance Co. and ServiceMaster their motions for summary judgment, in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Richard Clemens. Final judgment shall be entered for each defendant. The case is styled Richard Clemens v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Co. et al. Justice Thayer Fremont-Smith entered judgment of Case No. 061632 on Nov. 13, 2007. After oral arguments and careful review of the record on summary judgment, the Superior Court found that that there was no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the powdery substance of which Mr. Clemens complained was asbestos. Mr. Clemens had not submitted an air quality report, or any other evidence of professional investigation. Thus, the only evidence that Mr. Clemens offered of asbestos in the basement besides that on the boiler and piping, was his own lay opinion. The Superior Court found it questionable as to whether Mr. Clemens had the technical qualification to make such a determination. Even if it were assumed that the powdery substance in the cellar was asbestos, there was nothing but surmise and conjecture upon which it could be concluded that the fans placed in the basement by ServiceMaster had spread any asbestos dust around the basement. Mr. Clemens did not dispute that he himself repositioned the fans in the basement several times, as he had been instructed by ServiceMaster. There was no expert testimony offered to indicate that any actions of ServiceMaster caused any diminution in the value of Mr. Clemens' real estate. Although the real estate was sold for less than the price at which it was originally listed, the buyer has provided an affidavit that he observed no asbestos which had been spread around the basement, and that his observation of asbestos on the premises was limited to that observed on the boiler and piping. Accordingly, there was no evidence (other than Mr. Clemens' own conjecture) that the alleged powdery substance in the cellar, other than that on the boiler and pipes, caused any diminution in value. With respect to Vermont Mutual's motion for summary judgment, Mr. Clemens did not dispute that he denied Vermont Mutual's request to re-inspect a boiler and cellar to determine the cause and effects of the boiler leak. By conditioning Vermont Mutual's re-inspection of the boiler on its prior removal of the asbestos, Mr. Clemens interfered with Vermont Mutual's investigation as to the cause of the boiler failure and any resultant damage. That interference constituted a breach of Mr. Clemens' obligation under the insurance contract to cooperate with Vermont Mutual, i.e. a material breach of contract. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Dismisses Preston Action to Favor BAE ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, N.D. California, granted BAE Systems San Francisco Ship Repair Inc.'s motion to dismiss an asbestos- related action filed by Kari Preston. The case was styled Kari Preston, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, et al., Defendant. District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered judgment on Case No. C 07-3861 PJH on Dec. 3, 2007. This was a maritime case, brought under the Jones Act, the Public Vessels Act, and the Suits in Admiralty Act, and general maritime law, and also alleging claims of unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure. Ms. Preston was employed as a member of the crew of the M/V Cape Mohican, which was owned by the United States of America, and managed on behalf of the U.S. Maritime Administration, by MARAD's ship manager, Ocean Duchess Inc. Ms. Preston filed this action on July 27, 2007, alleging that during the course of her employment aboard the vessel, from Aug. 3, 2006 through Nov. 11, 2006, while the vessel was berthed in Alameda, Calif., she was injured following her exposure to various hazardous substances. Ms. Preston also asserted a claim against BAE and 10 DOE defendants, which Ms. Preston alleged were engaged in removing asbestos from the vessel during the time it was berthed in Alameda, under a contract with the United States. Ms. Preston alleged that BAE did not perform its work in a workmanlike manner, and that she was a third-party beneficiary of the contract between the United States and BAE. On Oct. 22, 2007, the United States answered the complaint, and included cross-claims against BAE. On Nov. 5, 2007, BAE filed its motion to dismiss. The complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim. The dismissal is with leave to amend. Ronald H. Klein, Lyle C. Cavin, Jr., Law Offices of Lyle C. Cavin, Jr., Oakland, Calif., represented Kari Preston. Geoffrey David Owen, U.S. Department of Justice, San Francisco, Madeline L. Buty, Buty & Curliano LLP, Oakland, Calif., represented the United States of America and the other Defendants. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Ingram Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board's ruling, which was in favor of Ford Electronics & Refrigeration Corp., in an action involving asbestos filed by Mark A. Hicks, Sr. The case is styled Marie Ingram, deceased employee, and Mark A. Hicks, Sr., parent and natural guardian of minor dependent, claimant, Mark A. Hicks, Jr., Petitioners v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Ford Electronics & Refrigeration Corp. and Ford Electronics/Self-Insured), Respondents. Judge Rochelle S. Friedman, Judge Robert Simpson, and Senior Judge Joseph F. McCloskey entered judgment of Case Nos. 491 CD 2007, 492 CD 2007, 493 CD 2007 on Dec. 12, 2007. In 1989 and 1995, Marie Ingram sustained separate wrist/carpal tunnel injuries. In 1990, Ford Electronics issued a notice of compensation payable for an injury described as bilateral wrist pain. In 1995, Ford Electronics issued a separate NCP for an injury described as bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and left shoulder pain. Ms. Ingram's last day of work was May 16, 1995. Four months later, she filed a claim petition alleging she contracted an asbestos-related occupational disease. She claimed she contracted the disease as a result of exposure to hazardous fumes. In March 1998, Workers' Compensation Judge Scott M. Olin circulated a decision approving a compromise and release agreement (C&R) between Ms. Ingram and Ford Electronics that resolved liability for the accepted carpal tunnel injuries. The C&R stated Ms. Ingram had no widower, children or dependents. It also resolved Ms. Ingram's pending occupational disease claim. Under the C&R, Ford Electronics paid Ms. Ingram US$84,000. Neither party appealed Judge Olin's decision. More than 300 weeks after her last day of work, Ms. Ingram died from lung cancer on Oct. 31, 2001. Shortly before her death, she adopted Mark A. Hicks, Jr. as a grandson. Mark A Hicks, Sr. timely filed a fatal claim petition on Oct. 28, 2004, which the Bureau assigned to Workers' Compensation Judge Susan E. Kelley (Second WCJ). In response, Ford Electronics filed a motion to dismiss. Because no one established a compensable disability within 300 weeks of Ms. Ingram's last hazardous occupational exposure, and her death occurred more than 300 weeks after her last exposure, Judge Kelley granted Ford Electronics' motion to dismiss Mark A. Hicks, Sr.'s fatal claim petition. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board's ruling. James B. Mogul, Bala Cynwyd, Pa., represented decedent Marie Ingram, Marc A. Hicks, Sr., and Marc A. Hicks, Jr. Jane A. Lombard, Philadelphia, represented Ford Electronics and Refrigeration Corp. New Securities Fraud Cases WSB FINANCIAL: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in WA --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of its client and on behalf of other similarly situated purchasers of WSB Financial Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: WSFG) common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's December 13, 2006 Initial Public Offering from between November 3, 2005 and May 10, 2007, inclusive. WSB Financial is the holding company for Westsound Bank, a Bremerton, Washington based financial institution that serves the Puget Sound area. The complaint charges WSB Financial and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint also alleges that D.A. Davidson -- who acted as acted as "Lead Underwriter" of the IPO -- violated the Securities Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that, in connection with the IPO, defendants issued numerous materially false and misleading statements which caused WSB Financial's securities to trade at artificially inflated prices. As alleged in the complaint, the Company's registration statement for the IPO failed to disclose that the Company had been violating certain banking laws and regulations relating to the origination, administration and monitoring of construction and mortgage loans. Due to the Company's misleading statements, WSB Financial's stock hit an intra-day high of $21 per share during the Class Period. According to the complaint, beginning in September 2007, a series of announcements and investigations into the Company's lending practices caused WSB Financial's stock to plummet. For example, in late September, the Company announced that due to the reduced demand of mortgage loans, the Company was eliminating thirty-three jobs in its mortgage division. Moreover, the Company announced that its Executive Vice President of Sales and Lending at Westsound Bank had been terminated. The complaint alleges that as a result of these announcements, the Company's stock fell from $15.30 per share to $12.40 per share. Then, the Company announced that state and federal regulators were looking into possible fraud and misconduct in its real estate lending practices. Within two days of this announcement the Company's stock dropped nearly 60 percent, from $11.20 on October 24, 2007 to $4.73 on October 25, 2007. Interested parties may move the court no later than January 2, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Steven J. Toll, Esq. Scott Evans Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600 Email: stoll@cmht.com or sevans2@cmht.com ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent research, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* 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 * * *