/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080104.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, January 4, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 3 Headlines APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Consolidated Suit Over iTunes-iPod Tie-up BECTON DICKENSON: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Lawsuit in N.J. BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Face Healthcare Workers' Lawsuits BODISEN BIOTECH: N.Y. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Sued Over “Unauthorized” Cell Phone Billings CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Court Vacates Dismissal of “Graden” ERISA Case CREDIT COS: Face Suit in Cal. Over Debt Collection Practices DELPHI CORP: Deloitte Settles Securities Fraud Claims for $38M DIAMOND PET: Settles Tenn. Suit Over Tainted Pet Food for $3.1M EMBARQ CORP: Health Benefits Cuts Violate ERISA, Kan. Suit Says FLIGHT SAFETY: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 11 GORILLA INC: Recalls Body Safety Harnesses Due to Fall Hazard KEYSTONE FOOD: Faces Penna. Suit Over Mislabeled Low-Fat Snacks KYMCO USA: Recalls ATVs with Pivot Bolts that can Become Loose MARYLAND: Ex-officials Remain in Anne Arundel Impact Fees Suit NEW HAMPSHIRE: Settles Suit Over Medicaid Application Delays NEW YORK: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Albion Sexual Abuse Lawsuit NU HORIZONS: Vitesse Shareholders File Securities Suit in Cal. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Court Considers Appeals in “Wheeler” Cases PLEXUS CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Wisconsin RADIAN GROUP: Shareholder Opposing Merger Withdraws Complaint RADIAN GROUP: Faces Pa. Securities Fraud Suits Over C-BASS SASOL NORTH: Faces Suit Over EDC Pipeline Rupture at U.S. Dock SEARCH ENGINES: Sued in Cal. for Advertising Gambling Sites TALON INT'L: Appellate Brief Filed in Calif. Shareholder's Suit TYSON FOODS: Discovery Ongoing in Del. Shareholder Lawsuit TYSON FOODS: March Trial Set for "Trollinger" RICO Act Suit UNION PACIFIC: Texarkana Derailment Suit Denied Class Status UNITED RENTALS: Asks Cerberus for $100M Merger Termination Fee Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana's Future Liability Costs Not Disclosed ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Queensland Management Plan to Start in Jan. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Investigates Possible Breaches by Posen ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bldg. w/ Asbestos May Be Demolished in Jan. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Halts Demolition of Bldg. in Florida ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Linked to U.K. Const. Worker's Death ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Slows Demolition of S.C. Building ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of Hospital in Wales ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owners of Mass. Building to Pay for Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Forces Closure of Aussie Warehouse ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ind. Town Granted $25T for Asbestos Removal ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Rail Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Winona State to be Fined $24.5T for Breach ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Indian Workers Deal w/ Asbestos From Canada ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sentence Termination Motion in Kay Denied ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Court Flips Ruling to Favor Hartford ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Earls Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Court Favors Plaintiff in ConEd Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling in John Crane’s Favor ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Plaintiffs' Petition in Snyder Case Granted ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Flips Ruling in Slaughter Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADFU Calls for Cleanup in Australian Homes ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling in Ill. Cleanup Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KFSD, EPA Probe Kuwait Site Housing Bldgs. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alimta Drug Added to Aussie Benefits Scheme ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Balfour, Jordan Penalized for OSHA Breaches ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Drug to be Tested as Mesothelioma Treatment ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Exits Bankruptcy Protection ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bar Urges Court to Suspend Lawyer's License ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $110,000 Hazard Overcharges Found at School ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Locals Wary of Fire in Abandoned Club ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fire Destroys West Sussex Barns in New Year ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Bldg. with Hazard Destroyed by Fire ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACandS to Emerge From Bankruptcy Protection ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NHS Trust Deals w/ Hazard at Welsh Hospital ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flytippers Dump Hazard in U.K. Countryside ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tex. City to Decide on Best Western Removal ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Files Witness and Exhibit Lists ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Lawyer Says Reports Meet "Fit" Test ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in Weyerhaeuser Action New Securities Fraud Cases BASIN WATER: Schiffrin Barroway Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit SANOFI-AVENTIS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit ********* APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Consolidated Suit Over iTunes-iPod Tie-up --------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Computer, Inc. faces a consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that accuses it of illegally tying iTunes music and iPods sales. Charoensak Litigation Plaintiff filed the suit "Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc.," formerly “Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc.,” on Jan. 3, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music purchased on the iTunes Music Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2), California Business and Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act), California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), common law unjust enrichment and common law monopolization. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The company filed a motion to dismiss on Feb. 10, 2005. A hearing on the motion took place on June 6, 2005. On Sept. 9, 2005, the court denied the motion in part and granted it in part. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Sept. 23, 2005 and the company filed an answer on Oct. 11, 2005. On May 8, 2006, the court heard plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to substitute two new plaintiffs for "Slattery." In August 2006, the court dismissed Slattery without prejudice and allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming two new plaintiffs (Charoensak and Rosen). On Nov. 2, 2006, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Tucker Case Plaintiff filed the "Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc." case as a purported class action on July 21, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music and videos purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, California Business & Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (Cartwright Act), California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiff sought unspecified damages and other relief. On Nov. 3, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On Dec. 20, 2006, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. On Jan. 11, 2007, the Company filed an answer denying all material allegations and asserting numerous defenses. Consolidation of Cases On March 20, 2007, the Court consolidated the two cases. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 19, 2007. On June 6, 2007, the Company filed an answer to the consolidated complaint denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Black Litigation A related class action complaint, “Black v. Apple Inc.,” was filed on August 27, 2007 in the Circuit Court in Broward County, Florida, alleging that the Company is attempting to maintain a monopoly by precluding customers from using non-iTunes downloads on iPods and from using iTunes music on non-iPod MP3 players. Plaintiff alleges that the Company's alleged monopolization violates the Florida Antitrust Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The Company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Sept. 28, 2007, and filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California on Oct. 12, 2007. The Company's motion to transfer was granted on Oct. 17, 2007. The suit is "Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. 5:05- cv-00037-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge James Ware with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael David Braun, Esq. Braun Law Group, P.C. 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-442-7755 Fax: (310) 442-7756 E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com Roy A. Katriel, Esq. The Katriel Law Firm, P.L.L.C. 1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: 202-625-4342 E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com - and - John J. Stoia, Jr., Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: jstoia@lerachlaw.com Representing the company is: Caroline N. Mitchell, Esq. Jones Day, 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415 875 5712 Fax: 415 875 5700 E-mail: cnmitchell@jonesday.com BECTON DICKENSON: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Lawsuit in N.J. -------------------------------------------------------------- Becton, Dickinson and Co. faces a consolidated antitrust class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, according to the company's Nov. 21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007. Direct Purchaser's Litigation Becton, Dickinson is named as a defendant in five purported class actions brought on behalf of direct purchasers of BD’s products, such as distributors, alleging that Becton, Dickinson violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for BD’s products to the plaintiff and other purported class members. The cases filed are as follows: -- “Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc., et. al. vs. Becton Dickinson and Company” (Civil Action No. 05- 1602, U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on March 25, 2005; -- “SAJ Distributors, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton Dickinson & Co.” (Case 2:05-CV-04763-JD, United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on Sept. 6, 2005; -- “Dik Drug Company, et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and Company” (Case No. 2:05-CV-04465, U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on Sept. 12, 2005; -- “American Sales Company, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson & Co.” (Case No. 2:05-CV-05212-CRM, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on Oct. 3, 2005; and -- “Park Surgical Co. Inc. et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and Company” (Case 2:05-CV-05678-CMR, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on Oct. 26, 2005. The actions brought by Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company and Dik Drug Company in New Jersey have been consolidated under the caption “In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation.” Indirect Purchaser's Litigation Becton, Dickinson is also named as a defendant in four purported class actions brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of Becton, Dickinson’s products, alleging that Becton, Dickinson violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for Becton, Dickinson’s products to the plaintiff and other purported class members. The cases filed are as follows: -- “Jabo’s Pharmacy, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson & Company” (Case No. 2:05-CV-00162, U.S. District Court, Greenville, Tennessee) filed on June 7, 2005; -- “Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson and Company” (Case No. 2:06-CV-00174, U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on Jan. 17, 2006; -- “Medstar v. Becton Dickinson” (Case No. 06-CV-03258- JLL (RJH), U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on May 18, 2006; and -- “The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale v. Becton Dickinson and Company” (Case No. 07-CV-2544, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York), filed on March 28, 2007. A fifth purported class action on behalf of indirect purchasers, captioned “International Multiple Sclerosis Management Practice v. Becton Dickinson & Company, Case No. 2:07-cv-10602,” filed on April 5, 2007 in the U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey, was voluntarily withdrawn by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class actions seek monetary damages. All of the antitrust class actions have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District Litigation in federal court in New Jersey. Becton, Dickinson and Co. -- http://www.bd.com-- is a medical technology company engaged principally in the manufacture and sale of a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories, industry and the general public. BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Face Healthcare Workers' Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Becton, Dickinson and Co., along with another manufacturer and several medical product distributors, still faces three product liability lawsuits relating to healthcare workers who allegedly sustained accidental needlesticks, but have not become infected with any disease. Generally, these actions allege that healthcare workers have sustained needlesticks using hollow-bore needle devices manufactured by Becton, Dickinson and, as a result, require medical testing, counseling and/or treatment. In some cases, these actions additionally allege that the healthcare workers have sustained mental anguish. Plaintiffs seek money damages in all of these actions. Becton, Dickinson had previously been named as a defendant in eight similar suits relating to healthcare workers who allegedly sustained accidental needlesticks, each of which has either been dismissed with prejudice or voluntarily withdrawn. Regarding the three pending suits: (1) In Ohio, “Grant vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No. 98CVB075616, Franklin County Court),” on Sept. 21, 2006, the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of class certification. The matter has been remanded to the trial court for a determination of whether the class can be redefined. In Oklahoma and South Carolina, cases have been filed on behalf of an unspecified number of healthcare workers seeking class action certification under the laws of these states in state court in Oklahoma, under the caption, (2) “Palmer vs. Becton Dickinson et. al.” (Case No. CJ-98- 685, Sequoyah County District Court), filed on Oct. 27, 1998, and in state court in South Carolina, under the caption, (3) “Bales vs. Becton Dickinson et. al.” (Case No. 98-CP- 40-4343, Richland County Court of Common Pleas), filed on Nov. 25, 1998. Becton, Dickinson continues to oppose class action certification in these cases, including pursuing all appropriate rights of appeal, according to the company's Nov. 21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007. Becton, Dickinson and Co. -- http://www.bd.com-- is a medical technology company engaged principally in the manufacture and sale of a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories, industry and the general public. BODISEN BIOTECH: N.Y. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated securities fraud class actions filed against Bodisen Biotech, Inc.. In late 2006, various shareholders of the company filed eight purported class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its officers and directors, asserting claims under the federal securities laws. The complaints contain general and non-specific allegations about prior financial disclosures and the company's internal controls and a prior, now-terminated relationship with New York Global Group. The eight actions are: -- "Stephanie Tabor v. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-13220 (filed November 2006)," -- "Fraser Laschinger vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-13254 (filed November 2006)," -- "Anthony DeSantis vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-13454 (filed November 2006)," -- "Yuchen Zhou vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06- 13567 (filed November 2006)," -- "William E. Cowley vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-13739 (filed December 2006)," -- "Ronald Stubblefield vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-14449 (filed December 2006)," -- "Adam Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06- 15179 (filed December 2006)," and -- "Lawrence M. Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-15399 (filed December 2006)." The court has consolidated each of the actions into a single proceeding. The time for the Company to respond formally to these lawsuits has not come and thus, the Company has not done so. The complaints do not specify an amount of damages that plaintiffs seek. The suit is "Tabor v. Bodisen Biotech, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-13220-VM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Victor Marrero. Representing the plaintiffs is: Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, PA Phone: 1-866-767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com Representing the defendants is: Judd Burstein, Esq. Burstein & McPherson, L.L.P. 1790 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 974-2400 Fax: 212-974-2944 E-mail: jburstein@burlaw.com CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Sued Over “Unauthorized” Cell Phone Billings ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cellco Partnership and Mobile Messenger Americas, a "secondary aggregator," are facing a class action filed in the Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida accusing them of charging customers for services they do not want, never ordered, and did not authorize, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Lisa Gray brings this action pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220 seeking to stop defendants' unlawful practice of charging cellular phone customers for products and services the customer have not authorized, a practice which has resulted in defendants unlawfully collecting money from consumers statewide, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the following classes: (1) the "Carrier Class": a class consisting of all Verizon wireless telephone subscribers in Florida who suffered losses or damages as a result of Verizon billing for mobile content products and services not authorized by the subscriber; (2) the "Mobile Content Provider Class": a class consisting of all wireless telephone subscribers in Florida who suffered losses or damages as a result of incurring charges on their cellular telephone bills from or on behalf of Mobile Messenger not authorized by the subscriber. She wants the court to rule on: (a) whether Verizon's conduct is in breach of contract (b) whether Mobile Messenger has unjustly received money belonging to plaintiff and the Mobile Content Provider class and whether under principles of equity and good conscience, Mobile Messenger should not be permitted to retain it; and (c) whether Mobile Messenger tortiously interfered with contracts between plaintiff and the Mobile Content Provider class, on the one hand, and their wireless carriers, on the other hand, by causing them to be charged for products and services by their carrier that were unauthorized. Plaintiff prays for the following relief: -- certify this case as a class action on behalf of the classes and appoint Jennifer Baker class representative; -- declare that the actions of Verizon, constitute a breach of contract; -- enter judgment against Verizon for all economic, monetary, actual, consequential, and compensatory damages caused by its conduct, and if its conduct is proved willful, award plaintiff and the Carrier Class exemplary damages; -- declare that the actions of Mobile Messenger constitute unjust enrichment and tortious interference with a contract; -- enter judgment against Mobile Messenger for all economic, monetary, actual, consequential, and compensatory damages caused by defendants' conduct, and if its conduct is proved willful award plaintiff and the Mobile Content Provider Class exemplary damages; -- award plaintiff and the classes reasonable costs and attorneys' fees; -- award plaintiff and the classes pre- and post-judgment interest; -- enter judgment for injunctive, statutory and/or declaratory relief as is necessary to protect the interests of plaintiff and the classes; and -- award such other and further relief as equity and justice may require. The suit is "Lisa Gray et al. v. Cellco Partnership et al. Case No. 0736302," filed in the Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. Representing plaintiffs is: David P. Healy 2846-B Remington Green Cr. Tallahassee, FL 32308 Phone: (850) 222-5400 Fax: (850) 222-7339 CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Court Vacates Dismissal of “Graden” ERISA Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated an order dismissing a purported class action that alleges Conexant Systems, Inc. violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ERISA. On February 2005, the company and certain of its current and former officers and the company's Employee Benefits Plan Committee were named as defendants in the lawsuit. It was filed on behalf of all persons who were participants in the company's 401(k) Plan during a specified class period. The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, as amended, to the Plan and the participants in the Plan. The defendants believe these charges are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Aug. 11, 2005. On Oct. 12, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this case. The plaintiff responded to the motion to dismiss on Dec. 30, 2005, and the defendants' reply was filed on Feb. 17, 2006. On March 31, 2006, the judge dismissed this case and ordered it closed. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on April 17, 2006. The appellate argument was held on April 19, 2007. On July 31, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s order dismissing Graden’s complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 28, 2007. The suit is “Graden v. Conexant Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00695-SRC-TJB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Representing the plaintiffs is: Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq. Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLP 8 Kings Highway West Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 795-9002 E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com Representing the defendants is: Gregory B. Reilly, Esq. Lowenstein Sandler, PC 65 Livingston Ave. Roseland, NJ 07068-1791 Phone: (973) 597-2500 E-mail: greilly@lowenstein.com CREDIT COS: Face Suit in Cal. Over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ The nation's leading creditors are facing a class-action complaint filed Dec. 28 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit alleges that defendants created a "credit counseling" industry "to use third-party, ostensibly nonprofit organizations to facilitate their collections while concurrently attempting to shield the creditors from any direct liability for wrongs committed against consumers." Named defendants include: -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. -- Money Management International, Inc. -- Money Management By Mail, Inc. and -- Money Management International Financial Education Foundation Plaintiffs demand damages for money lost to defendants' "credit repair" and "debt management" services. They bring this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of two overlapping class that consists of: (1) all individuals nationwide who, like them, have paid fees to MMI for a debt management plan (DMP) since the MMI commenced doing business as an ostensibly non- profit organization (the MMI class); and/or (2) all individuals nationwide who had accounts with Chase, Bank One or any of their predecessors, which accounts were serviced under a DMP for which the individual paid initial or monthly fees to any of the DebtWorks, Inc., including AmeriDebt Inc. (DW CCAs), DebtWorks and/or MMI (the Chase class). They want the court to rule on: (a) whether Chase, the MMI defendants, DebtWorks and the the DW CCAs are "credit repair organizations" within the meaning of the Credit Repair Organizations Act; (b) whether more than an insubstantial part of MMI's activities are not in furtherance of an exempt purpose. More particularly: (i) does MMI operate for the substantial non-exempt purpose of conducting a commercial business? (ii) do MMI's operations inure to the private benefit of MMI executives and management? (iii) do the operations of MMI serve to further the private financial interests of Chase, Bank One, their predecessors and other creditors? (c) whether the operations of the DW CCAs inured to the private benefit of DebtWorks and/or Andris N. Pukke; (d) whether MMI and the DW CCAs were organizations described; (e) whether MMI's and the DW CCAs' public claims concerning their tax-exempt or non-profit statuses, and self- descriptions as "community service" organizations constitute unfair, misleading, deceptive and fraudulent statements in violation of 15 USC Section 1679b(a)(3) and (4) of CROA; (f) whether MMI's and the DW CCAs' assertions concerning their independence, their "negotiating" services, their interest in the individual consumer and in properly identifying his or her best interests and providing appropriate services, constitute false, deceptive and/or misleading representations of credit repair services; (g) whether MMI and the DW CCAs are or were the partners or agents of, or joint ventures with Chase, Bank One, their predecessors and other creditors in performing the "services" they perform; (h) whether MMI, Chase, Bank One and their predecessors or any of them are "persons" within the meaning of the CROA; (i) whose actions, practices or courses of business resulted in a fraud or an attempt to commit a fraud in connection with the sale of a credit repair organization's services; (ii) who made or used any untrue or misleading representation of the services of a credit repair organization's services so as to render them liable under the CROA; (j) whether any of the defendants were unjustly enriched; (k) whether defendant MMI violated fiduciary duties to its clients; (l) whether defendant MMI violated 15 USC Sections 1679c- 1679e; and (m) whether the MMI defendants violated California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs request judgment as follows: -- that the court order that MMI is not entitled to rely on, or otherwise assert its administrative grant of tax- exempt or non-profit status as defense to any claim in this action; -- judgment against defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of all fees paid by plaintiffs and by each class member at any time to MMI, DebtWorks and the DW CCAs; -- as punitive damages, an amount equal to at least 90% of all retained earnings in MMI, or such other amounts as the court may deem appropriate; -- accrued interest on plaintiffs' and class members' damages awarded at the legal rate from the date of the filing of the original complaint; -- reasonable attorney's fees and costs determined by the court; and -- all such other relief as the court may deem necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. The suit is "Janice J. Abat et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al., Case No. SACV07-1476AHS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Niall P. McCarthy Justin T. Berger Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 692-3606 David J. Vendler, Esq. Morris Polich & Purdy LLP 1055 W. Seventh Street, 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 891-9100 Fax: (213) 488-118 Gregory S. Duncan, Esq. Law Offices of Gregory R. Duncan 412 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: (434) 979-8556 Fax: (434) 979-9766 - and - Garrett M. Smith, Esq. Gary W. Kendall, Esq. Michie Hamlett Lowry Rasmussen & Tweel PLLC 500 Court Square, Suite 300 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: (434) 951-7200 Fax: (434) 951-7218 DELPHI CORP: Deloitte Settles Securities Fraud Claims for $38M -------------------------------------------------------------- An agreement in principle has been reached with Delphi Corp.'s former outside auditor, Deloitte & Touche LLP, to settle claims against the auditing firm for $38,250,000 in cash. The announcement of the agreement was made by the law firms of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, and Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP, who are court-appointed co-lead counsel for the Lead Plaintiffs in the securities class action litigation involving Delphi, the U.S. auto parts maker now in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The case arises out of alleged accounting improprieties at Delphi that forced the Company, on June 30, 2005, to restate its financial results for all fiscal periods dating back to 1999 and to reverse hundreds of millions of dollars in reported earnings during those periods. Lead Plaintiffs -- Teachers' Retirement System of Oklahoma, -- Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, -- Raiffeisen Kapitalanlage Gesellschaft m.b.H., and -- Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP were appointed by a federal court in June 2005 to represent a proposed class of investors who acquired Delphi securities between March 7, 2000 and March 3, 2005. The Complaint filed by those institutional Lead Plaintiffs asserted claims under the federal securities laws against Delphi, Deloitte, who was Delphi's outside auditor during the Class Period, certain officers and directors of Delphi, the banks that underwrote Delphi's offerings of securities, and certain other entities. Judge Gerald E. Rosen, the federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan before whom the case is pending, appointed a retired federal judge, Layn R. Phillips, to serve as a Special Master to conduct settlement discussions. Following an extensive mediation conducted by Judge Phillips, Deloitte and Lead Plaintiffs reached an agreement whereby Deloitte will pay to the Class $38,250,000 to settle all claims asserted against Deloitte in the action. The settlement is one of the larger settlements obtained from an accounting firm to settle claims of securities fraud. The settlement is conditioned on approval by Judge Rosen, who will pass on the settlement after the members of the Class are given appropriate notice of the settlement and an opportunity to be heard. This settlement follows an earlier settlement in the case, also arising out of a mediation conducted by Judge Phillips, whereby Lead Plaintiffs obtained a settlement potentially worth at least $284 million from Delphi and its insurance carriers and its former banks to resolve all claims against Delphi and certain other defendants. That settlement is contingent upon final approval by Judge Rosen as well as approval of Delphi's plan of reorganization in Delphi's Chapter 11 proceeding. For more information about this settlement, please contact co- lead counsel for Lead Plaintiffs: Stuart Grant, Esq. Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. 1201 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 622-7000 Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq. Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP 205 Linda Drive Daingerfield, Texas 75638 Phone: (903) 645-7333 John "Sean" P. Coffey, Esq. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 Phone: (212) 554-1400 Michael Yarnoff, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (610) 667-7706 Allan Ripp Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. Phone: 212-262-7477 E-mail: arippny@aol.com DIAMOND PET: Settles Tenn. Suit Over Tainted Pet Food for $3.1M --------------------------------------------------------------- Diamond Pet Foods, Inc. reached a settlement in a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee over the sale of dog food that led to the deaths of more than 100 dogs. A settlement fund, worth up to $3.1 million, will be established and pay consumers who purchased recalled Diamond Pet Food products, and compensate dog owners whose dogs were injured as a result of eating recalled Diamond Pet Food products. In December 2005, Diamond Pet Foods issued a recall on some of their dog food products. The lawsuit alleges that many consumers have not received a refund for the recalled food. Subsequently, the suit, "Bass v. Schell and Kampeter, Inc. et al.," was filed on Dec. 27, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 23, 2007). According to the complaint, the plaintiff, Nicole D. Bass, individually and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons, brings the lawsuit against the named defendants for offering for sale and selling dog food contaminated with a toxin, aflatoxin, for consumption by her pet. The suit accuses the companies of negligence. With regards to Diamond Pet, it also claims breach of warranties and unfair trade practices. Under the recent settlement, Diamond denies any wrongdoing and contends that they have not violated any laws. Diamond will create a settlement fund of up to $3.1 million to provide compensation for valid claims. Attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses will also be covered by the settlement as determined by the court. The complete settlement agreement, describes all the details of the settlement. People who reside in the following states and purchased recalled Diamond Brand or Country Value Brand Pet Food products in 2005, and did not return the food for a refund are included in this settlement: Alabama, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. The court has not made any decisions regarding the facts of the case, however, a settlement has been reached to resolve the issues and avoid costly time-consuming litigation. Deadline to file for objections is on February 26, 2008. Deadline to file for exclusions is on March 16, 2008. Deadline to file claims is on April 15, 2008. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee will hold a fairness hearing on March 26, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. The suit is "Bass v. Schell and Kampeter, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00586," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge Thomas A. Varlan with referral to Judge H. Bruce Guyton. Representing plaintiffs is: A. James Andrews A. James Andrews, Attorney at Law 905 Locust Street Knoxville, TN 37902 Phone: 865-660-3993 Fax: 865-523-4623 E-mail: andrewsesq@icx.net Representing defendants are: W. Kyle Carpenter Woolf, McClane, Bright, Allen & Carpenter P.O. Box 900 Knoxville, TN 37901-0900 Phone: 865-215-1000 Fax: 865-215-1001 E-mail: kylew@wmbac.com R. Brad Morgan Lewis, King, Krieg, Waldrop & Catron P.C. (Knox) P O Box 2425 Knoxville, TN 37901-2425 Phone: (865) 546-4646 Fax: (865) 523-6529 E-mail: bmorgan@lewisking.com - and - William A. Young O'Neil, Parker & Williamson P.O. Box 217 Knoxville, TN 37901-0217 Phone: 865-546-7190 Fax: 865-546-0789 E-mail: byoung@opw.com EMBARQ CORP: Health Benefits Cuts Violate ERISA, Kan. Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Embarq Corp. is facing a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas accusing it of illegally terminating health-care benefits, including medical and prescription drug coverage and life insurance, for all Medicare-eligible employees, the CourtHouse News Service reports. The complaint alleges Embarq then immediately told its shareholders that the terminations would save the company $40 million a year. This is an action for declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief, as well as damages and other monetary relief, to redress the deprivation of rights secured to plaintiffs and the members of the class and sub-class by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et. seq. Plaintiffs are retired employees of various national, regional and local telecommunications operating and supply companies, which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Embarq. They seek relief for the following unlawful actions of defendants: (1) the elimination of company-sponsored and company-paid medical and prescription drug coverage and coverage subsidies provided to Medicare-eligible retirees and their Medicare-eligible dependents; and (2) the elimination of company-sponsored and company-paid life insurance coverage provided to retirees and their dependents, including such coverage provided to retirees of Carolina Telephone and Telegraph Company who are participants in the Carolina Telephone and Telegraph Company Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association Plan (VEBA), also known as the Sickness Death Benefit Plan. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons, including all plan participants and all eligible spouse and dependent plan beneficiaries, whose rights to medical, prescription drug, and/or life insurance benefits or premium subsidies have been adversely affected by the terminations, reductions and changes in retiree benefits which were announced by Embarq on July 26, 2007. They want the court to rule on: (a) whether the members of the class have been or will be unlawfully excluded from and deprived of their rights under defendants' ERISA benefit plans and whether defendants breached the terms of these plans and breached their strict ERISA fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and the members of the class; (b) whether defendants violated ERISA by cutting off Grand-fathered Life Insurance benefits to the members of the class who have a right to participate in the VEBA; and (c) whether plaintiffs and the members of the class are entitled to the relief prayed for. Plaintiffs pray the court grant the following relief: -- declare that the actions of defendants are in violations of ERISA and issue a preliminary and permanent injunction reinstating and restoring to plaintiffs and the members of the class the subject, medical, prescription drug and life insurance benefits and compelling defendants to provide these benefits to them for the remainder of their lifetimes; -- order equitable reformation of the plans described in the lawsuit to reinstate these benefits and provide that these benefits shall not be reduced below the levels provided to plaintiffs and the members of the class on July 25, 2007; -- order an accounting of all profits and savings realized by the fiduciary defendants and attributable either to their misrepresentation or omission of material information about the benefits, or to their elimination of retiree medical, prescription drug, and life insurance benefits, or to their inducement of plaintiffs and the members of the class to retire early, including all such profits and savings relating to salary, compensations, pension benefits, fringe benefits, and all other payroll and overhead costs that were avoided by the fiduciary defendants as a result of inducing them to retire early; -- order a surcharge on the fiduciary defendants, and grant restitution and other monetary relief, to make plaintiffs and the members of the class whole for all losses caused by the unlawful actions of the fiduciary defendants, including payment of all medical benefits, prescription drug benefits and subsidies, and life insurance benefits, including death benefits, that have been improperly withheld from plaintiffs and the members of the class as of the time of judgment; -- declare that plaintiffs and the members of the class are vested in the retiree medical and prescription drug benefits provided by defendants at the time of their retirements, or that these benefits cannot otherwise be reduced or terminated; -- declare that plaintiffs and the members of the class are vested life insurance benefits provided by defendants at the time of their retirements, or that theses benefits cannot otherwise be reduced or terminated; -- declare that plaintiffs and the members of the class are entitled to receive in the future retiree medical benefits, prescription drug benefits and subsidies, and life insurance benefits, unreduced from those promised to them at the time of their retirements; -- award reasonable attorney's fees, expenses and costs pursuant to 29 USC Section 1132(g); -- award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and -- grant such other relief as the court deems equitable and just. The company is a telecom created in 2006 as a spinoff of Sprint- Nextel's local carriers. The suit is "William Douglas Fulghum et al. v. Embarq Corp. et al., Case No. 07-CV-2602 KHV/JPO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. Representing plaintiffs are: Diane A. Nygaard Jason M. Kueser The Nygaard Law Firm 4501 College Boulevard, Suite 260 Leawood, Kansas 66211 Phone: (913) 469-5544 Fax: (913) 469-1561 E-mail: diane@nygaardlaw.com or jason@nygaardlaw.com Alan M. Sandals Scott M. Lempert Sandals & Associates, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 1850 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 825-4000 Fax: (215) 825-4001 E-mail: asandals@sandalslaw.com Stewart W. Fisher Glenn, Mills & Fisher, P.A. Post Office Drawer 3865 Durham, NC 27702 Phone: (919) 683-2135 Fax: (919) 688-9339 E-mail: sfisher@gmf-law.com - and - Richard T. Seymour Law Office of Richard T. Seymour, PLLC 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 862-4320 Fax:(800) 805-1065 E-mail: rick@rickseymourlaw.net FLIGHT SAFETY: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has set a hearing on April 15, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. for a $1.2 million settlement of the class action "In Re: Flight Safety Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-01175." The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock, warrants or units of Flight safety during the period from Jan. 14, 2003 through and including but not limited to stock and warrants of Flight Safety as a unit at $6.00 per unit in Flight Safety's February 2, 2004 public offering, and were damaged thereby. Deadline to file for objections and exclusions is on February 18, 2008. Deadline to file claim is on March 21, 2008. Case Background The suit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased company securities during the period between Jan. 14, 2003 and July 16, 2004. The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and state common laws by making a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the SOCRATES Wake Vortex Detector. On Oct. 19, 2005, the court entered the order signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On December 23, 2005, a consolidated amended complaint was filed. In Nov. 2007, Flight Safety reached a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 19, 2007). Under the terms of the agreement in principle, all claims against all of the defendants will be dismissed without presumption or admission of liability or wrongdoing. A one time settlement payment of $1.2 million will be made to the plaintiff class by or on behalf of the defendants. Under the settlement, the company has agreed to contribute $135,000 of the $1.2 million settlement. The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including negotiation and execution of appropriate settlement documents between the parties, preliminary and final court approval and other factors. The reference complaint is "In Re: Flight Safety Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-01175," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Christopher F. Droney. Plaintiff firms named in complaint: Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr. New York, NY, 10016 Phone: 212-682-1818 Fax: 212-682-1892 E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com 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 - and - Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY, 10016 Phone: 212-545-4600 Fax: 212-686-0114 E-mail: newyork@whafh.com For more information, contact: Flight Safety Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 Media, PA 19063 Tel: (866) 274-4004 Website: http://www.strategicclaims.net GORILLA INC: Recalls Body Safety Harnesses Due to Fall Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- Gorilla Inc., of Flushing, Mich., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 60,000 Full Body Safety Harnesses. The company said the harnesses could fail during use, resulting in a hunter falling from the tree stand and suffering serious injuries or death. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves the Pullover Style Full Body Safety Harnesses model SP40300 that were included as an accessory with Gorilla 2007 ladder stands. The harnesses bear batch code numbers 020507, 030507 and 040507. The model and batch code number is printed on the label affixed to the harness. These recalled full body harnesses were manufactured in China and are being sold at Sporting goods retailers nationwide from April 2007 through October 2007 for between $80 and $300. Picture of recalled full body harnesses: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08139.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled safety harness immediately and contact Gorilla for a free replacement harness. For additional information, contact Gorilla at (877) 685-7817 between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the company's Web site: http://www.gorillatreestands.com. KEYSTONE FOOD: Faces Penna. Suit Over Mislabeled Low-Fat Snacks --------------------------------------------------------------- Keystone Food Products and Robert's American Gourmet Foods are facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging it deceptively mislabeled their "Pirate's Booty" and "Veggie Booty" as "low fat" snacks. The snacks were labeled as containing 2.5 grams of fat and 120 calories per serving, though they actually contain 8.5 grams of fat and 127 calories. Named plaintiff Rachelle Levy brings this action under Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and the Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on behalf of all residents and domiciliaries of the United States who purchased defendant's Pirates Booty and/or Veggie Booty snacks food during such time that it was mislabeled as containing 2.5 grams of fat when in fact it contained more fat. She wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants misrepresented the nutrition facts on the products and otherwise mislabled them so as to have the consumer believe that the products were low- fat and healthy snack foods; (b) whether defendant Keystone knowingly, negligently and/or recklessly manufactured said products in a manner such that the products did not conform to RAGF formulas and labeling; (c) whether the actions and activities of defendants violated the misbranding provisions of the Pennsylvania Food Act, Act 1994-70 codified at 31 PS Section 20.1 et seq.; (d) whether the actions and activities of defendants violated the Consumer Protection Law, 73 PS Section 201-1 et seq.; (e) whether defendants knew or should have known that the labeling was false when issued; (f) whether RAGF breached its warranties to consumers concerning the product; and (g) whether defendants were unjustly enriched by the sale and distribution of the misbranded or mislabeled product to consumers. Plaintiff prays for the following relief: -- an order certifying the purposed class and appointing plaintiff and her counsel of record to represent the class; -- compensatory, statutory and punitive damages as permitted by law; -- treble damages and/or enhanced damages pursuant to the applicable Consumer Protection laws; -- reasonable attorneys fees, costs, pre and post judgment interests, expert witness fees and expenses; and -- any and all such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Rachelle Levy et al. v. Keystone Food Products, Inc. et al.," filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Representing plaintiffs are: Steven E. Angstreich Michael Coren Carolyn L. Lindheim Amy R. Brandt Levy, Angstreich, Finney, Baldante, Rubenstein & Coren, PC 1616 Walnut Street, 5th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 735-1616 KYMCO USA: Recalls ATVs with Pivot Bolts that can Become Loose -------------------------------------------------------------- KYMCO USA, of Spartanburg, S.C., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,350 006-2008 Model Year MXU 500 All Terrain Vehicles. The company said the pivot bolts holding the rear suspension onto the frame can become loose, causing the rear swing arm to detach from the chassis posing a risk of injury or death to the operator. KYMCO has received six reports of incidents, including two reports of minor injuries. This recall involves all model year 2006-2008 MXU 500 ATVs. The vehicle is identified by a label on the front as KYMCO and the model is determined by a label located on each side of the fuel tank as MXU 500. These recalled ATVs were manufactured in Taiwan and are being sold by KYMCO dealers nationwide from November 2006 through December 2007 for between $6,000 and $6,500. Picture of recalled ATVs: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08532.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled ATVs and contact an authorized KYMCO dealer in their area to schedule a free repair. Registered owners were sent direct mail notification of this recall. For additional information, consumers can contact KYMCO USA at (888) 235-3417 anytime or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.kymcousa.com. MARYLAND: Ex-officials Remain in Anne Arundel Impact Fees Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Paul F. Harris Jr. denied a request by the county Ethics Commission to oust two former county officials from a class action over impact fees, The Baltimore Sun reports. Judge Harris ruled that former County Attorney Phillip F. Scheibe and Robert J. Dvorak, a former top administrator with the county can stay in the suit without sanctions. Mr. Dvorak served as planning and zoning chief, among other administrative jobs in the county. Mr. Dvorak used to work on the department that was involved in the impact fee program. Mr. Scheibe, who oversaw the law office of the government, sued the county in 2001 on behalf of homebuyers in Seven Oaks (Odenton) community. The class action claimed the county should refund as much as $27 million to property owners because it misspent impact fees collected or improperly gave itself an extension on the time limit by which the county should return money left unspent for roads and other improvements. Mr. Dvorak, together with Mr. Scheibe’s law partner, John R. Greiber Jr., won a $4.7 million judgment in the case. The Ethics Commission ruled in 2006 that Messrs. Scheibe and Dvorak had used inside knowledge of the impact fee program in the suit. In the latest ruling, Judge Harris also refused a motion to levy fines against Messrs. Scheibe and Dvorak of up to $1,000 a day since the start of the case in 2001 and to withhold attorney fees from Mr. Scheibe and witness fees from Mr. Dvorak. Judge Harris rejected the motions in part on grounds that the panel waited years after the lawsuit against the county was brought in 2001 to claim a conflict of interest. NEW HAMPSHIRE: Settles Suit Over Medicaid Application Delays ------------------------------------------------------------ Three New Hampshire residents have settled a class action against the Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The settlement requires DHHS to make timely disability decisions about Medicaid eligibility. New Hampshire Legal Assistance (NHLA) and the Disabilities Rights Center brought suit on behalf of individuals who were going without needed medical benefits due to the long delays in DHHS’s determination process. The residents sued DHHS in Federal District Court in February 2007. NHLA said that under federal law, DHHS is supposed to make decisions about a person’s Medicaid eligibility within 90 days unless there are unusual circumstances. However, it would often take over a year to make a decision about these vital benefits. Individuals may go without medical treatment or prescription medications during this time, or use money needed for basic necessities such as housing, food, or utilities. The three Plaintiffs waited, respectively, over 273 days, 188 days, and 170 days to hear whether they qualified for benefits. After the lawsuit was filed, DHHS acknowledged that it had not complied with federal law and asked the Court to grant judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. The parties filed a proposed joint final order with the Court on November 5. On December 21, 2007, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed order which requires DHHS to notify disabled Medicaid applicants about the proposed settlement. If approved by the Court, the order would give DHHS 180 days to start making disability decisions within 90 days or to explain what unusual circumstances prevented a timely determination. DHHS would report back about its progress and share monitoring information with lawyers for the Plaintiffs who brought the case. DHHS would notify Medicaid disability applicants about their right to an administrative fair hearing whenever decisions take longer than 90 days. “This outcome is a victory for all disabled New Hampshire residents who need help,” says Ben Mortell, lead counsel for the Plaintiffs. “I’m very pleased we were able to settle this case quickly so that DHHS can move forward on resolving the delays and quickly grant benefits to people in desperate need. The class action settlement also allows us to make sure that the delay problem is really fixed.” New Hampshire Legal Assistance (NHLA) and the Disabilities Rights Center (DRC) represented the three NH residents who filed this case. NHLA is a statewide non-profit law firm which provides civil legal services to low-income and elderly residents of New Hampshire. DRC is a statewide non-profit law firm which provides civil legal services to disabled residents of New Hampshire. NEW YORK: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Albion Sexual Abuse Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy dismissed a class action filed against the New York state Department of Correctional Services over alleged sexual abuses of prisoners at Albion Correctional Facility and other allwomen prisons, Buffalo News reports. The suit was filed by the Legal Aid Society Prisoners Rights Project based in New York city in 2003. The suit claimed the department failed to do enough to prevent corrections officers from rape, sexual molestation and voyeurism aimed at female prisoners in the state system. It asked the state for added protection of female prisoners from male corrections officers. The lawsuit alleged sexual abuse by 15 corrections officers, including six who work or have worked at Albion. According to the lawsuit, the state receives about 200 complaints a year of sexual misconduct, and the large majority of those complaints do not result in criminal prosecutions. Judge Duffy did not rule on whether women prisoners have been subjected to widespread mistreatment. He only ruled that the women involved in the lawsuit did not make exhaustive use of the prison system's grievance system before taking their complaint to federal court. The organization's lawyers have asked Judge Duffy to reconsider his recent ruling dismissing the lawsuit, according to the report. Buffalo attorney Joseph M. La- Tona represents veteran Albion facility corrections officer Charles Davis who was accused of sexual abuse in the lawsuit. For more information, contact: Joseph M. La Tona, Esq. (716) 842-0416 403 Main St Ste 716 Buffalo, N.Y. NU HORIZONS: Vitesse Shareholders File Securities Suit in Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- Nu Horizons Electronic Corp. faces a purported securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On or about Oct. 4, 2007, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Securities Fraud was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of California in the matter filed by Louis Grasso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against: -- Vitesse Semiconductor Corp., -- Louis Tomasetta, -- Yatin Mody, -- Eugene F. Hovanec, -- Silicon Valley Bank, -- Nu Horizons Electronics Corp., -- Titan Supply Chain Services, Corp. (formerly Known as Titan Logistics Corp.), and -- KPMG LLP Pursuant to the Amended Complaint, Nu Horizons, Titan, Silicon Valley Bank, and KPMG LLP were added as defendants to the putative class action which had been commenced by certain purchasers of Vitesse common stock. In the Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges that Nu Horizons and Titan violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks rescission or unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class which purchased Vitesse common stock during the period from Jan. 27, 2003 to and including April 27, 2006. As of Nov. 21, 2007, a class has not been certified. Nu Horizons Electronic Corp. -- http://www.nuhorizons.com/-- is engaged in the distribution of, and supply chain services for, high technology active and passive electronic components. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Court Considers Appeals in “Wheeler” Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal in two versions of similarly titled class actions, “Cody Wheeler, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., et al.” Original Wheeler Litigation On July 1, 2002, three individuals, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of chicken growers, filed their original class action complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, styled "Cody Wheeler, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp." In their lawsuit, plaintiffs initially alleged that the Company violated the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. Section 192) and breached fiduciary duties allegedly owed to the plaintiff growers. The plaintiffs also brought individual actions under the Packers and Stockyards Act alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties and breach of contract. On Sept. 30, 2005, plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to join Tyson Foods, Inc. as a co-defendant. Two additional former chicken growers were also added as plaintiffs to the lawsuit. This amendment, which occurred 38 months after the lawsuit's initial filing, virtually re-wrote most of the allegations. Now the plaintiffs contend that the Company and Tyson are involved in a conspiracy to violate federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs' initial allegations, although still contained in the amended lawsuit, are no longer the sole focus of the case. On Jan. 3, 2006, the Court entered an Order severing the plaintiffs' Packers and Stockyards Act and antitrust claims. The Court ordered that the plaintiffs may proceed with their Packers and Stockyards Act claims as set forth in Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. The Court also ordered that the plaintiffs may proceed with their respective antitrust claims asserted against the Company and Tyson in a separate cause of action styled "Cody Wheeler, et al. vs. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., et al." On March 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification in the original lawsuit. Pilgrim's Pride attacked the plaintiffs' class certification brief on several grounds, and ultimately the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their Motion for Class Certification on May 26, 2006. As a result, the Court canceled the class certification hearing and on June 2, 2006 the Court entered an Order withdrawing Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and prohibiting the plaintiffs from filing any additional class-action claims against Pilgrim's Pride in this lawsuit. Additionally, the two former growers who joined the lawsuit on Sept. 30, 2005 withdrew from the case. On March 30, 2007, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s pending motion for summary judgment. In the order, the Court ruled that plaintiffs do not have to demonstrate an adverse effect on competition in order to prevail under the PSA. This ruling is inconsistent with many other jurisdictions’ interpretation of the PSA. The Court issued an order staying the lawsuit until the issue is decided by the U.S. Court for Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On June 29, 2007, the Fifth Circuit accepted the appeal. The matter is currently being briefed by the parties. New Wheeler Litigation On Jan. 3, 2006, an action styled, "Cody Wheeler, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., et al.," arising out of the original Wheeler litigation described above, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit was filed by the three original plaintiffs and a former grower, both in their individual capacities and on behalf of a putative class of chicken growers. In the lawsuit, the four plaintiffs allege that the Company and Tyson are involved in a conspiracy to violate federal antitrust laws. On Sept. 28, 2007, the court issued an order denying plaintiffs’ request to certify a class action. Plaintiffs filed the Petition for Permission to Appeal the District Court’s Order on Oct. 15, 2007 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. -- http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- is a producer of poultry in the U.S., Mexico and Puerto Rico. In the U.S., the Company produces prepared and fresh chicken, and turkey while in Mexico and Puerto Rico, it produces only fresh chicken. Through vertical integration, it controls the breeding, hatching and growing of chickens, and the processing and preparation, packaging and sale of its product lines. PLEXUS CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Wisconsin --------------------------------------------------------- Plexus Corp. and company officers and/or directors face two purported class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, according to the company's Nov. 21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 29, 2007. Two securities class actions were filed against the company, and several of the company's current or former officers and/or directors during June 2007. The lawsuits allege securities law violations and seek unspecified damages relating to our July 26, 2006 announcement of the company's fiscal fourth quarter earnings outlook and that its manufacturing facility in Maldon, England would be closed. One of the suits is “Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees Pension Trust, et al. v. Plexus Corp., et al.,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Representing the plaintiffs is: Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP 3620 East Layton Ave. Cudahy, WI 53110 Phone: 866-264-3995 Fax: 414-482-8001 E-mail: inquiry@ademilaw.com - and - Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY, 11747 Phone: 631.367.7100 Fax: 631.367.1173 RADIAN GROUP: Shareholder Opposing Merger Withdraws Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in a purported class action filed against Radian Group, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County has withdrawn her complaint against a planned merger of the company with MGIC Investment Corp. after the transaction was terminated. On Feb. 8, 2007, a purported stockholder filed a class action related to the company’s pending merger with MGIC Investment Corp. was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Trial Division in the State of Pennsylvania by Catherine Rubery against Radian and its directors. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the merger consideration to be received by Radian stockholders was inadequate and that the individual defendants, among other things, breached their duties of care, loyalty, good faith and independence to the stockholders in connection with the merger. The complaint seeks class action status as well as injunctive, declaratory and other equitable relief. On March 19, 2007, defendants removed the suit to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and on March 26, 2007, defendants moved to dismiss the suit, or, in the alternative, for a briefing schedule in connection with any potential motion by the plaintiff to remand the suit to the Court of Common Pleas. On April 18, 2007, plaintiff moved to remand the suit to the Court of Common Pleas, which motion defendants opposed. On May 31, 2007, the motion to remand was granted, and the case is now back in the Court of Common Pleas, where the parties are preparing initial pleadings. On Sept. 4, 2007, the company, and MGIC agreed to mutually terminate its pending merger. The plaintiff in this matter withdrew her complaint on Sept. 20, 2007. The suit is “Rubery v. Radian Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07- cv-01068-PD,” originally pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Paul S. Diamond. Representing the plaintiffs is: Debra S. Goodman, Esq. The Weiser Law Firm 121 N. Wayne Avenue Wayne, PA 19087 Phone: 610-225-0273 Fax: 610-225-2678 E-mail: dsg@weiserlawfirm.com Representing the defendants is: Joel Mchugh, Esq. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP 1600 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7286 Phone: 215-751-2437 Fax: 215-751-2205 E-mail: jmchugh@schnader.com RADIAN GROUP: Faces Pa. Securities Fraud Suits Over C-BASS ---------------------------------------------------------- Radian Group, Inc. faces two purported securities fraud class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In August and September 2007, two purported stockholder class actions were filed against Radian Group and individual defendants. The suits are: -- “Cortese v. Radian Group Inc.,” and -- “Maslar v. Radian Group Inc.” The complaints, which are substantially similar, allege that Radian Group was aware of and failed to disclose the actual financial condition of C-BASS prior to Radian Group’s declaration of a material impairment to its investment in C- BASS. Two motions have been filed seeking appointment as lead Plaintiff, the first on behalf of the Institutional Investors Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund and the City of Ann Arbor Employees’ Retirement System and the second on behalf of the Tulare County Employees Retirement Association. The suit is “John Cortese, et al. v. Radian Group Inc., et al.,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Representing the plaintiffs are: 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 Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY, 11747 Phone: 631.367.7100 Fax: 631.367.1173 - and - Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA, 19087 Phone: 610.667.7706 Fax: 610.667.7056 E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com SASOL NORTH: Faces Suit Over EDC Pipeline Rupture at U.S. Dock -------------------------------------------------------------- Sasol North America, Inc., which is part of South African diversified chemical giant Sasol Ltd.'s Olefins and Surfactants unit, faces a purported class action as a result of a 1994 rupture of the ConocoPhillips ethylene dichloride (EDC) pipeline connecting their dock to Sasol's vinyl chloride monomer plant in the U.S. Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages as a result of alleged exposure to EDC. As of June 30, 2007 there is a class action and 29 lawsuits pending, brought by over 800 plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege various personal injuries resulting from exposure to EDC while the plaintiffs were employed as contractors of ConocoPhillips to clean up the EDC or to perform other projects on the ConocoPhillips refinery where the rupture occurred. The plaintiffs seek recovery of unspecified compensating and punitive damages. Sasol Ltd. -- http://www.sasol.com-- is an integrated oil and gas company with substantial chemical interests. Based in South Africa and operating worldwide, Sasol is listed on the NYSE and JSE stock exchanges. The company is a provider of liquid fuels in South Africa and a major international producer of chemicals. SEARCH ENGINES: Sued in Cal. for Advertising Gambling Sites ----------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court against Google and Yahoo! and several other popular websites. The class action relates to the search engines running adverts from online gambling sites, which HBSS claims made them hundreds of millions of dollars while violating California law. The case is to be heard on February 11 and will test the liability of these companies in California as HBSS is to ask the Court to further restrict their ability to advertise in the future. “We believe these companies have been profiting from this illegal practice for more than a decade and we believe the agreement with the Government does not go far enough,” said Reed Kathrein, Lead Attorney for HHBS. “The settlements are a great victory and a tacit admission by these online advertisers but there is still more work to do in holding these companies accountable for the harm they have done to Californians and to keep them and others from continuing these practices. “Given the amounts the huge profits we believe they made, we believe these relatively small forfeiture penalties will not deter them or others in the future.” Mr. Kathrein stated that the lawsuit calls for the websites to pay relief and acknowledge that the practice of advertising online casinos in the state is illegal. The complaint also calls for disgorgement of profits earned from online advertisers, a figure that could exceed hundreds of millions of dollars and benefit education and rehabilitation efforts aimed at gambling addiction. This latest lawsuit follows late-December’s $31.5 million settlement with the Federal Government by Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft over claimed online gambling advertising infringements. TALON INT'L: Appellate Brief Filed in Calif. Shareholder's Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in a purported shareholder class action filed against Talon International Inc, formerly Tag-It Pacific, Inc., has filed his opening appellate brief in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California with regards to a summary judgment favoring the company. On Oct. 12, 2005, a shareholder class action complaint, "Huberman v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No. CV05-7352," was filed against the company and certain of the company's current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities during the period from Nov. 14, 2003 to Aug. 12, 2005. On Jan. 23, 2006, the court heard competing motions for appointment of lead plaintiff/counsel and appointed Seth Huberman as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff thereafter filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2006. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the company's financial situation and its relationship with certain of its large customers during a purported class period between Nov. 13, 2003 and Aug. 12, 2005. It purports to state claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was denied by the court on July 17, 2006. On Dec. 21, 2006, the Court established a trial date of May 1, 2007 and ordered completion of discovery by March 19, 2007. On Feb. 20, 2007, the Court denied class certification. Plaintiff has moved the court to reconsider the ruling, and also to intervene a new plaintiff to pursue class certification. Both of those motions were denied on April 2, 2007. In addition, the same day the Court granted the company’s and the other defendants' motion for summary judgment, and on or about April 5, 2007, the Court entered judgment in favor of all defendants. On or about April 30, 2007, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and his opening appellate brief was filed on Oct. 15, 2007. The suit is “Seth Huberman, et al. v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-7352,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Manuel L. Real with referral to Judge Charles F. Eick. Representing the plaintiffs are: Patricia I. Avery, Esq. Wolf Popper 845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-759-4600 Peter A. Binkow, Esq. Glancy Binkow and Goldberg 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com - and - Jules Brody, Esq. Stull Stull & Brody 6 E. 45th St., 4th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-687-7230 Representing the defendants is: Panteha Abdollahi, Esq. Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker 695 Town Center Drive, 17th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714-668-6200 E-mail: pantehaabdollahi@paulhastings.com TYSON FOODS: Discovery Ongoing in Del. Shareholder Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated shareholders’ complaint filed against Tyson Foods, Inc. in the Delaware Chancery Court, according to the company's Nov. 21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 29, 2007. On Jan. 12, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated two previously filed lawsuits, "Amalgamated Bank v. Tyson" and "Meyer v. Tyson," and captioned the consolidated action "In re Tyson Foods, Inc. Consolidated Shareholder's Litigation." The consolidated complaint names as defendants the Tyson Limited Partnership and certain present and former directors of the company. The company is also named as a nominal defendant, with no relief sought against it. The lawsuit contains five derivative claims alleging the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by: -- approving consulting contracts for Don Tyson and Robert Peterson in 2001 and for Don Tyson in 2004 (Count I); -- approving and inadequately disclosing certain "other compensation" paid to Tyson executives from 2001 to 2003 (Count II); -- approving certain option grants to certain officers and directors with alleged knowledge the company was about to make announcements that would cause the stock price to increase (Count III); -- approving and not adequately disclosing various related- party transactions from 2001 to 2004 that plaintiffs allege were unfair to the company (Count IV); and -- making inadequate disclosures that resulted in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission consent decree (Count V). The consolidated complaint asserts three additional derivative claims for: -- breach of the 1997 settlement agreement in "Herbets v. Tyson, et al., No. 14231 (Del. Ch.)" (Count VI); -- civil contempt of the court's order and final judgment in "Herbets v. Tyson" (Count VII); and -- unjust enrichment regarding the benefits obtained by the defendants through the various transactions challenged in the consolidated complaint (Count IX). The consolidated complaint also makes a putative class action claim that the company's 2004 proxy statement contained misrepresentations regarding certain executive compensation (Count VIII). On March 2, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs' filed a response on May 8, 2006, and defendants filed a reply brief on June 9, 2006. On Feb. 6, 2007, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion, including dismissing in whole the claims pertaining to the consulting contracts, contempt of the court’s final order in “Herbets v. Tyson, et al.,” and the putative class action claim, and dismissing in part certain of plaintiffs' claims regarding the approval and disclosure of executive compensation and the related-party transactions, but declining to dismiss the remaining claims. On May 16, 2007 the outside director defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding the count dealing with option grants. The court denied the outside directors motion on Aug. 15, 2007. Discovery in the case is ongoing. Tyson Foods, Inc. -- http://www.tyson.com/-- produces, distributes and markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods and related allied products. TYSON FOODS: March Trial Set for "Trollinger" RICO Act Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- A March 3, 2008 trial is set in the class action, "Trollinger v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. 4:02-cv-23," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. On April 2, 2002, four former employees of the company's Shelbyville, Tennessee chicken-processing plant filed the case. It was filed as a putative class action against the company, raising allegations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act. It specifically alleged that the company, in conjunction with employment agencies and recruiters, engaged in a scheme to hire illegal immigrant workers in 15 of its processing plants to depress wages paid to hourly wage employees at those plants. On July 16, 2002, the court dismissed the case. Following appeal, on June 3, 2004 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Discovery has been ongoing since September 2004. In June 2005, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint included different plaintiffs, narrowed the list of plants at issue to eight and added the allegation the company conspired with certain Hispanic civil rights groups to hire illegal immigrant workers. In addition, the second amended complaint added the following, all of whom are current or former officers or managers of the company, as defendants in the case: -- John Tyson, -- Richard Bond, -- Greg Lee, -- Archibald Schaffer III, -- Kenneth Kimbro, -- Karen Percival, and -- Tim McCoy, and Ahrazue Wilt. On Aug. 5, 2005, plaintiffs sought certification of a putative class of all hourly wage employees at the eight company plants since 1998 who were legally authorized to be employed in the U.S., which the defendants opposed. On Oct. 10, 2006, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On Oct. 24, 2006, defendants filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit a petition for interlocutory review of the District Court’s class certification decision. That petition is pending. Discovery continues in the case, and a trial date of March 3, 2008, has been set by the District Court. The suit is "Trollinger, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. 4:02-cv-00023," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge Curtis L. Collier with referral to Judge William B. Carter. Representing the plaintiffs are: Howard W. Foster, Esq. Johnson & Bell, Ltd. 33 East Monroe Street, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60603-5404 Phone: 312-372-0770 Fax: 312-372-9818 E-mail: fosterh@jbltd.com - and - William G. Colvin, Esq. Shumacker, Witt, Gaither & Whitaker, P.C. 736 Market Street, Suite 1100 Chattanooga, TN 37402 Phone: 423-425-7000 E-mail: bcolvin@swgwlaw.com Representing the defendants are: Roger W. Dickson, Esq. Miller & Martin 832 Georgia Avenue, Suite 1000, Volunteer Building Chattanooga, TN 37402-2289 Phone: 423-756-6600 E-mail: rdickson@millermartin.com - and - Thomas C. Green, Esq. Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, LLP 1501 K. Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-736-8000 UNION PACIFIC: Texarkana Derailment Suit Denied Class Status ------------------------------------------------------------ Arkansas District Judge Harry Barnes refused to certify as class action a suit filed against Union Pacific Railroad Co. over a 2005 railroad accident, Associated Press reports. At about 5 a.m. on October 15, 2005, Sunday, a Union Pacific train coming from Chicago struck the back of another Union Pacific train coming from Pine Bluff in a rail yard on the south side of Texarkana. Eight cars derailed, and a tanker car containing propylene exploded and fire broke out (Class Action Reporter, Oct 21, 2005). The suit, which seeks class-action status, was filed in Miller County Circuit Court on behalf of residents Troy H. Bradford and Gloria Bradford and their business Books Etc. The suit charges the Omaha, Nebraska-based company of negligence, trespass, and causing a nuisance "in allowing toxic and hazardous chemicals" into the community. The suit seeks an order requiring the company to clean up any damage and pay unspecified monetary compensation for personal injuries, evacuation and cleanup costs, property loss, and lost income resulting from the derailment. In November, Union Pacific filed a petition seeking to move the case from Miller County to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. The petition states that the case should be tried in federal court due to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, and due to the amount of money, which may eventually be involved in the suit (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 3, 2005). That petition was later granted. Recently, Judge Barnes ruled that the lawsuit should be pursued only with the specific complaints of Samuel Alexander, Gloria Bradford, Ned Burnett and Stella Smith. A trial is scheduled to begin June 2. The suit is "Bradford et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Case No. 4:05-cv-04075-HFB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas under Judge Harry F. Barnes. Representing the plaintiffs are: R. Gary Nutter of Dunn, Esq. Nutter & Morgan, L.L.P., State Line Plaza, Box 8030, Suite Six, Texarkana AR 71854-5945 Phone: (870) 773-5651 Fax: (870) 772-2037 E-mail: rgnutter@dnmlawfirm.com -- and -- Matthew David Karnas, Esq. Bellovin Karnas, P.C. 100 N. Stone Ave., Suite 1105, Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: 520-571-9700 Fax: 520-571-8556 E-mail: Karnas@Bellovinkarnas.com Representing the defendants are: William H. Howard, III, Esq. Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3600 New Orleans, LA 70170, U.S. Phone: 504-566-5275 Fax: 504-636-3975 E-mail: bhoward@bakerdonelson.com -- and -- George L. McWilliams, Esq. Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw, LLP 2900 Saint Michael Drive, Suite 400 Texarkana, TX 75503 Phone: (903) 334-7107 Fax: (903) 334-7007 E-mail: gmcwilliams@pattonroberts.com UNITED RENTALS: Asks Cerberus for $100M Merger Termination Fee -------------------------------------------------------------- Delaware Chancery Court Judge William B. Chandler III ruled that United Rentals, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors knew or should have known that Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. believed they had a right to pull out of the Merger Agreement at any time as long as Cerberus paid a $100 million fee to United Rentals. United Rentals has requested that Cerberus pay the company the $100 million termination fee required by the Merger Agreement. On November 21, 2007, Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP commenced a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or acquired securities of United Rentals between August 29, 2007 through and including November 14, 2007 inclusive. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by failing to disclose that, several weeks after United Rentals and Cerberus had signed a merger agreement, Cerberus contacted United Rentals management and expressed its concern about its ability to proceed with the Merger given the changes in the credit and financial markets, on which its financing for the deal depended. It was not until November 14, 2007, when the Company filed a Form 8-K that included letters, dated August 31, 2007 and September 6, 2007 which demonstrated that the Merger had been at risk since August 29, 2007, and that Cerberus sought to renegotiate the terms of the Merger Agreement. Defendants' failure to disclose this information materially mislead investors and caused the market for United Rentals' shares to trade at prices artificially inflated by the belief that the Merger would proceed. Had the August correspondence between Ceberus and United Rentals been disclosed to the public in the Proxy, United Rentals' shareholders would have been alerted to the risk of the transaction not going forward. On November 14, 2007, United Rentals publicly announced that Cerberus had informed the Company that Cerberus was not prepared to proceed with the purchase of United Rentals on the terms set forth in the Merger Agreement. On this news, the Company posted its biggest drop since it went public in 1997 and plunged 31%, or $10.51, from $34.01 per share to a closing price of $23.50 per share. On November 19, 2007, United Rentals announced that it had filed a lawsuit against RAM Holdings, Inc. and RAM Acquisition Corp., (the acquisition vehicles formed by Cerberus to acquire United Rentals). The lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, whereby Cerberus was seeking to compel the Cerberus acquisition vehicles to complete the agreed-upon Merger Agreement. On December 21, 2007, Judge Chandler III ruled that United Rentals and certain of its officers and directors knew or should have known that Cerberus believed they had a right to pull out of the Merger Agreement at any time as long as Cerberus paid a $100 million fee to United Rentals. As a result of the Delaware Court's decision, on December 24, 2007, United Rentals requested that Cerberus pay United Rentals the $100 million termination fee required by the Merger Agreement. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired United Rentals securities during the Class Period. Interested parties may move the court no later than January 21, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. Susan Lee Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP 212 East 39th Street New York, New York 10016 Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701 (Toll Free) E-mail: slee@abbeyspanier.com or nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com Website: http://www.abbeygardy.com Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana's Future Liability Costs Not Disclosed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Burton Lifland of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York declined to determine the exact amount of Reorganized Dana Corp.'s future costs for asbestos liabilities for the purposes of confirming the Plan of Reorganization and determining that the Plan is feasible. Judge Lifland explained that, in addition to Dana's substantial available insurance resources of roughly US$1.5 billion, Reorganized Dana's initial capitalization of US$195 million -- representing nominal amounts for the next five years and present-valued amounts for years six through 45 at a six percent discount rate -- is more than sufficient to cover the range of reasonable forecasts. The Court finds that the Plan presents a workable scheme of reorganization and operation from which there is a reasonable assurance of success and is, thus, feasible and satisfies Section 1129(a)(11) of the Bankruptcy Code, Judge Lifland said. Dr. Robin Cantor, a managing director in the Insurance and Claims Services practice of Navigant Consulting Inc., which was retained by the Debtors, forecasts that Dana's combined defense and indemnity costs for asbestos personal injury claims for the 15-year period after emergence from bankruptcy will most likely total between US$133 million and US$200 million. Dr. Cantor also forecasts that combined costs for the period extending through 2049 will most likely total between US$182.4 million and US$291.5 million, not reduced to present value. Reorganized Dana will be initially capitalized with US$195 million in cash and other assets as of the Effective Date. Dr. Thomas Vasquez, a partner at Analysis, Research & Planning Corp., which was retained by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, forecasts that the combined costs for the period extending through 2049 will most likely total between US$700 million and US$1.1 billion, excluding what he termed the "low probability scenarios" that could be more or less than those amounts. Dr. Cantor testified at the trial that, by adopting Dr. Vasquez's methodology, and then applying appropriate assumptions, Dr. Vasquez' forecast for Reorganized Dana's asbestos liabilities decreases to US$244 million. Judge Lifland said both Dr. Cantor and Dr. Vasquez were very knowledgeable about the estimation of future asbestos-related liabilities and were reliable in terms of making calculations based on the assumptions that they made and the methodologies they employed. (Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 67; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Queensland Management Plan to Start in Jan. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Workplaces in Queensland, Australia, have been reminded that new asbestos management obligations are to take effect across the state from Jan. 1, 2008, according to a Queensland Government press release dated Dec. 27, 2007. The new obligations require the drawing up of a plan by people working with asbestos, setting out in clear terms what work is going to be done, when it is going to be done and how it will be carried out. The obligations are part of a code, introduced in 2006, which acknowledged at the time that industry and workplaces needed time to identify and plan the removal of asbestos. Employment and Industrial Relations Minister John Mickel said the code specifies the obligations of anyone dealing with bonded asbestos material in a workplace. Details of the code are available at www.deir.qld.gov.au/workplace/subjects/asbestos/working/practice s/index.htm Mr. Mickel said, "The code highlights the need for consultation and correct handling of asbestos throughout the removal process. "All asbestos containing material now has to be labeled and recorded in a register and a risk assessment carried out. The goal for all is to rid workplaces of asbestos wherever possible, rather than seek to control risk by sealing or enclosing asbestos material.” All workplaces built before Jan. 1, 2008 are already required to have an asbestos register, as well as safety policies and procedures for friable asbestos. http://media-newswire.com/release_1059186.html ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Investigates Possible Breaches by Posen ---------------------------------------------------------------- Department of Environmental Protection officials are investigating allegations by Posen Construction Inc. workers who were ordered to handle asbestos pipe without protective gear and then ordered to dump it illegally at a new lake south of Alico Road in Florida, Naples Daily News reports. In sworn statements, Posen employees and former employees say their jobs were threatened if they refused to handle the dangerous material. In a sworn statement taken in November 2007, truck driver Virginia Brown said, "If we question the instructions there are plenty of people looking for truck driving jobs.” Ms. Brown heard that from crew leader Linda Darnall, she said, who swore she got the instruction from her boss, Michael Schook. Ms. Darnall, who claimed she was terminated after she complained and went for lung X-rays and tests, said, "They've harassed the hell out of me. People are sick. People are being harassed. People are being fired. I am livid.” Other Posen workers said they were instructed to cut up the asbestos pipe with saws and crush it. The workers said they were not offered protective gear. Posen worker Jonathan Herman said he was spotting for an equipment operator who removed the pipe from the ground. The various statements claim the pipe, owned by Lee County Utilities and removed during the widening of Alico Road near U.S. 41, was crushed and cut up at the site. Truck drivers claim they were ordered to dump the material at a newly created lake south of the new Alico Road near 41, and that equipment operators pushed the asbestos into the lake. DEP sent warning letters to Posen, Lee County and the Florida Department of Transportation before Christmas advising of possible violations of the law. DEP spokeswoman Audrey Wright said, "We have investigated and we have sent the warning letter. They have replied and asked for a meeting after the holidays.” During that meeting more investigating will take place, DEP's Sherrill Culliver said. Lee County officials got interested when Posen employees took their complaints to them. "Every day phone calls come in about something,” said Tony Pellicer of the water resources division. "I read the statements, but I wasn't there. I do know Posen subsequently instituted asbestos-handling training. They didn't have it before.” Bonita City Manager Gary Price said his engineers tell him there's asbestos buried on the south side of the Imperial River where Posen built the embankment for the new bridge. Tony Pellicer of the water resources division said said the county knew the old asbestos utility lines were there, and Posen's contract included removal and proper disposal. He said when the employee complaints reached him he requested copies of disposal receipts for the asbestos. Though the county had paid for the removal several months earlier the disposal receipts were dated after the request was made. Ms. Darnall said Posen looked for reasons to fire her, even removing her from her truck and ordering immediate drug testing, which she passed, she said. She was fired after an accident in a company vehicle. Ms. Darnall said she's contacted Occupational Health and Safety Administration about the working conditions and has equal opportunity complaints pending. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bldg. w/ Asbestos May Be Demolished in Jan. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Middletown, Ohio's city planning director Marty Kohler said the demolition of the remains of the Whit Machine Inc. warehouse, which was damaged in a May 25, 2007 fire and is known to contain asbestos, could begin in mid-January 2008, Middletown Journal reports. The city had asked for US$300,000 to US$400,000 for the environmental cleanup of asbestos in the building, Mr. Kohler said. Asbestos also is contained in the cotton paper bales, which he said will be treated as hazardous waste. An insurance settlement may mean the warehouse could be demolished and investigators finally able to determine the cause of the blaze that caused damages of about US$1.2 million. Mr. Kohler said the company settled with its insurance company several weeks ago over the damages caused by the fire that had flames shoot more than 50 feet above the building and temperatures exceed 2,000 degrees. It cost the city US$18,000 in overtime to firefighters to put out the blaze, which smoldered for months at the 70,000-square- foot facility most recently used to store prefabrication materials and cotton paper bales. The company also will put a deposit on the project with the city's building department, which Mr. Kohler called "a step in the right direction." Once the environmental cleanup is finished, the city's fire marshal will be able to complete his investigation on the cause of the blaze. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Halts Demolition of Bldg. in Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- Officials of Haines City, Fla., were set to demolish a known drug house the city had seized, but workers were held up on Dec. 27, 2007 because asbestos tiles were found underneath the stucco covering on the house, The Ledger reports. Haines City police Chief Morris West shows an area containing asbestos material in the exterior walls of the house, prompting the city to delay its demolition. Police won the seizure of Patricia Anthony's house at 1102 Ave. G and rooming house at 1607 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, in Circuit Court and evicted Ms. Anthony on Dec. 21, 2007 with plans to tear down the two buildings where numerous drug arrests have been made over the years. The boarding house, just north of the house, also has asbestos shingles. Ms. Anthony owned both buildings and lived in the house at Avenue G. West said a Tampa company, Air Quality Consultants, would be coming to test the asbestos and recommend the best way to tear it down. Michael King, owner of King Trucking, the Haines City company hired to demolish the buildings, said he could not tear down the building without first knowing what kind of asbestos it is. City Manager Ann Toney-Deal said the city may have to do a "wet” demolition on the building where water is used to keep dust and flying particles down. Ms. Toney-Deal said the city had to do "wet” demolitions on the old Oakland, Fla., gymnasium and auditorium because of asbestos. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Linked to U.K. Const. Worker's Death ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest has heard that the death of construction worker Colin Youngs was linked to asbestos, News & Star reports. Mr. Youngs was exposed to asbestos while he worked on construction of the West Cumberland Hospital, in Whitehaven, England, U.K. Mr. Youngs was 71 years old when he died on Jan. 3, 2007, two months after being diagnosed with mesothelioma. At the inquest held into Mr. Youngs' death, West Cumbria coroner John Taylor formally recorded a verdict that Mr. Youngs had died from an industrial disease. A joiner by trade, Mr. Youngs worked for James Laing Construction Ltd. between 1961 and 1966, where he was employed on the building of the West Cumberland Hospital. The inquest heard that, during Mr. Youngs' time with the firm, his job involved cutting heavy doors which contained sheets of asbestos. Mr. Youngs moved on to Marchon Chemical Co. in 1968 where he worked as a plant operator. One of Mr. Youngs' colleagues at the time, Colin Rourke, told the inquest that they worked in an enclosed factory environment and, after asbestos lagging had been removed from pipework in the buildings, asbestos particles would remain in the air. Mr. Youngs' began to develop ill health in 2006. Following the verdict, Mr. Youngs' son Ged said, "My father's death from mesothelioma has been horrendous for the family and today's result will help us to move forward.” ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Slows Demolition of S.C. Building ---------------------------------------------------------------- The presence of asbestos at the Sofa Super Store in Charleston, S.C., has extended the building's demolition until 2008, The Post and Courier reports. Asbestos in some of the building's materials will delay final clearing of the site for another two to three weeks, said Brandon Martin, whose company, B&B Demolition Specialists, was hired by the store's owner to dismantle the structure. The work originally was expected to wrap up by the end of 2007. On Dec. 28, 2007, crews maneuvered backhoes and other machinery around the site, scooping up mounds of twisted metal and charred wood. The site looks notably clearer than it has since the June 18, 2007 blaze that killed nine area firefighters. Mr. Martin declined to say how much asbestos is in the building, parts of which are at least 50 years old. However, a permit issued by the state Department of Health and Environmental Control notes the presence of 15,000 square feet of building materials containing asbestos. Robert Rosen, the Sofa Super Store's lawyer, said the building contains "very little" asbestos and it does not pose a hazard to the public. Charleston city officials have made an offer to purchase the land and are waiting for a response, said Mark Ruppel, public information officer for the Charleston Fire Department. Some of the more identifiable remnants of the store, its facade and roadside marquee, will be among the last items hauled away, Mr. Martin said. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of Hospital in Wales ---------------------------------------------------------------- Four operating theaters at Nevill Hall Hospital, Abergavenny, Wales, are closed while asbestos is being removed from part of the hospital, South Wales Argus reports. Power has been cut and operating rooms are closed while the work takes place in plant rooms adjacent to the main theater suite. A Gwent Healthcare Trust spokesperson told the Argus, "The plant rooms are adjacent, not in, the theater suite and the work being carried out is to remove asbestos from these plant rooms.” The spokesperson said that the work had been planned and that contingencies had been put in place so that patients would not be affected. The spokesperson said, "This work has been planned for some time and is going to plan, which means the theaters will be fully functional again on Jan 4th. Surgery is carrying on as usual in Nevill Hall in the other theaters unaffected by this work.” ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owners of Mass. Building to Pay for Cleanup ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to a document obtained by Gloucester Daily Times, the owners of Lorraine Apartments, which was demolished by fire on Dec. 15, 2007 and located in Gloucester, Mass., will be held responsible for removing the asbestos-ridden ruins from the site. The state Department of Environmental Protection, which tested for asbestos after officials noticed signs of it in the rubble of the apartment building, sent a notice of responsibility to 80 Middle St. LLC of Lynnfield, listed as the building's owner. The notice requires the owners to hire a licensed asbestos contractor to develop a plan for removing the chemical from the site's debris without releasing any of it into the air. According to DEP spokesman Joe Ferson, there is no risk to firefighters who were at the scene on Dec. 15, 2007 or neighboring homes or businesses because the chemical was saturated with water when the fire was fought. Several asbestos handling companies contacted by the Times said they could not provide a cost estimate without seeing the project site and understanding what the cleanup would entail. Typically, asbestos is removed from an intact building, not from rubble. Mr. Ferson said that aside from being responsible for the costs associated with properly disposing of the chemicals, the building owners, Gary Raso and Daniel Gattineri, will need to reimburse the DEP for expenses incurred as they monitor air quality at the site to ensure it remains safe. The final plan will need state approval. According to state fire marshal spokeswoman Jennifer Mieth, the handling of asbestos is one of the issues complicating and slowing the recovery efforts. The Cape Ann YMCA and Sawyer Free Library, both neighbors of the Lorraine Apartments, had their air quality tested in the past week. Representatives from both said that the tests showed their air was safe and clean. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Forces Closure of Aussie Warehouse ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Metcash Ltd. warehouse in Blacktown, New South Wales, Australia, has been closed due to the presence of asbestos in the building's corrugated roof sheets, The Sydney Morning Herald reports. On Dec. 28, 2007, Metcash chief executive Andrew Reitzer said the warehouse had been closed and sealed to all but specialist contamination workers for more than two weeks. The asbestos was contained in corrugated roof sheets that were broken during a violent storm on Dec. 9, 2007. Mr. Reitzer said the closure of the Blacktown warehouse had affected deliveries to 350 IGA, Foodworks and independent supermarkets at the most important time of the year for the wholesaler. Supplies will be taken to supermarkets from Victoria or Queensland until the warehouse roof is replaced and the building reopens in April 2008 or May 2008. The company has also a leased a temporary warehouse at Moorebank to it help cope with the demand for stock. The center was one of three warehouses in NSW and only dry and non-perishable items have been affected by the closure. Mr. Reitzer said there were about 300 holes the sizes of his fist in the roof of the warehouse. "Some of the hail must have been like missiles - there were pieces of hail that went through the asbestos roof then an inch of insulation and then through an internal ceiling and damaged the warehouse manager's desk … "The [hazardous materials] team arrived from the fire department because it was an asbestos roof and they just shut the warehouse and sealed it.” ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ind. Town Granted $25T for Asbestos Removal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Town of Fowler, Ind. has been granted US$25,000 to remove asbestos from the closed Fowler Elementary School, Journal & Courier reports. School corporation attorney Jud Barce said the grant, from the Indiana Finance Authority, will cover the cost of the asbestos removal. While the school's future remains undetermined, the asbestos removal will prepare the older portion of the building for eventual demolition. Superintendent Steve Wittenauer said, "The US$25,000 for asbestos removal is the first step. The next thing would be if the US$400,000 grant for removal were approved.” The school has been vacant since fall 2006, when Fowler and Oxford elementary school students were consolidated into the new Prairie Crossing Elementary School. Two groups, the Town of Fowler and the Fowler American Legion Post 57, have expressed interest in buying and reusing the space. Fowler wants to install a community center, and the American Legion wants to move its operations to the newer addition on the building. Both situations would require partial or complete demolition of the building. Once there is a determination on what will become of the former school, Mr. Barce said the school will apply in May 2008 for another, larger grant from the same group. That grant would help defray demolition costs, which have been estimated at more than US$400,000 dollars. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Rail Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest into the death of former railway worker Eric Baker heard that he died from industrial disease following asbestos exposure, Scarborough Evening News reports. The 67-year-old Mr. Baker, of Filey, North Yorkshire, England, was exposed to asbestos while working for British Rail as a coach builder between 1955 and 1962. Mr. Baker, who also worked as a joiner, was diagnosed with lung cancer in October 2006. His condition deteriorated and he died on Aug. 15, 2007, just over a week after being admitted to St. Catherine's Hospice. A post mortem examination carried out by Dr. David Morgan, a consultant histo-pathologist at Scarborough Hospital, revealed the cause of Mr. Baker's death to be lung cancer caused by asbestos exposure and smoking. Coroner Michael Oakley recorded a verdict that Mr. Baker had died from industrial disease. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Winona State to be Fined $24.5T for Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Minnesota State Occupational Safety and Health Administration said that the Winona State University in Winona, Minn., faces a proposed fine of US$24,500 for seven workplace safety violations related to the removal of asbestos, Star Tribune reports. OSHA said the university repaired or replaced insulation in dormitories and other areas of campus without taking the necessary precautions to protect workers from asbestos. OSHA spokesman James Honerman declined to provide details about the citations, which the university received in November 2007, because Winona State has contested the allegations. Cristeen Custer, an assistant vice president at the university, said the school was cooperating with OSHA. She said, "We take it seriously, and we do believe that we'll come to a very positive result with our discussions with OSHA.” ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Indian Workers Deal w/ Asbestos From Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------- Indian workers struggle to breathe due to asbestos that is still being imported from Canada, Winnipeg Free Press reports. Manghabei Patel is one of hundreds of factory and construction workers in the state of Gujarat who are seriously ill from inhaling chrysotile asbestos fibers on the job. More than 120 workers have filed for compensation for asbestos- related health problems through India's Supreme Court in Gujarat, a seaside state where ships deliver chrysotile asbestos from Quebec, Canada, before it is sent to factories and manufacturing plants across India. Much of the chrysotile asbestos used in Gujarat comes from Canada, and dozens of Gujarati workers know colleagues who have died. Canadian chrysotile asbestos accounts for about one-third of all asbestos in India and is used to make everything from corrugated metal roofing to water pipes. Indian doctors estimate that at least 100,000 workers inhale chrysotile asbestos fibers every day. Most workers do not wear masks and are unaware of the hazards of working with the material. Gopal Krishna, an activist with Ban Asbestos Network of India, a Delhi-based non-governmental organization, said, "The rate at which workers are dying is noticeable.” Winnipeg MP Pat Martin said by e-mail that Canada's affinity for asbestos is based on the federal government's refusal to offend Quebec. Mr. Krishna said workers often cannot afford to quit their jobs, even though doctors tell them continuing to work with asbestos will only make their symptoms worse. Although India imports chrysotile asbestos from Russia and Kazakhstan, Mr. Krishna said it is Canada's slick pro-asbestos marketing campaigns that keep the asbestos industry in business. Mr. Krishna said Canadians have had scientific experts speak about the safety of the material for years, without acknowledging that developing countries like India do not have or enforce the same health and safety standards as the western world. In 2006, India imported more than 63,000 metric tons of chrysotile asbestos from Canada. Despite evidence from Indian doctors and workers, Natural Resources Canada maintains that chrysotile asbestos is safe and that it's up to countries like India to ensure workers are protected. A spokesperson from Natural Resources Canada said more than 93 percent of Canadian chrysotile asbestos is mixed with cement, which prevents the release of asbestos fibers -- except when workers saw through the cement. The spokesperson said Canada provides information to importing countries on how to manage the risks associated with chrysotile and supports the work of the Chrysotile Institute, a non-profit organization that promotes chrysotile and advocates for its safety. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sentence Termination Motion in Kay Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, denied John Kay's motion to terminate his supervised release from prison, in an action stemming from improper asbestos removal at a site in Clifton Heights, Pa. The case is styled United States of America v. John Kay. U.S. District Judge Stengel entered judgment of Criminal Action No. 05-231 on Dec. 10, 2007. On June 9, 2005, Mr. Kay, entered a plea of guilty to seven counts of criminal violations of the Clean Air Act, arising out of his illegal, improper and unsafe removal of asbestos-covered heating pipes from a factory in Clifton Heights, Pa. Through his improper removal and disposal of the asbestos, even after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notified him of his obligation properly to clean up the asbestos at the work site, Mr. Kay placed numerous people at risk of exposure to harmful chemicals. Mr. Kay was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. After serving less than half of his three-year term, he has requested the court to terminate his supervised release and discharge him. Mr. Kay sought early termination in order to obtain a real estate license in Arizona so that he may continue to work as a real estate agent following his family's move to Arizona. Upon consideration of Mr. Kay's Motion to Terminate Supervised Release and Discharge Defendant, and the U.S. Government's response thereto, the District Court hereby ordered that the motion is denied. Leo R. Tsao, U.S. Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, represented the United States of America. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Court Flips Ruling to Favor Hartford ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed a California trial court's ruling, to favor The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. and several of its affiliates (Hartford). The case is styled The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., et al. v. ACE American Reinsurance Co., et al. Judges Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer, and Zarella officially entered judgment of Case No. 17625 on Dec. 25, 2007. From 1967 to 1975, Hartford issued general liability insurance policies to the MacArthur Co. MacArthur was a manufacturer, distributor and installer of asbestos containing products, including insulation, in northern California and the Midwest. Beginning in the late 1970s, numerous claims were brought against MacArthur for asbestos related injuries. Hartford defended and paid many of the claims until the early 1990s, when it determined that MacArthur had exhausted its coverage. Thereafter, MacArthur sued Hartford in California, seeking coverage for thousands of additional claims. In December 2003, Hartford settled the coverage dispute with MacArthur by agreeing to pay about US$1.15 billion to a trust responsible for paying the asbestos claimants. In February 2004, Hartford billed its reinsurers under the treaty for about 10 percent of the US$1.15 billion settlement with MacArthur. Hartford billed about 3.4 percent of the settlement to the defendants. The defendants refused to pay the bill on the ground that Hartford's losses under the MacArthur settlement could not be aggregated under the common cause language. Thereafter, Hartford brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that it was entitled to recover under the treaty for its losses related to the MacArthur settlement. The defendants brought a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the MacArthur claims could not be aggregated, and moved for summary judgment. The court rendered summary judgment for the defendants. Hartford's appeal followed. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings according to law. Seth P. Waxman, with whom were Jeffrey R. Babbin, Catherine M.A. Carroll, and Jonathan M. Freiman, Kenneth D. Heath, Edward C. DuMont, and Danielle Spinelli, represented The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. and the other plaintiffs-appellants. Robert A. Knuti, with whom was James F. Sullivan, represented the London Market Insurance Companies and other appellees. William J. O'Sullivan filed a brief for the Reinsurance Association of America as amicus curiae. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Earls Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of North Carolina upheld the North Carolina Industrial Commission's Nov. 16, 2007 ruling, which denied James Robert Earls' claims for asbestos and/or asbestos-related pleural disease, in an action filed against Starr Davis Company Inc. and Aetna Casualty & Surety (Standard Fire Insurance). The case is styled James Robert Earls, Employee, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. Starr Davis Company Inc., Employer, Aetna Casualty & Surety (Standard Fire Insurance), Carrier, Defendants- Appellees. Judges McGee, Tyson, and Elmore entered judgment of Case No. COA07-223 on Dec. 18, 2007. This was an appeal by Mr. Earls from order entered Nov. 16, 2006 by the Commission. The Appeals Court heard the matter on Sept. 19, 2007. Mr. Earls filed a Form 18B dated Feb. 14, 2000 claiming benefits for the occupational disease of asbestosis and/or asbestos- related pleural disease. Starr Davis denied liability and Deputy Commissioner Lorrie L. Dollar heard Mr. Earls' claim on July 17, 2001. Deputy Commissioner Dollar entered an opinion and award on April 30, 2003 denying Mr. Earls' claim. Mr. Earls appealed to the North Carolina Industrial Commission (the Commission). On Nov. 19, 2003, the Commission remanded the case to the Chief Deputy Commissioner for conduct of an evidentiary hearing for the purpose of obtaining additional evidence on the issues of compensability and last injurious exposure. On remand, the parties advised Deputy Commissioner George T. Glenn II that "there would not be any additional evidence offered in this matter and that it should be decided on the evidence already contained in the record." Accordingly, Deputy Commissioner Glenn referred the case back to the Commission. The Commission entered an order on Nov. 16, 2006 affirming with modifications Deputy Commissioner Dollar's opinion and award. Mr. Earls appealed. Wallace and Graham P.A., by Edward L. Pauley, represented Mr. Earls. Hedrick Eatman Gardner & Kincheloe L.L.P., by Matthew D. Glidewell and Jeffrey A. Kadis, represented Starr Davis Company Inc. and Aetna Casualty & Surety (Standard Fire Insurance). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Court Favors Plaintiff in ConEd Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Department, reversed a Workers' Compensation Board ruling to favor Jane Lincoln, in an asbestos-related case filed against Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. and other defendants. The case is styled In the Matter of the Claim of Jane Lincoln, Appellant, v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc., et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent. Judges Cardona, Crew III, Mugglin, Rose, and Kane entered judgment of Case No. 2007502594 on Dec. 20, 2007. This was an appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed Sept. 8, 2006, which ruled that the death of Mrs. Lincoln's husband was not causally related to his employment and denied her claim for workers' compensation death benefits. Mrs. Lincoln's unnamed husband, a heavy smoker, worked as a meter reader for about 30 years before retiring in 1998. That year, a workers' compensation disability claim was established for Mr. Lincoln for asbestosis and, later, a second claim was established for lung cancer. After Mr. Lincoln died of lung cancer in 2002, Mrs. Lincoln submitted a claim for workers' compensation death benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the claim, finding that the lung cancer was caused by Mr. Lincoln's cigarette smoking rather than exposure to asbestos. Finding no credible medical evidence that Mr. Lincoln's exposure to asbestos contributed to his death, the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. Mrs. Lincoln appealed and the Supreme Court reversed. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision. Brecher-Fishman, Pasternack, Popish, Heller, Reiff & Walsh, N.Y., (Matthew A. Funk of counsel) represented Jane Lincoln. Leonard B. Feld, Jericho, N.Y., represented Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. and another respondent. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling in John Crane's Favor ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division's ruling, which granted summary judgment to John Crane Inc., in two asbestos- related personal injury actions filed by Eleanor Abrams (for Kenneth Abrams) and Marilyn Shaw (for John Shaw). Judges Ford Elliott, Stevens, Musmanno, Orie Melvin, Lally- Green, Klein, Bender, Bowes, and Panella entered judgment of Case Nos. 1182 EDA 2005 and 1185 EDA 2005 on Dec. 17, 2007. This was an appeal from the Judgment Entered on April 4, 2005 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division, February Term 2003, No. 3458. The Shaws and the Abramses instituted these suits on Feb. 25, 2003, alleging that Mr. Shaw and Mr. Abrams were diagnosed with lung cancer in December 2002 and that their injuries stemmed from occupational exposure to asbestos-containing products made by John Crane and various other companies. On Feb. 11, 2005, John Crane filed a motion for summary judgment in both cases arguing that the parties' claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Specifically, Crane asserted that both couples successfully sued numerous companies for asbestos-related injuries in the mid- 1980s, that those lawsuits included claims for increased risk and fear of developing cancer, and that Crane should have been named as a defendant in those actions because prior to 1992, plaintiffs were required to bring all claims for existing nonmalignant conditions and predictable malignant diseases, e.g., cancer, within two years of the initial diagnosis of an asbestos- related disease. The trial court agreed and granted Crane's motions for summary judgment. The orders in question became final and appealable on April 4, 2005, when the trial court entered an order declaring both actions settled with respect to all remaining defendants. On June 9, 2006, a Superior Court panel published an opinion in which the majority reversed and remanded for further proceedings. John Crane filed a timely application for en banc reargument, which was granted on Aug. 15, 2006, and the June 9, 2006 opinion was withdrawn. The Superior Court now concluded that the trial court's ruling was correct and therefore affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of John Crane. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Plaintiffs' Petition in Snyder Case Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 2, California, granted a writ petition filed by Mary Hutton Snyder et al., in an asbestos-related action filed against Caterpillar Inc. and other defendants. The case is styled Mary Hutton Snyder et al., Petitioners, v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Respondent; Caterpillar Inc., et al., Real Parties in Interest. Judges Ashmann-Gerst, Doi Todd, and Chavez entered judgment of Case No. B197993 on Dec. 18, 2007. General Order 29 requires a plaintiff in an asbestos action to file a case report within eight months after filing suit. The Snyders filed a wrongful death action on Nov. 18, 2005. They alleged that Gail Richard Snyder, Sr. died on May 18, 2005, of lung cancer and other asbestos-related diseases. The first amended complaint, filed April 25, 2006, named 79 defendants, including Caterpillar, and asserted multiple causes of action. Caterpillar filed an answer on May 16, 2006. The Snyders filed their case report on Oct. 5, 2006, which listed each of Mr. Snyder's numerous employers as a source of occupational exposure. On Dec. 12, 2006, shortly after the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations for asbestos-related wrongful death claims, Caterpillar filed a motion to dismiss under General Order 29. In opposition, the Snyders contended that their case report complied with General Order 29, that General Order 29 had not been properly promulgated as a local rule, and that General Order 29 was facially invalid because it conflicted with both the statutory requirements for a summary judgment motion in section 437c and with various statutory discovery provisions. The trial court granted Caterpillar's motion to dismiss, along with those of about 30 other defendants. The order dismissing the complaint against Caterpillar was issued seven months before trial was scheduled to commence. The Snyders filed a petition for writ of mandate contending that General Order 29 was facially invalid. After considering Caterpillar's preliminary opposition to the petition, the Appeals Court issued an alternative writ of mandate directing the trial court to set aside the order of dismissal or show cause why this court should not issue a peremptory writ of mandate commanding it to do so. The Snyders contended that the dismissal must be reversed. In their view, General Order 29 is invalid. Also, they contended that General Order 29 provides for an invalid terminating sanction. The Appeals Court concluded that General Order 29 either conflicted with, or is inconsistent with, section 2018.030 and, accordingly, granted the Snyders' writ petition. Keller, Fishback & Jackson, Daniel L. Keller, Stephen M. Fishback; Law Office of Bryce C. Anderson and Bryce C. Anderson, represented Mary Hutton Snyder et al. Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, Kirk C. Jenkins, Steven D. Wasserman, Michael C. Scanlon, Jr., Reynold M. Martinez, Frederick D. Baker and Kelly J. Savage, represented Caterpillar Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Flips Ruling in Slaughter Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 7, California, reversed the Superior Court of Los Angeles County's ruling, to favor Ronald Slaughter and Edna Slaughter, in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed against Union Carbide Corp. and other defendants. The matter has been remanded for further proceedings. The case is styled Ronald Slaughter et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Union Carbide Corp. et al., Defendants and Respondents. Judges Zelon, Perluss, and Woods entered judgment of Case No. B196995 on Dec. 17, 2007. The Slaughters filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court against 39 named defendants, asserting claims for personal injuries arising out of Mrs. Slaughter's alleged exposure to asbestos. In August 2006, about five months before Mrs. Slaughter's death, the Slaughters filed suit in California against 39 manufacturers and distributors of alleged asbestos-containing products. The Slaughters claimed that Mrs. Slaughter's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos while they were living in the Philippines, Tennessee and California between 1974 and 1978. They alleged indirect exposure from Mrs. Slaughter's washing of Mr. Slaughter's clothes during the time he was employed as a machinist and performed side jobs involving drywall work. They alleged direct exposure from Mrs. Slaughter's own work with Mr. Slaughter on the various drywall jobs. In their suit, the Slaughters did not claim any exposure to asbestos after leaving California in 1978. On or about May 9, 2006, Mrs. Slaughter was diagnosed with mesothelioma. On Dec. 31, 2006, she died in Tennessee. Thirteen of the named defendants filed or joined in a motion to dismiss or stay the action on grounds of forum non conveniens. These defendants argued that California was an inconvenient forum for the action and that the case should be tried in Tennessee. The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the entire action without prejudice. On appeal, the Slaughters contended that the trial court erroneously determined that Tennessee was a suitable alternative forum and abused its discretion in balancing the private and public interests in favor of Tennessee. The Appeals Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the balance of the private and public interests weighed in favor of litigating the case in Tennessee. However, the trial court erred in dismissing the California action rather than staying the action pending a determination as to whether all named defendants are subject to jurisdiction in Tennessee. The Appeals Court reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to enter a new order either (1) denying the motion to dismiss or stay the action, or (2) granting the motion to stay the action subject to certain conditions. Simon, Eddins & Greenstone, Ron C. Eddins and Brian P. Barrow, represented Ronald Slaughter and Edna Slaughter. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADFU Calls for Cleanup in Australian Homes ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia is calling on the Australian Government, under Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's leadership, to help subsidize the removal of asbestos from Australian homes, ABC News reports. ADFU will also lobby the Federal Government to speed up the replacement of asbestos in Australian Defence Force equipment. Foundation president Barry Robson says asbestos is still common in Australian homes and he will be trying to meet with the Federal Government in the next few weeks to get some help for homeowners. While the Defence Force received an extension in December 2007 to be allowed to continue importing asbestos products until the year 2010, Mr. Robson says Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon needs to act more quickly. A spokeswoman for the Minister says the most important thing is to have a process allowing replacement products to be found as soon as possible. On Jan. 1, 2008, asbestos cancer drug Alimta, which was used by the late anti-asbestos campaigner Bernie Banton, was listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling in Ill. Cleanup Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Illinois Appellate Court upheld a previous Cook County Circuit Court ruling that Palatine-Schaumburg High School District 211 did not inform its insurance company in a timely manner of asbestos removal efforts carried out from the mid- 1980s through the early 1990s. According to court documents, the school board learned of a need for asbestos removal in June 1983 and began preparing a plan to do so within months. By the time the project at all five schools was completed in 1994, the total cost was more than US$17.5 million. However, the insurance company was notified by the board in July 1991, eight years after the original discovery. The insurance company claimed that the late notification prevented its own inspectors from assessing the problem. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KFSD, EPA Probe Kuwait Site Housing Bldgs. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kuwait Fire Services Directorate toxicologists and Environment Public Authority personnel are investigating three residential buildings in Salmiya, Kuwait, and sprayed water on "destroyed” asbestos to prevent the material from causing harm to the residents, Arab Times reports. The buildings' owner, in an attempt to force the residents to vacate the apartments, reportedly disabled the elevators and when that failed he ordered the cleaning company workers out of the area. The residents demanded more time, but the owner in a last attempt destroyed the shaded parking made of asbestos and spread the material all over the place. Toxicologists and EPA personnel rushed to the area and sprayed the destroyed asbestos with water to dampen the material to prevent the poisonous substance from escaping into the atmosphere. Chairperson of the Voluntary Works Center Sheikha Amthal Al- Ahmed said the Center after receiving information called the officials from the concerned authorities including the EPA and Ministry of Interior to secure the area from asbestos. Director-General of the Toxicology Department Lt. Colonel Jamal Al-Bulaihes stated toxicologists sprayed water on the destroyed substance and men from a specialized company wearing protective gear transported the asbestos to an unidentified location. He added removing the asbestos took about 10 hours and cost KWD10,000. The owner of the buildings is expected to bear the cost of disposing off the asbestos. EPA representative Fatima Al-Shimmari indicated scientific research has shown the substance is dangerous and can cause lung cancer if a person is exposed to such material. She added this substance was manufactured in Kuwait in 1997 and the EPA had asked all government departments to report in case the material was seen anywhere. Ms. Al-Shimmari added that it is unfortunate that the owner of the buildings destroyed asbestos in front of the building without informing the authorities. Attorney Awad Al-Enezi, a representative of the real estate company which owns the buildings said the buildings were purchased by his client on Dec. 1, 2007. He added the company destroyed the shaded parking in compliance with the Kuwait Municipality order to remove encroachments on government land. Mr. Al-Enezi said the owner, after realizing the destroyed parking contained the dangerous asbestos substance, informed the EPA. He added the buildings are about 35 years old and Municipality law mandates buildings which are more than 25 years old must be destroyed according to Article 19 or Rent Law No. 35 of 1978. He added the owner has given the tenants a grace period up to May 2008 to vacate the buildings. Mr. Al-Enezi also claims the owner has already paid some tenants six months rent as compensation — for tenants who wish to move out immediately without availing the six month grace period. However, the tenants accused the owner of intentionally putting obstacles in their way to force them to vacate the apartments. It has been reported one of the families which fell ill after the incident has been admitted to a hospital. The tenants have called on the concerned government departments to help solve their problems. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alimta Drug Added to Aussie Benefits Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alimta, the drug that the late anti-asbestos campaigner Bernie Banton fought to have added to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), is now sold cheaper to mesothelioma sufferers starting Jan. 1, 2008, ABC News reports. Alimta has been added to the PBS and will cost around AUD31 for each prescription. Health Minister Nicola Roxon says the addition of Alimta in particular marks a proud day for Australia's new government under Kevin Rudd. Ms. Roxon said, "This is a campaign that people like Bernie Banton really fought for all of their lives.” The Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia says the listing of Alimta on the PBS may help prolong the life of some victims. Foundation president Barry Robson says it is an important day for victims and their families. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Balfour, Jordan Penalized for OSHA Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued a combined penalty of US$324,000 to Balfour Beatty Construction LLC and C.F. Jordan LP for 12 safety violations for asbestos exposure at a military housing construction site at the federal White Sands Missile Range, N.M., according to an OSHA press release dated Dec. 31, 2007. Balfour Beatty is a general construction contractor based in the United Kingdom. C.F. Jordan is a general utility construction contractor based in El Paso, Tex. OSHA began an inspection July 21, 2007 after receiving a referral from the New Mexico Environment Department alleging employees were removing underground concrete pipe containing asbestos from a military housing site without using appropriate protective clothing or a protective enclosure to contain the airborne asbestos. Rich Tapio, OSHA's area director in Lubbock, Tex., said, "The inspection revealed that the two companies failed to take appropriate action to protect their employees," said Rich Tapio, OSHA's area director in Lubbock, Texas. "Employers must remain committed to keeping the workplace safe and healthful at all times.” OSHA has cited Balfour Beatty, proposing US$179,000 in fines, for three alleged willful and two alleged serious violations. The willful violations are for failing to assure that C.F. Jordan, the subcontractor, was in compliance with OSHA's asbestos standards; to conduct an assessment of asbestos operations; and to have a competent person oversee work involving asbestos. The serious violations include failing to label asbestos-containing materials and to store excavated asbestos in closed, covered containers. OSHA has cited C.F. Jordan with US$145,000 in proposed fines for two alleged willful and five alleged serious violations of its asbestos standards. The willful violations are for failing to conduct an assessment of asbestos operations and to provide protective clothing to employees handling asbestos. The serious violations include failing to establish a restricted area where asbestos operations would be conducted; failing to conduct air monitoring for asbestos; allowing prohibited work practices; failing to train employees handling asbestos; and failing to provide a competent person to properly supervise the work area. The companies have 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director in Lubbock, Tex., or contest the citations and penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Drug to be Tested as Mesothelioma Treatment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Morning sickness drug Thalidomide, which caused severe birth defects in the 1950s and 1960s, is about to be tested as a treatment for asbestos-related mesothelioma, The Courier Mail reports. Thalidomide is already listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme as a treatment for multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer. Cancer specialist Nick Pavlakis, of Sydney's Royal North Shore Hospital, said Thalidomide had been shown to inhibit blood vessel growth within tumors and he planned to test its value in mesothelioma patients. Professor Pavlakis hopes to recruit about 100 patients Australia-wide for the study, which will compare those receiving chemotherapy with others given the standard treatment as well as Thalidomide. Professor Pavlakis said the results of the trial would be combined with a similar study taking place in the Netherlands. Studies have found the standard chemotherapy cocktail increases survival of mesothelioma patients by an average of three months as well as improving quality of life. Professor Pavlakis said even if Thalidomide extended that to five months, it would be considered significant. About 600 Australians are diagnosed with the disease each year but that is expected to double by 2020. Professor Pavlakis said that only about five percent of those diagnosed with mesothelioma were alive five years later. The Queensland arm of the Thalidomide trial will be run through Brisbane's Prince Charles Hospital. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Exits Bankruptcy Protection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federal-Mogul Corp., on Dec. 27, 2007, exited Chapter 11 protection, ending one of the longest and most expensive bankruptcy reorganizations in auto history, Crain's Detroit Business reports. On Dec. 18, 2007, the Company announced that it would rise out of protection on Dec. 27, 2007. A Company spokeswoman said that a disclosure was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company filed for protection in October 2001 after a flurry of lawsuits resulting from auto parts that contained asbestos. The parts were made by companies acquired by the Company in the 1990s. The final price tag for the Company's bankruptcy litigation has not been determined, but in 2006 the tally had topped US$500 million. Through September 2007, the Company had spent another US$39.4 million on its bankruptcy restructuring efforts. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn paid about US$775 million for Federal-Mogul unsecured debt that could be converted to 43 percent of the Company's equity. Southfield, Mich.-based Federal-Mogul Corp. makes components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. Its products include chassis and engine parts, pistons, and sealing systems sold under brand names like Federal-Mogul, Glyco, and Signal-Stat. The Company also distributes auto parts to aftermarket customers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bar Urges Court to Suspend Lawyer's License ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Mississippi Bar has asked the Mississippi Supreme Court to suspend the law license of attorney Paul Minor, who was convicted in 2007 of bribing two judges, pending his appeal of his federal conviction, The Associated Press reports. The Mississippi Bar also has asked the Supreme Court to suspend the licenses of former Judges John H. Whitfield and Wes Teel, who were convicted along with Mr. Minor. Mr. Minor, who made a fortune in lawsuits against tobacco, asbestos and other companies, is already serving an 11-year sentence in a federal prison in Pensacola, Fla. Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Teel were convicted in March 2007 on bribery and mail fraud charges. Both former judges have appealed their sentences, as has Mr. Minor, to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. No hearing date has been set. Prosecutors say the 61-year-old 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. Mr. Minor acknowledged lending them money, but said it was only financial help for friends and he expected nothing in return. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $110,000 Hazard Overcharges Found at School ---------------------------------------------------------------- About US$110,000 of charges for asbestos abatement during the renovation of New Canaan High School in New Canaan, Conn., have been questioned in Deloitte's recent assessment, New Canaan News-Review reports. Deloitte presented the findings of its construction cost assessment at the Council's Dec. 19, 2007 meeting. The Town Council's Asbestos Oversight Committee hired Deloitte. O&G Industries Inc., the construction management firm, has credited the town US$20,000 in response to the report. Deloitte found that O&G had charged a construction management fee on four change orders. The contract did not permit those charges. The high school renovation was originally budgeted at US$49.3 million. Unforeseen asbestos removal raised the cost US$11.6 million. The final cost was US$65.5 million. Other charges that Deloitte has questioned have not yet been resolved. In two appendices, O&G and Construction Consulting Group, the owner's representative, questions many of Deloitte's figures and conclusions. Deloitte found what appeared to be US$31,000 in excessive charges during phase 24 of the asbestos removal. Nine time tickets list the same scope of work as in the bid. The firm sampled phases 17, 18 and 24 of the 28 phases of asbestos abatement. It found no problems with phases 17 and 18. Deloitte also found a US$38,000 overcharge on small tools. The time-and-material contract indicated a mark-up on small tools, but they are listed as a direct cost on the change order. However, O&G maintains that the change orders represent a fair and reasonable cost for equipment and small tools. They are contaminated when removing asbestos. Deloitte also found a discrepancy in labor rates. It appears that one electrical contractor double-counted on fringe benefits in the amount of US$18,000. The final quantitative finding was a discrepancy in the billing of labor hours. The firm compared one day of time-and-materials tickets with the certified payroll. They found over-charges of US$1,800. This represented 14.5 hours that did not appear in the certified pay roll. Deloitte also found non-quantifiable issues. The change orders were issued on a time-and-materials basis rather than on a "not- to-exceed" basis. Deloitte believes there would have been greater controls over the cost if the change orders had been "not-to-exceed." Some labor charges were high, according to Deloitte. This was a reflection of the work being specialized and the time constraints in finishing the project on time. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Locals Wary of Fire in Abandoned Club ---------------------------------------------------------------- Residents of Balby, Doncaster, England, on Dec. 28, 2007, were put on alert after an asbestos scare was sparked by a fire at the former Ashmount Club, The Star reports. The fire completely destroyed the large concert room at the rear of the premises and flames caused the asbestos roof to shatter and collapse. The adjacent street, Furnival Road, was closed to traffic while firefighters spent several hours tackling the blaze. Local residents were advised to keep their doors and windows closed because of the potential danger from asbestos dust but fire officers say the amount of water sprayed onto the site should have prevented it blowing around. A council spokesperson said, "The council will be carrying out safety work today following the fire on Balby Road including fencing off the area and putting up warning notices. The asbestos in the building is believed to be low risk, however we will also be visiting local residents to offer advice and reassurance.” Four fire appliances from Doncaster, Edlington and Adwick stations and the aerial ladder platform were called in to deal with the blaze which was reported shortly before 5:00 p.m. By the time the first crew arrived flames were shooting through the roof and it was obvious it had been burning for some time. The club, once one of the most popular in Doncaster, has been shut for about a year. Fire investigation experts were due to revisit the site on Dec. 28, 2007. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fire Destroys West Sussex Barns in New Year ---------------------------------------------------------------- A family from West Sussex, England, were evacuated from their farmhouse after a fire broke out in nearby barns, where asbestos and gas canisters were both present, BBC News reports. The blaze had taken hold of the barns rented out for business use. Three out of five premises were completely destroyed. Peter Renwick, his wife and their two sons "gatecrashed" their neighbors' New Year's Eve party when fire crews told them to leave Crows Hall Farm. Mr. Renwick said the affected barns had been used by three companies storing furniture, theatrical props and marquees. He said his eight-year-old son spotted the fire in the block of barns just after 2330 GMT on Dec. 31, 2007. Up to 60 firefighters attended the blaze. It was not extinguished until about 0700 GMT on Jan. 1, 2008, and crews were expected to remain at the scene into the evening for damping down. The Environment Agency also had to be called out to make sure Chilgrove Road was cleaned of any asbestos from the roof of the barns which may have contaminated its surface. West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service said much of the building was now unsafe. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Bldg. with Hazard Destroyed by Fire ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fire destroyed a bungalow, which was made of asbestos sheeting, in the backyard of a Torquay, Victoria, Australia home on Dec. 31, 2007, Geelong Advertiser reports. The Price Street blaze broke out about 3:30 p.m., quickly taking hold of the building. The adjoining house was not damaged in the fire. Firefighters donned breathing apparatus, fearing they may inhale the asbestos dust while fighting the fire which lasted about 20 minutes. Hot weather added to the battle for firefighters as temperatures rose to 40 degrees. Only walls and part of the roof of the building could be saved. Captain Phil Campbell from Torquay Country Fire Authority said an investigator was being sent from Geelong to determine the cause of the blaze. Five CFA units and 20 firefighters from Geelong and Belmont fought the fire. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACandS to Emerge From Bankruptcy Protection ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACandS Inc., which entered bankruptcy on Sept. 16, 2002 with US$3 billion in asbestos liability, has entered the final stage of its Chapter 11 restructuring, Associated Press reports. The Company filed the disclosure statement of its bankruptcy- reorganization plan that calls for US$500 million in insurance settlements to resolve the asbestos liabilities. The Company says no one has objected to the disclosure statement, a sign that the Company is poised for a smooth end to a long-running bankruptcy case. That clears the way for U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald to approve the disclosure statement and authorize ACandS to send the plan to its creditors for a vote. Once the votes are in and the Chapter 11 plan confirmed, the Company's asbestos liabilities would be transferred to a trust funded largely by a unit of The Travelers Companies Inc. The Company's exit from bankruptcy also clears the way for a US$45 million payout to law firm Gilbert Randolph LLC. The Washington, D.C., firm stands to collect a portion of the insurance settlement funds under a contingency fee agreement with the Company. According to court documents, the Company's case would end in an estimated six percent recovery for people with asbestos-related injuries, a figure that takes into account future damages as well as claims already filed. That recovery rate reflects a deal struck in September 2007 with Travelers Casualty that ended decades of litigation over the insurer's obligations to cover asbestos claims against the Company. The money Travelers set aside, US$449 million, is expected to earn another US$10 million in interest by the time ACandS's Chapter 11 plan is confirmed. Additionally, the Company stands to collect about US$44 million under a settlement with a unit of ACE Ltd., once its Chapter 11 plan is confirmed. Most of the money from Travelers, ACE and other sources will go to a trust to be set up under the Chapter 11 plan to pay claims. ACandS sought Chapter 11 protection at the height of the race to bankruptcy by companies swamped with asbestos-related personal- injury claims. At the time, the Company had already settled 247,000 asbestos claims, but had 300,000 left to deal with. Since 1969, ACandS Inc. has been a wholly owned subsidiary of Lancaster, Pa.-based Irex Corp., a holding company that also owns several subsidiaries that operate within the specialty contracting business. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NHS Trust Deals w/ Hazard at Welsh Hospital ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Conwy & Denbigshire NHS Trust is taking urgent action to deal with the problem of asbestos throughout buildings of the Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, a hospital at Bodelwyddan, Wales, Daily Post reports. The Welsh Assembly has given GBP280,000 for short-term measures to reduce the highest risks. The reports states that the asbestos is used as fire protection cladding and is in poor condition. Conwy & Denbighshire NHS Trust Board by risk manager Ken Dawes said, "There is a likelihood that leaks in the ceiling void will bring the asbestos through the suspended ceiling into the occupied areas. "As the bond between the asbestos and beams no longer exists in many areas fire resistance is reduced to 15 minutes in places (and this) coupled with the structural weakness, produces a high risk." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flytippers Dump Hazard in U.K. Countryside ---------------------------------------------------------------- Flytippers dumped potentially dangerous asbestos cement in a Grantham, Lincolnshire, England, country lane before Dec. 24, 2007, Grantham Journal reports. The split bags of the material were left in a lane off the A17 near Fulbeck Heath. Motorist Carole Atkinson, who lives in nearby Claythorpe Heath, spotted the waste from the A17 on Dec. 24, 2007. She said, "I think the lane is privately owned but there are no gates so anyone could have dumped it there.” Asbestos fibers are hazardous and can lead to fatal illnesses if inhaled or swallowed. Fibers are thin and sharp so they are able to get past the body's defenses where normal dust cannot. Once inside, the fibers will attack the body's tissue. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tex. City to Decide on Best Western Removal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The City of Seguin in Texas is to decide on the contractor to facilitate the cleanup, including asbestos removal, of the structures and debris left over from an April 2007 fire that damaged the Best Western motel at 1603 W. I.H. 10 at State Highway 46, Seguin Gazette-Enterprise reports. The city received eight bids for the removal of the structures and debris. Low bids for the job came in at more than US$78,000 from KMAC Construction Service for removal of the structures, including asbestos, US$74,000 for removal without asbestos from South Plains Contracting Inc., and US$3,500 for removal of the swimming pool from South Plains Contracting Inc. The Seguin Planning and Zoning Commission in November 2007 decided on a low bidder for the demolition of the property, and the city council later gave Soham Investments L.P. a 30-day deadline to arrange the job themselves. Ray Medrano of TLI & Environmental Services advised the city that asbestos was removed by Nov. 5, 2007. Director of Planning Donald Smith said the original bid had a Jan. 31, 2008 deadline for removal of the structures, but since the contract award was delayed the deadline will have to be reset. Jay Patel, representative from Soham Investments L.P., had informed the city that he was still negotiating with the property's insurance company and with an engineer to possibly rebuild the motel. The property was damaged by fire in mid-April, causing an estimated US$1 million in damage. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Files Witness and Exhibit Lists ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co., and its debtor-affiliates, the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, and David Austern, the Court-appointed Future Claims Representative, each filed with the Court separate lists of exhibits and witnesses they will present during the PI estimation proceedings scheduled to start on Jan. 14, 2008. -- Grace's Witness List is available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/grace_GRACEwitnesslist.pdf -- Grace's Exhibit List is available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/grace_GRACEexhibitlist.pdf -- PI Committee's Witness List is available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/grace_PICommwitnesslist.pdf -- FCR's Witness List is available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/grace_FCRwitnesslist.pdf -- PI Committee's and FCR's joint Exhibit List is available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/grace_PICommFCRexhibitlist.pdf (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 146; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Lawyer Says Reports Meet "Fit” Test ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co. and the other Debtors' expert reports meet the Daubert "fit" test, David M. Bernick P.C., at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, in Chicago, argues on the Debtors' behalf. "While [Grace's] case is thus novel in the history of asbestos Chapter 11 cases, . . . the substance of Grace's estimate –- the principles of law and science that provide the outcome- determinative structure of Grace's case -- is anything but novel. To the contrary, the principles that drive Grace's case are traditional in the highest sense of that word," Mr. Bernick states. "They are the state-law requirement of causation proven up scientifically under Dauber, a classic toxic-tort law inquiry, and they must govern [Grace's] case. They call for the deployment of accepted scientific methods that have been the bedrock of toxic-tort science for years and the sole guidance for disease forecasts for just as long," Mr. Bernick adds. Mr. Bernick tells the Court that the work of Grace's experts has been completed meticulously, from the industrial-hygiene analysis of exposure settings for Grace products, to the calculations of dose and risk, to the criteria for gathering medical evidence, and finally to the application of the resulting criteria to the claimants' own evidence of exposure and disease. "No stone has been left unturned," Mr. Bernick contends. "No convenient or ipse dixit junk science has been allowed," Mr. Bernick adds. Mr. Bernick argues that, at their core, the attacks made by the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and the Future Claims Representative against the Debtors' expert reports is an attack "on the very concept of rule-based liability." Mr. Bernick asserts that the Debtors' PI liabilities should be determined by the Court using bankruptcy law and the federal rules of procedures and evidence, and not by the state law tort system. The value of the Debtors' PI liabilities should also be reduced to present value as of the Petition Date. The reports prepared by the Debtors' experts and the testimony those experts will provide at the January 2008 estimation trial are designed to provide the Court with evidence of the Debtors' actual legal liability on account of asbestos PI claims and future demands under applicable state law and the federal rules of procedure and evidence, Mr. Bernick contends. The Debtors' experts use reliable and appropriate scientific methodology in coming up with their conclusions, Mr. Bernick tells the Court. The conclusions of the Debtors' experts, he adds, were derived from proofs of claim and questionnaires obtained from the claimants themselves. Mr. Bernick, however, admits that obtaining information from the PI Claimants were not successful because of most of the lawyers representing those claimants were unwilling to provide information sought by the Questionnaires. Mr. Bernick contends that, contrary to the assertions made by the PI Committee and the FCR, the Debtors did not withhold privileged medical and exposure data from the PI Committee and parties-in-interest to the estimation proceedings. "At the end of the day, Grace has done its job in bringing the estimation of asbestos liability to world of law and science," Mr. Bernick says. "This must in the end be the basis of estimation, not the haggling of the bazaar or the ipse dixit pronouncements of the claimants all-purpose 'estimation's experts," Mr. Bernick adds. Accordingly, the Debtors ask the Court to deny the requests of the PI Committee and the FCR to exclude or limit expert testimony to be presented by the Debtors during the January 2008 PI estimation trial. A copy of the Debtors' Response is available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/grace_GraceDaubertResponse.pdf In separate filings with the Court, the PI Committee and the FCR filed under seal their responses to the Debtors' and the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders' Daubert motions. (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 146; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in Weyerhaeuser Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle, entered various judgments in insurance coverage-related asbestos litigation with Weyerhaeuser Co. as the plaintiff. The case is styled Weyerhaeuser Co., Plaintiff, v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., Defendant and Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. General Insurance Company Of America; Northwestern National Insurance Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Old Republic Insurance Co., Third-Party Defendants. District Judge Marsha J. Pecham entered judgment of Case No. C06-1189MJP on Dec. 17, 2007. This case arose from 27 asbestos-related claims asserted against Weyerhaeuser alleging liability for bodily injury. Four different insurers collected premiums from Weyerhaeuser for liability coverage over this period. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. issued policies from 1954 to 1978. General General Insurance Company of America issued policies from 1978 to 1985. Northwestern National Insurance Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, issued policies from 1985 to 1986. Old Republic Insurance Co. issued policies from 1986 to 1989. All four policies provided coverage for "all sums" (up to a certain limit) that Weyerhaeuser becomes obligated to pay as damages because of bodily or personal injury. Weyerhaeuser argued that even though it technically purchased insurance policies for the 1978-89 period, these "fronting policies" provided no actual insurance benefit, rendering Weyerhaeuser effectively self-insured or uninsured during that time. Fireman's Fund argued that Weyerhaeuser was insured during that time period. Because the asbestos-related claims made against Weyerhaeuser spanned several policy periods, under Washington law, all insurers during those periods are jointly and severally liable for the claims. If, as Fireman's Fund argued, Weyerhaeuser was insured, Fireman's Fund may seek recompense from the other insurers. If, however, Weyerhaeuser was not insured during the 1978-1989 years, Fireman's Fund must absorb the entire cost of the claims, even for those years for which it did not provide insurance. This matter came before the Court on cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether Fireman's Fund may seek equitable contribution from the other three insurers. Having considered the motions and responses, the District Court granted Weyerhaeuser's cross-motion and denied Fireman's Fund's cross-motion. Fireman's Fund's claims against General Insurance, Northwestern National, and Old Republic Insurance Co. were dismissed. James Robert McCullagh, Marie G Aglion, Perkins Coie, Jeffrey I. Tilden, Franklin Dennis Cordell, Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell LLP, Seattle, represented Weyerhaeuser Co. John Charles Ditzler, Cozen O'Connor, Seattle, represented Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. Jodi Ann McDougall, Cozen O'Connor, Seattle, represented Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. Curt H. Feig, Nicoll Black & Feig PLLC, Seattle, represented General Insurance Company of America, Northwestern National Insurance Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Old Republic Insurance Co. New Securities Fraud Cases BASIN WATER: Schiffrin Barroway Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Basin Water, Inc. from May 14, 2007 through November 13, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges Basin and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Basin Water is a provider of long-term process solutions for a range of clients, which include designing, building and implementing systems for the treatment of contaminated groundwater as well as waste reduction and resource recovery. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company had not adequately accounted for reserves in connection with its legacy system contracts, due to inadequate contracts which did not allow the Company to pass on rising costs in a timely manner; (2) that operating losses from such legacy system contracts would continue to negatively impact the Company's financial results; (3) that the Company's transition efforts were not proceeding according to expectations and were not as complete as the Company had represented to investors; (4) that the Company's statements about projected profits and losses from contracts, and the completeness of the Company's review and writeoffs of such projected losses in prior reporting periods, were false; (5) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (6) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On November 14, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it reported its third quarter 2007 results, which included a surprise $4.7 million charge to the Company's cost of revenues to reserve for future projected losses. The Company stated that the reserve "was due primarily to poorly priced contracts," and that many of the Company's older contracts would continue to operate at a loss "for some period of time." On this news, the Company's shares declined $2.29 share, or 22.23 percent, to close on November 14, 2007 at $8.01 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than February 25, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com SANOFI-AVENTIS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Sanofi-Aventis from February 17, 2006 through June 13, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges Sanofi and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Sanofi is a pharmaceutical group engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of healthcare products. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose material adverse data concerning Zimulti's tendency to cause a statistically significant increase in psychiatric problems, including suicidal thoughts and actions. On June 13, 2007, an Advisory Panel to the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") unanimously voted that Sanfi had not provided the panel with enough information on the safety of Zimulti (rimonabant), and unanimously recommended that the FDA reject Sanofi's Zimulti application. FDA scientists provided an analysis of 13 studies which showed that 26 percent of patients taking the recommended dose of Zimulti had psychiatric side effects, as compared to 14 percent of those patients who received a placebo. Additionally, studies showed that the drug also doubled cases of anxiety, depression, and other mood disorders when compared to placebo. Analysts had predicted that Zimulti would have been a multibillion-dollar product worldwide, assuming that it was approved in the US, which would have been the biggest market for the drug. On this news, the Company's securities declined $1.31 per share, or 2.95 percent, to close on June 13, 2007 at $43.07 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. The following day, the Company's securities declined an additional $1.74 per share, or over 4 percent, also on unusually heavy trading volume, for a two-day decline of $3.05 per share, or over 6.87 percent. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than January 14, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, Editors. Copyright 2008. 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 * * *