/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080111.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, January 11, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 8 Headlines ALLSTATE HOME: Faces Suit Over Terms of Rate Mortgage Loans AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls ATVs to Repair Throttle Position Sensor ANDRX CORP: Settles “Lowry” Securities Fraud Suit in Fla. Court BROWN-FORMAN: Says Underage Drinking Suits Have Been Concluded CASEY’S GENERAL: Proceedings Stayed in Kans. “Hot Fuel” Cases CASEY’S GENERAL: Former Managers Seek to Amend Mo. Lawsuit CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Sued Over Vocational Training Programs DITECH COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Cal. Securities Suit FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Dismissal of Cal. Consumer Suit Appealed GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Suit by 401(k) Investors for $39M INDIAN TRUST: Plaintiffs' Brief Criticizes Accounting Plan INTERMATIC INC: Recalls Timers Posing Electrical Shock Hazard MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Feb. 1 Trial Set for Cal. Securities Suit NORDSTROM INC: $175M Settlement of Cal. Antitrust Suit Now Final PREMIUM STANDARD: Plaintiffs Exhaust Appeals in Swine Farms Suit QUEST SOFTWARE: Seeks Review of Cal. Securities Suit Rulings REFCO INC: Ex-Counsel Settles Securities Fraud Claims for $7.6M REX ENERGY: Jury Trial in Ill. H2S Emissions Suit Set Aug. 2008 SAKS INC: Still Faces Ala. Suit Over Merchandise Return Fees SEMTECH CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. New York SHARPER IMAGE: May, June Hearings Set in Suits Over Purifier SMITHFIELD FOODS: Dismissal of Suit Over Pennexx Deal Affirmed STAR GAS: Discovery in Conn. Securities Fraud Suit Still Stayed TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: GTA Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 25 TICKETMASTER: Ticket Buyer's Suit Alleges Online Billing Fraud TWEEN BRANDS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio VISA CHECK/MASTERMONEY ANTITRUST: $185M Settlement Checks Out VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: $10M Securities Suit Settlement Approved WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Suits Related to Cipro WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: In Talks to Settle Mass. AWP Lawsuits WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit Dismissal Review Junked WORLDCOM INC: Request to Distribute Settlement Fund Filed Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bunnell Action Remanded to Madison Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Judge Sets Chick Sentencing to Feb. 20 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ireland Public Park Closed Due to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. 56 Firms Filed Last Dec. 7 in W.Va. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Local Sues 72 Companies in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lab Tests Confirm Hazard in Common Products ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquests Set for 2008 on York's "Time Bomb" ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dublin Docklands to Clean Up Bottling Site ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Records $354M Liability at Sept. 28 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Corp. Has 38,477 Claims at Sept. 28 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Has $7.5M Liability Reserve at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Lawmakers Urged Not to Pass Changes ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Del. Panel to Investigate Surge of Filings ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Claimants File Appeal to Dana Plan ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $9M Awarded to N.Y. Claimants Last Dec. 17 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harris’ Bid to Remand Suit v. Viad Junked ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Satterfield Lawsuit v. ALCOA Inc. Continues ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Industry Thrives in Indonesia ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gov’t to Review Inspection Systems in Tokyo ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Century Objects to Clause in ASARCO Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Motion to Retain Dean Baker Filed in ASARCO ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Braces for Bankruptcy Judge's Ruling ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of Tex. Senior Center ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Decision in Plymouth's Favor ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Has $57.5M Current Liability at Nov. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling to Favor TIG Insurance ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Worker Sues 72 Companies in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: French Court Affirms Decision v. Michelin ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Owes $5T Over Contract, Creditor Says ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navy Worker Sues 71 Companies in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: St. George Re to Center on Asbestos Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Law Firm Warns of Lung Cancer's Danger ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Begins at Wigginton School in York ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Veteran “Demoted” for N.Y. School Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Md. Court Junks Appeal in Silbersack Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Historic Hall Closed After Discovery ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Detected at La Habra City Hall ASBESTOS LITIGATION: More Asbestos Delays Mass. Library Opening ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Removal at Md. Public Schools to Begin June New Securities Fraud Cases INTERNATIONAL COAL: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in West Va. ********* ALLSTATE HOME: Faces Suit Over Terms of Rate Mortgage Loans ----------------------------------------------------------- Allstate Homes Loans is facing a class-action complaint filed Jan. 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging it fraudulently failed to disclose terms of its Option Adjustable Rate Mortgage loans, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Paula Idele Keller brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rules 23(a), and 23(b) on behalf of the following classes: (i) The California Class: all individuals who, within the four year period preceding the filing of plaintiff's complaint through the date notice is mailed to the class, received an Option ARM loan through defendants on their primary residence located in the State of California; and (ii) The National Class: all individuals in the United States of America who, within the four year period preceding the filing of plaintiff's complaint through the date notice is mailed to the class, received an Option ARM loan through defendants on their primary residence located in the United States of America. Plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants' acts and practices violate the Truth in Lending Act, 15 USC Section 1601, et seq.; (b) whether defendants' conduct violated 12 CFR Section 226.17; (c) whether defendants' conduct violated 12 CFR SEction 226.19; (d) whether defendants engaged in unfair business practices aimed at deceiving plaintiff and the class members before and during the loan application process; (e) whether defendant, by and through their officers, employees, and agents failed to disclose that the interest rate actually charged on these loans was higher that the rate represented and promised to plaintiff and the class members; (f) whether defendants, by and through their officers, employees and agents concealed, omitted and/or otherwise failed to disclose information they were mandated to disclose under TILA; (g) whether defendants failed to disclose the true variable nature of interest rates on adjustable rate mortgage loans and adjustable rate home equity loans; (h) whether defendants failed to properly disclose the process by which negative amortization occurs, ultimately resulting in the recasting of the payment structure over the remaining lifetime of the loans; (i) whether defendants' failure to apply plaintiff's and the class members' payments to principal as promised in the form Notes constitutes a breach of contract, including a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (j) whether defendants' conduct in immediately raising the interest rate on consumers' loans so that no payments were applied to the principal balance constitutes breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (k) whether defendants' marketing plan and scheme misleadingly portrayed or implied that these loans were fixed rate loans, when defendants knew that only the periodic payments were fixed (for a time) but that interest rates were not, in fact, "fixed;" (l) whether the terms and conditions of defendants' Option ARM home loan are unconscionable; (m) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to damages; (n) whether plaintiff and the class members are entitled to punitive damages; and (o) whether plaintiff and the class members are entitled to rescission. Plaintiff pray for judgment as follows: -- an order certifying this case as a class action and appointing plaintiff and their counsel to represent the class; -- for actual damages according to prof; -- for compensatory damages as permitted by law; -- for consequential damages as permitted by law; -- for punitive damages as permitted by law; -- for declaratory relief; -- for a mandatory injunction requiring defendants to permanently include in every Option ARM loan and disclosure statement: (1) clear and conspicuous disclosure of the actual interest rate on the Note(s) and disclosure statement(s) as required under 12 CFR Section 226.17 by; (2) clear and conspicuous disclosure of the actual interest rate on the Note(s) and disclosure statement(s) that payments on the variable interest rate loan during the initial period at the teaser rate will result in negative amortization and that the principal balance will increase as required under CFR Section 226.19; and (3) clear and conspicuous disclosure that the initial interest rate provided is discounted and does not reflect the actual interest that plaintiff and class members would be paying on the Note(s); -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and -- for such other relief as is just and proper. The suit is "Paula Idelle Keller et al. v. Allstate Home Loans, Inc. et al., Case No. SACV08-0017 DOC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central Disrtict of California. Representing plaintiffs are: David M. Arbogast Ira Spiro Spiro Moss Barness LLP 11377 W. Olympic Boulevard, Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683 Phone: (310) 235-2468 Fax: (310) 235-2456 E-mail: David@SpiroMOss.com or Ira@SpiroMoss.com Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. Patrick DeBlase, Esq. Michael C. Eyerly, Esq. Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP 8648 wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 90211 Phone: (310) 854-4444 Fax: (310) 854-0812 Jonathan Shub Seeger Weiss LLP 1515 Market Street, Suite 1380 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 564-2300 Fax: (215) 851-8029 - and - Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq. Law Offices of Jeffrey K. Berns 19510 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200 Tarzana, California 91356 Phone: (818) 961-2000 Fax: (818) 867-4820 AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls ATVs to Repair Throttle Position Sensor --------------------------------------------------------------- American Honda Motor Co., Inc. of Torrance, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 40,000 Model Year 2007 Honda TRX 500 ATVs. The company said water can enter the throttle position sensor and freeze, causing permanent damage if the rider forces the throttle lever. This could cause the throttle to stick open, posing a risk of injury or death to riders. Honda has received two reported incidents of the throttle sticking, no injuries have been reported. This recall involves Model Year 2007 Honda TRX 500 ATVs, also known as the Honda Foreman and Foreman Rubicon. The adult-size ATVs are designed for use by riders age 16 and older. The 2007 model year ATVs are available in red, black, blue, olive, and camouflage. The Honda name and wing logo are printed on the fuel tank and the model name is printed on the side panel just below the seat. These recalled ATVs were manufactured in the USA and were sold by Honda ATV dealers nationwide from June 2006 through December 2007 for between $6,500 and $7,600. Pictures of recalled ATVs: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08535a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08535b.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using these recalled ATVs and contact any Honda ATV dealer to schedule a free repair. Registered owners of the recalled ATVs have been sent direct notice. For additional information, consumers can contact Honda (866) 784-1870 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.powersports.honda.com. ANDRX CORP: Settles “Lowry” Securities Fraud Suit in Fla. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrx Corp. has settled the securities fraud suit “Jerry Lowry v. Andrx Corp., et al., Case No. 05-61640,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On October 11, 2005, Jerry Lowry filed a class action complaint on behalf of purchasers of the Andrx’s common stock during the class period (March 9, 2005 through September 5, 2005) against Andrx Corp. and its then Chief Executive Officer, Thomas Rice. The complaint seeks damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and alleges that during the class period, Andrx failed to disclose that its manufacturing facilities were not in compliance with the U.S. FDA’s current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP). The complaint further alleges that Andrx’s failure to be cGMP compliant led to the FDA placing Andrx on Official Action Indicated status, which resulted in not being eligible for approvals of Andrx’s Abbreviated New Drug Applications. On July 24, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the action. On December 8, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On April 18, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification. On October 2, 2007, the parties entered into an agreement in principle settling all outstanding claims. The terms of the agreement are confidential and are subject to the execution of definitive documentation and approval of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The settlement is not expected to materially adversely affect the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. The suit is "Jerry Lowry, et al. v. Andrx Corp., et al., Case No. 05-CV-61640," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge William P. Dimitrouleas. Representing the plaintiffs is: Deborah R. Gross, Esq. Bernard M. Gross 450 John Wanamaker Building, Juniper and Market Streets Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 215-561-3600 Fax: 215-561-3000 E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com Representing the defendants is: Louise McAlpin Brais, Esq. Holland & Knight 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-789-7715 Fax: 305-789-7799 E-mail: louise.brais@hklaw.com BROWN-FORMAN: Says Underage Drinking Suits Have Been Concluded -------------------------------------------------------------- Brown-Forman Corp. discloses that a series of litigation with regards to alleged marketing of beverage alcohol to underage consumers is concluded with the dismissal or withdrawal of the cases. The plaintiffs sought damages and injunctive relief for alleged marketing of beverage alcohol to underage consumers. Nine lawsuits were filed, the first three against eight defendants, including Brown-Forman are: -- "Hakki v. Adolph Coors Company, et al.," District of Columbia Superior Court No. CD 03-9183 (November 2003); -- "Kreft v. Zima Beverage Co., et al.," District Court, Jefferson County, Colorado, No. 04cv1827 (December 2003); and -- "Wilson v. Zima Company, et al., U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, No. 3:04cv141 (January 2004)." Two virtually identical suits with allegations similar to those in the first three lawsuits were filed in Cleveland, Ohio, in April and June 2004, respectively, against the original eight defendants as well as an additional nine manufacturers and are now consolidated as "Eisenberg v. Anheuser-Busch, Case No. 1:04cv1081," pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Ohio. Five similar suits were filed in 2005: -- "Elizabeth H. Sciocchette v. Advanced Brands," Albany County, New York Supreme Court No. 102205 (Feb. 16, 2005); -- "Roger and Kathy Bertovich v. Advanced Brands," Hancock County, West Virginia, Circuit Court No. 05-C-42M, (Feb. 17, 2005); -- "Jacquelin Tomberlin v. Adolph Coors," Dane County (Madison, Wisconsin) Circuit Court (Feb. 23, 2005);" -- "Viola Alston v. Advanced Brands," Wayne County, Michigan, Circuit Court No. 05-509294, (March, 30, 2005), and -- "Craig Konhauzer v. Adolph Coors Company," Broward County, Florida Circuit Court, No. 05004875 (March 30, 2005). In addition, Brown-Forman received in February 2004, a pre- lawsuit notice under the California Consumer Protection Act indicating that the same lawyers intend to file a lawsuit in California against many industry defendants, including Brown- Forman, presumably on the same facts and legal theories. The suits allege that the defendants have engaged in deceptive marketing practices and schemes targeted at underage consumers, negligently marketed their products to the underage, and fraudulently concealed their alleged misconduct. Plaintiffs seek class action certification on behalf of: -- a guardian class consisting of all persons who were or are parents of children whose funds were used to purchase beverage alcohol marketed by the defendants which were consumed without their prior knowledge by their children under the age of 21 during the period 1982 to present; and -- an injunctive class consisting of the parents and guardians of all children currently under the age of 21. The lawsuits seek: -- a finding that defendants engaged in a deceptive scheme to market alcoholic beverages to underage persons and an injunction against such alleged practices; -- disgorgement and refund to the guardian class of all proceeds resulting from sales to the underage since 1982; and -- judgment to each guardian class member for a trebled award of actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees. The lawsuits, either collectively or individually, if ultimately successful, represents significant financial exposure. Brown-Forman and the other defendants have successfully obtained orders to dismiss five of the pending cases: -- Kreft (Colorado) in October 2005, -- Eisenberg (Ohio) in February 2006, -- Tomberlin (Wisconsin) in March 2006, -- Hakki (D.C.) in March 2006, -- Alston (Michigan) in May 2006, and -- Bertovich (West Virginia) in August 2006. In addition, Konhauzer (Florida), and Sciocchette (New York) voluntarily withdrew their respective suits. Wilson (North Carolina) is pending decision on defendant's motion to dismiss. The respective plaintiffs in the involuntarily dismissed case are appealing. The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the Hakki dismissal in June 2007. The consolidated Alston and Eisenberg dismissals were affirmed by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in July 2007; plaintiffs filed in November 2007 a motion to withdraw the pending Petition for Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Colorado and Wisconsin Courts of Appeals affirmed the Kreft and Tomberlin dismissals, respectively, in October 2007; those opinions now are final. The Bertoviches (West Virginia) filed in November 2007 a stipulation of dismissal of their appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As all of the cases have been dismissed or withdrawn, this series of litigation is concluded, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31, 2007. Brown-Forman Corp. -- http://www.brown-forman.com/-- is a diversified producer and marketer of consumer beverage products, including Jack Daniel's and its family of brands, Southern Comfort, Finlandia, Tequila Herradura, el Jimador Tequila, Canadian Mist, Fetzer, Bolla, Sonoma-Cutrer wines and Korbel Champagne. The Company markets and sells various categories of beverage alcohol products, such as Tennessee, Canadian, and Kentucky whiskies; Kentucky bourbon; California sparkling wine; tequila; table wine; liqueurs; vodka; rum; gin, and ready-to- drink products. CASEY’S GENERAL: Proceedings Stayed in Kans. “Hot Fuel” Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- Proceedings have been stayed in various “hot fuel” cases that were consolidated for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. Initially, Casey’s General Stores, Inc. was named as a defendant in five lawsuits brought in the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri against a variety of gasoline retailers. The complaints generally allege that the Company, along with numerous other retailers, has misrepresented gasoline volumes dispensed at its pumps by failing to compensate for expansion that occurs when fuel is sold at temperatures above 60F. Fuel is measured at 60F in wholesale purchase transactions and computation of motor fuel taxes in Kansas and Missouri. The complaints all seek certification as class actions on behalf of gasoline consumers within those two states, and one of the complaints also seeks certification for a class consisting of gasoline consumers in all states. The actions generally seek recovery for alleged violations of state consumer protection or unfair merchandising practices statutes, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; several seek injunctive relief and punitive damages. These actions are part of a number of similar lawsuits that have been filed in recent weeks in at least 21 states against a wide range of defendants that produce, refine, distribute, and/or market gasoline products in the United States. On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the pending hot fuel cases be transferred to U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and assigned to the Judge Kathryn H. Vratil for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, including rulings on discovery matters, various pretrial motions, and class certification issues applicable to all of the cases. All other proceedings, including discovery, have been stayed pending rulings on various motions now pending in that Court, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31, 2007. Casey’s General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/-- operates convenience stores under the name Casey’s General Store in nine Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois. CASEY’S GENERAL: Former Managers Seek to Amend Mo. Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a purported class action filed against Casey’s General Stores, Inc. seek to file an amended complaint in the matter, to assert additional claims under state wage laws. On May 30, 2007, a complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa by two former assistant managers, in which the claim is made that Casey’s failed to properly pay overtime compensation properly to two or more of its assistant managers. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the assistant managers were treated as nonexempt employees entitled to overtime pay, but that the Company did not properly record all hours worked and failed to pay the assistant managers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The action purports to be a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (essentially equivalent to a class action) brought on behalf of all “persons who are currently or were employed during the three-year period immediately preceding the filing of [the] complaint as ‘Assistant Managers’ at any Casey’s General Store operated by [the] Defendant (directly or through one of its wholly owned subsidiaries), who worked overtime during any given week within that period, and who have not filed a complaint to recover overtime wages.” The complaint seeks relief in the form of back wages owed all members of the class during the three-year period preceding the filing of the complaint, liquidated damages, attorneys fees, and costs. The Company has filed an answer denying the claims. The case is now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa sitting. The Court has conditionally certified the collective action as to any employees who are or have been employed by Casey’s as an assistant manager at any time since Nov. 1, 2004, and who have unresolved claims for unpaid overtime. The plaintiffs are now seeking leave of the court to file an amended complaint asserting additional claims under state wage laws, for which they seek certification as a class action, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31, 2007. The suit is “Jones et al. v. Casey's General Stores Inc., Case No. 5:07-cv-04043-MWB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa under Judge Mark W. Bennett with referral to Judge Paul A. Zoss. Representing the plaintiffs is: Jon E. Heisterkamp, Esq. Peters Law Firm PC PO Box 1078, 233 Pearl Street Council Bluffs, IA 51502-1078 Phone: 712 328 3157 Fax: 328 9092 E-mail: jeheisterkamp@yahoo.com CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Sued Over Vocational Training Programs ----------------------------------------------------------- Corinthian Colleges, d.b.a. Bryman and Everest Colleges, is facing a class-action complaint filed Dec. 31, 2007 in the Superior Court of California in the County of Santa Clara alleging it cheat students by making misleading statements about their vocational training programs, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiffs Kathryn E. Leask and Judith L. Leask bring this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 on behalf of all California persons who entered into Enrollment Agreements (EA) with defendants for an education as a Medical Assistant during the period within the past four years of the filing of the complaint. Plaintiffs also challenge the legality of various provisions of the EA for the purchase of the education and the financing of same on behalf of the class and in a representative capacity on behalf of individual students, borrowers and the general public pursuant to Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17204. They want the court to rule on: (a) whether California law has been violated by defendants as alleged; (b) whether defendants participated in and pursued the course of conduct complained of; (c) whether the EA at issue are violations of the Education Code Section 94850 et seq. and/or the Unfair Business Practices Act; (d) whether the members of the class have sustained damages, and if so, the proper measure of damages; (e) whether any loans obtained as a result of the EA were or remain valid, and whether refunds should be issued and/or the loans rescinded or canceled. Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows: -- for compensatory damages in an amount according to proof; -- for all consequential and incidental damages; -- in the alternative, for rescission of the entire EA and/or loans pursuant to Education Code Section 94877(a); -- for prejdugment interest at the maximum legal rate; -- for attorney fees and costs under Education Code Section 94877(b); and -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. The suit is "Kathryn E. Leask et al. v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al., Case No. 107CV102335," filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. Representing plaintiffs is: John L. Fallat Law Offices of John L. Fallat 523 Fourth Street, suite 210 San Rafael, CA 94901-3349 Phone: (415) 457-3773 Fax: (415) 457-2667 DITECH COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Cal. Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Ditech Communications Corp. are appealing the dismissal of their case. On June 14, 2005, a lawsuit filed by Richard E. Jaffe against Ditech Communications Corp., Timothy K. Montgomery and William J. Tamblyn (Case No. C 05 02406) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Ditech’s stock between Aug. 25, 2004 and May 26, 2005. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Ditech and its former Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. Several similar lawsuits were filed. All of them were later consolidated into a single action, captioned, "In re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. C05-02406- JSW." Although the court has dismissed this action with prejudice, the plaintiffs in this action have appealed the dismissal, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31, 2007. The suit is “In re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-02406-JSW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White. Representing the plaintiffs is: Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq. Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco, P.C. 425 California Street, Suite 2025 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415/433-3200 Fax: 415-433-6382 E-mail: cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com Representing the defendants is: William S. Freeman, Esq. Cooley Godward, LLP Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 9406-2155 Phone: 650 843-5000 Fax: 650 857-0663 E-mail: freemanws@cooley.com FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Dismissal of Cal. Consumer Suit Appealed --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the purported class action, “Brodhead et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.,” which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, are appealing an order dismissing the class-action complaint. Filed on June 22, 2005, the suit states a claim for damages growing out of certain California statutory claims with respect to alleged defects in a specific type of plastic roof installed on folding trailers from 1995 through 2003. Plaintiffs have further clarified and narrowed the class for which they are seeking certification, which now encompasses all original owners of folding trailers produced by Fleetwood Folding Trailers, Inc. with this type of roof but not including original purchasers who received an aluminum roof replacement and did not pay for freight. The subject matter of the claim is similar to a putative class action previously filed in California state court, entitled, “Griffin et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. et al.” The California trial court denied class action certification in the Griffin matter on April 28, 2005, and the California Court of Appeal upheld the denial in a decision issued on May 11, 2006. On March 26, 2007, the federal trial court granted a motion to dismiss the class-action complaint in the Brodhead case, leaving pending only the individual claims of the four named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the dismissal order, but the court denied that motion and dismissed the claims of the four individual plaintiffs on May 29, 2007. On June 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the federal court’s dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 28, 2007. The suit is “Kenneth Brodhead et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-04560-GPS-Mc,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge George P. Schiavelli with referral to Judge James W. McMahon. Representing the plaintiffs are: Edward M. Gergosian, Esq. Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq. Gergosian and Gralewski 550 West C Street, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-230-0104 E-mail: ed@gergosian.com - and - Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Karen Lee Hindin, Esq. Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo 601 California St., Ste. 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415-981-4800 E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com klh@girardgibbs.com jkl@girardgibbs.com Representing the company are: Howard B. Golds, Esq. Best Best & Krieger 3750 University Ave., Ste. 400, P.O. Box 1028 Riverside, CA 92502-1028 Phone: 951-686-1450 E-mail: hbgolds@bbklaw.com - and – Lee Ann Anand, Esq. Richard K. Hines, Esq. Nelson Mulins Riley & Scroborough 999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1400 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-817-6000 E-mail: leeann.anand@nelsonmullins.com richard.hines@nelsonmullins.com GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Suit by 401(k) Investors for $39M --------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Corp. agreed to pay $39 million to settle a class action brought by employees and retirees, The Detroit News reports citing people familiar with the agreement. In May 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan consolidated three related purported class actions brought under Employee Retirement Income Security Act against General Motors and other named defendants who are alleged to be fiduciaries of the General Motors stock purchase programs and personal savings plans for salaried and hourly employees, under the case caption, “In re General Motors Corp. ERISA Litigation.” In June 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint against General Motors, the Investment Funds Committee of the General Motors board, its individual members, General Motors's chairman and chief executive officer, members of General Motors's Employee Benefits Committee during the putative class period, General Motors's wholly owned subsidiary General Motors Investment Management Corp., and State Street Bank. The complaint alleged that the General Motors defendants breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants by, among other things, investing their assets, or offering them the option of investing, in General Motors stock on the ground that it was not a prudent investment. Plaintiffs purported to bring these claims on behalf of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the plans from March 18, 1999 to the present, and sought to recover losses allegedly suffered by the plans. The complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought, and defendants have no means at this time to estimate damages the plaintiffs will seek based upon the limited information available in the complaint. On July 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated class action complaint, which principally added allegations about General Motors' restated earnings and reclassification of cash flows, but which did not name any additional defendants or assert any new claims. Recently, according to the Detroit News report, lawyers for both sides told U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds they had reached a settlement during a Dec. 13 conference call. She issued an order requiring them to file the proposed settlement by Jan. 15 and set a Jan. 30 hearing to grant preliminary approval to the deal. Under the settlement, employees and retirees will split more than $25 million. The remainder will be split among the three law firms representing employees and retirees. The precise figures were still being negotiated Tuesday by General Motors' outside lawyers, according to the report. As part of the deal, retirees will be offered heavily discounted financial counseling services from Ayco, a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs. GM has also agreed to keep in place structural changes it made to its 401(k) plans. INDIAN TRUST: Plaintiffs' Brief Criticizes Accounting Plan ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. government's plan for giving an estimated 500,000 Native Americans a long-promised accounting of their Individual Indian Trust Accounts falls far short of the legal requirements for an accounting under trust law, a federal judge has been told. In a legal brief submitted to U.S. District Judge James Robertson, lawyers for Indian plaintiffs said that the government's proposal not only fails to meet the basic requirements of an accounting, but it would eliminate hundreds of thousands of Indian accounts from any review. The lawyers said the losses to Indian Trust beneficiaries clearly run into the billions of dollars -- not the millions that some government officials have suggested. The 80-page document suggested conclusions of law was based on evidence submitted during a 10-day trial that Judge Robertson held in October. The judge then told the lawyers to submit final briefs to him by Nov. 30 instead of offering oral arguments. The 11-year-old class action , titled “Cobell v. Kempthorne,” is based on the government's admitted mismanagement of what Congress has called a "Broken Trust" that was established in 1887. It was to handle the proceeds from the government-arranged leasing of 11 million acres of Indian lands, mostly in the West. As the papers presented to Judge Robertson noted, the trust was mismanaged by the government almost from its inception. Despite repeated orders from Congress and the Courts, the government is still years away from its long-promised accounting of the accounts. The government has “had over 100 years to fulfill their fiduciary obligations to render an accounting. They have not,” the brief noted. Five years after the Interior Department was found by the U.S. District Court to be failing its trust obligations, “nothing has changed,” lawyers for the Indians said. “Plaintiffs are no closer to receiving the accounting than when defendants were first ordered by Congress to do so in 1899 and by this Court in 1999. ”The attorneys said there is “no reason” to allow the defendants to take charge of the accounting process because they will only continue to delay “performance of their accounting obligations.” Attorneys for the Indian plaintiffs, led by Elouise Cobell of Browning, Mont., said that that only 8 percent of the trust records that the government reportedly has at an underground records center in Kansas have yet been examined. "Our lawyers have provided the judged with a detailed examination of the many flaws in the government's plan," said Ms. Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Nation. "The government's proposal is nothing more than a cruel hoax: a plan that would give most Indian Trust beneficiaries little of the information that a true accounting would provide." "And it would eliminate the chance of thousands of Indians of every learning how much money their families never got from their lands because of the government's mismanagement of their lands and their monies. This is never was the government's money. It was always supposed to be Indian money." Judge Robertson has not indicated when he will rule on the type of accounting that the government must conduct. The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 1:96-cv-01285-JR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge James Robertson. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mark Kester Brown, Esq. 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-2000 Phone: (775) 542-4938 Fax: 202-318-2372 E-mail: mkesterbrown@attglobal.net Dennis M. Gingold, Esq. 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 824-1448 Fax: 202-318-2372 E-mail: dennismgingold@aol.com Richard A. Guest, Esq. and Keith M. Harper, Esq. Native American Rights Fund 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-2976 Phone: (202) 785-4166 Fax: 202-822-0068 E-mail: richardg@narf.org or harper@narf.org Elliott H. Levitas, Esq. Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP 607 14th Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 508-5800 Fax: 202-508-5858 E-mail: elevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com Representing the defendants are: Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Esq. Sandra Peavler Spooner, Esq. U.S. Department of Justice 1100 L Street, NW Suite 10008 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 616-0328 E-mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov INTERMATIC INC: Recalls Timers Posing Electrical Shock Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- Intermatic Inc., of Spring Grove, Illinois, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 8,500 Intermatic DT27 Digital Self-Adjusting Timers. The company said the recalled timers could have been wired incorrectly, which poses an electrical shock hazard to consumers. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves the Intermatic DT27 digital self-adjusting timer with a date code of “04B.” This product is a lamp and appliance timer and is packaged as either the “DT27C Heavy Duty Digital Timer” or the “DT27CL Time All Digital Lamp and Appliance Self-Adjusting Timer.” The timer is white with a rounded top, and measures 3 7/8” tall by 2 3/4” wide by 1 5/8” deep. The brand name “Intermatic” is molded on the front of the timer, and the model number (“DT27”) and date code (“04B”) are printed on the back of the timer. These recalled digital timers were manufactured by Ewig Industries Macao Commercial Offshore Ltd., of Macau, China and were sold at retailers nationwide, including Home Depot and Lowe's, from February 2007 through December 2007 for between $15 and $25. Pictures of the recalled digital timers: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08157a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08157b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08157c.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled timer immediately and unplug before checking the model number and date code. Consumers should contact Intermatic to return the timer and obtain a free replacement. For additional information, or to request a prepaid shipping label, call Intermatic at (800) 704-3595 anytime or visit the company's Web site: http://www.intermatic.com. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Feb. 1 Trial Set for Cal. Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- A Feb. 1, 2008 trial is set for Marvell Technology Group, Ltd.'s motion that seeks for a dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class action pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Between Oct. 5, 2006 and Nov. 13, 2006, four putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The complaints allege that the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to the grants of stock options. The complaints seek, on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common stock during the period from Oct. 3, 2001 to Oct. 3, 2006, unspecified damages, interest, and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and disbursements. Pursuant to an order of the court dated Feb. 2, 2007, these four putative class actions were consolidated as a single action entitled, “In re Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Securities Litigation.” On Aug. 16, 2007, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. On Oct. 18, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint. The Company’s motion is currently scheduled to be heard on Feb. 1, 2008, according to th company's Dec. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 27, 2007. The suit is “In re Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:06-cv-06286-RMW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to Judge Richard Seeborg. Representing the plaintiffs are: Julie Juhyun Bai, Esq. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo 425 California Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94104-2205 Phone: 415-433-3200 x241 Fax: 415-433-6382 E-mail: jbai@bermanesq.com - and - Stuart L. Berman, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610/667-7706 E-mail: sberman@sbtklaw.com Representing the defendant is: Boris Feldman, Esq. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650-493-9300 Fax: 650-565-5100 E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com NORDSTROM INC: $175M Settlement of Cal. Antitrust Suit Now Final ---------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement in the antitrust class action, “Azizian, et al. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., et al.,” which names Nordstrom, Inc., as a defendant, has become final after a deadline to appeal an approval of the agreement lapsed. Initially, the company was named as a defendant along with other department stores and specialty retailers in nine separate, but virtually identical class actions filed in various Superior Courts of the state of California in May, June and July 1998. The suits were consolidated in Marin County Superior Court. In May 2000, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming a number of manufacturers of cosmetics and fragrances and two other retailers as additional defendants. Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged that the retailer and manufacturer defendants in violation of the Cartwright Act and the California Unfair Competition Act collusively controlled the retail price of the "prestige" or "Department Store" cosmetics and fragrances sold in department and specialty stores. Plaintiffs sought treble damages and restitution in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest, on behalf of a class of all California residents who purchased cosmetics and fragrances for personal use from any of the defendants during the four years prior to the filing of the original complaints. While the company believes that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, it entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs and the other defendants on July 13, 2003 in order to avoid the cost and distraction of protracted litigation. In furtherance of the settlement agreement, the case was re- filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class of all persons who currently reside in the U.S. and who purchased "Department Store" cosmetics and fragrances from the defendants from May 29, 1994 through July 16, 2003. The court gave preliminary approval to the settlement, and a summary notice of class certification and the terms of the settlement were disseminated to class members. On March 30, 2005, the court entered a final judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the plaintiffs' claims and the claims of all class members with prejudice, in their entirety. On April 29, 2005, two class members who objected to the settlement filed notices of appeal from the court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. One of the objectors has since dropped her appeal, but the other filed her appeal brief on March 20, 2006. Plaintiffs' and defendants' briefs were filed on May 25, 2006. The remaining objector filed her reply brief on June 14, 2006. The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on the appeal on March 14, 2007 and issued its decision on Aug. 23, 2007, affirming the District Court’s ruling. The deadline for the appellant to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision ended on Nov. 21, 2007. Accordingly, the settlement became final according to its terms on Nov. 22, 2007, according to th company's Dec. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 3, 2007. Pursuant to the settlement, the defendants will provide class members with certain free products with an estimated retail value of $175 million and pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, awarded by the Court, of $24 million. The suit is "Azizian, et al. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:03-cv-03359," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. Representing the plaintiffs is: Guido Saveri, Esq. Saveri & Saveri, Inc. 111 Pine Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94111-5630 Phone: 415-217-6810 Fax: 415-217-6813 E-mail: guido@saveri.com Representing the company is: Larry S. Gangnes, Esq. 1420 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 4100 Seattle, WA 98101-2338 Phone: (206) 223-7036 E-mail: gangnesl@lanepowell.com PREMIUM STANDARD: Plaintiffs Exhaust Appeals in Swine Farms Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs' appeals in the purported class action, “Daniel Herrold, et al. v. ContiGroup Companies, Inc, Premium Standard Farms, Inc., and PSF Group Holdings,Inc.,” in which an acquisition of Smithfield Foods, Inc. is named as a defendant, have been exhausted. The suit was filed on May 2004 in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Kansas City, Missouri by people living near the Premium Standard Farms, Inc.'s swine farms in northern Missouri. The action seeks to create a class of plaintiffs living within 10 miles of the company's farms in northern Missouri, including contract grower farms, who are alleged to have suffered interference with their right to use and enjoy their respective properties. The court’s order granting PSF’s motion to sever the case, and transfer venue stands, the plaintiffs’ appeals have been exhausted, according to Smithfield Foods' Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 28, 2007. Smithfield Foods, Inc. -- http://www.smithfieldfoods.com/-- is a hog producer, and pork and beef processor. The Company conducts its business through six segments: Pork, Beef, International, Hog Production (HP), Other and Corporate, each of which comprises a number of subsidiaries. QUEST SOFTWARE: Seeks Review of Cal. Securities Suit Rulings ------------------------------------------------------------ Quest Software, Inc. is seeking interlocutory appellate review of a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissing certain plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action filed against the company. The suit, filed in October 2006, alleges that Quest Software, Inc. and certain of its executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose and concealing through various false statements and omissions that they did not properly account for issuing stock option grants at prices which were below fair market value on the actual grant date. Consequently, the price of Quest stock was artificially inflated during the period Nov. 9, 2001 through July 3, 2006. In January 2007, the Court appointed Middlesex Retirement System as lead class plaintiff and entered a stipulated order establishing a pleading schedule for the plaintiffs first amended complaint and the defendants response thereto. The first amended class action complaint was filed with the Court in March 2007. In October 2007, the Court issued its order on the Company's motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint. The Court dismissed the plaintiffs claims under Section 10(b) with respect to Michael Lambert, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, and the plaintiffs claims under Section 20(a) with respect to the Company and to Doug Garn, the Company's President, which claims have been dismissed without prejudice. The Court also held in abeyance the plaintiffs claims under Section 20A pending plaintiffs filing of an amended complaint due Dec. 1, 2007. Otherwise, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss as it related to the Company and other individual defendants. The Company and the individual defendants have filed a motion with the U.S. District Court requesting certification of the Court's order for interlocutory appellate review, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The suit is "Middlesex Retirement System v. Quest Software Inc. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-06863-DOC-RNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge David O. Carter, with referral to Judge Robert N. Block. Representing plaintiffs are: Patricia I. Avery, Esq. Anthony D. Green, Esq. Marian P. Rosner, Esq. Wolf Popper LLP 845 3rd Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-759-4600 Fax: 212-486-2093 REFCO INC: Ex-Counsel Settles Securities Fraud Claims for $7.6M --------------------------------------------------------------- On December 7, 2007, Lead Plaintiffs in a suit related to the collapse of Refco Inc. presented a $7,600,000 settlement to U.S. District Judge Gerard E. Lynch for preliminary approval and certification of the settlement class. On December 6, 2007, RH Capital Associates LLC and Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, the institutional investors appointed by Judge Lynch to serve as Lead Plaintiffs on behalf of investors victimized by the Refco affair, signed a settlement agreement with Dennis A. Klejna. Mr. Klejna was Refco's former General Counsel and Executive Vice President. Pursuant to the agreement, Mr. Klejna has agreed to pay to Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Class, a total settlement amount of $7,600,000, including a personal contribution of $50,000.00 in cash. In addition to the monetary payment, Mr. Klejna has pledged to cooperate with Lead Plaintiffs as they pursue the Class’ claims against other current (and prospective) defendants in the consolidated securities class action. The settlement resolves two categories of claims asserted against Klejna in the Refco class action, namely, claims arising from Refco’s bond and stock offerings in 2004 and 2005, and claims arising out of the purchase of Refco securities in the open market between August 5, 2004 and October 17, 2005 . As part of the settlement, the Class’ claims against Mr. Klejna will be released. This is the second settlement achieved for the Class in the Refco Securities Litigation. Lead Plaintiffs will continue to pursue the Class’ claims against the remaining defendants, which include: -- several former Refco insiders (including former CEO Phillip Bennett), -- Refco’s former board of directors, -- Refco’s former auditor (Grant Thornton LLP), -- the investment banking concern that helped take Refco “public” in August 2005 (Thomas H. Lee Partners L.P. and related entities), and -- a total of fifteen investment banks that sold Refco stocks and bonds to public investors (including Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse and Bank of America). The attorneys who worked to achieve this settlement are partners Sean Coffey, Salvatore Graziano and John Browne and associate Jeremy Robinson of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, and partners Stuart Grant, James Sabella, and Megan McIntyre of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. Their work prosecuting the Class’ claims against other defendants in the Refco debacle continues. On December 3, 2007, Lead Plaintiffs RH Capital Associates LLC and Pacific Investment Management Company LLC and Plaintiff PIMCO Funds: Pacific Investment Management Series – PIMCO High Yield Fund filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint complaint which, among other things, collects and consolidates all complaints filed and defendants named to date * including Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown partner Joseph P. Collins, updates Lead Plaintiffs' existing allegations and claims based on recently obtained information and adds new allegations against former Refco Group CFO Robert Trosten. Case Background A securities suit pending against Refco in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, was consolidated in April 2006 (Class Action Reporter, April 7, 2006). It claimed the collapsed commodity brokerage hid more than $5 billion off its books, far more than previously thought. It also accuses company executives, company auditors, and investment bankers of negligence. This discovery of the bad debts caused the collapse of the company a mere two months after its Aug. 10, 2005 initial public offering of common stock, and only 14 months after its issuance of 9% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2012. The company filed the fourth largest bankruptcy in U.S. history as a result. The suit is "In re Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 05 Civ. 8626 (GEL)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Gerard E. Lynch. Representing the plaintiffs are: Max W. Berger, Esq. John P. Coffey, Esq. John C. Browne, Esq. Noam N. Mandel, Esq. Bernstein Litowitz Berg & Grossmann, LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 554-1400 Fax: (212) 554-1444 Stuart M. Grant, Esq. James J. Sabella, Esq. Megan D. McIntyre, Esq. Jeff A. Almeida, Esq. Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq. Jill Agro, Esq. Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Phone: (646) 722-8500 and (302) 622-7000 Fax: (646) 722-8501 and (302) 622-7100 For more details, contact Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., PO Box 9087, Dublin, OH 43017- 0987, Web site: http://www.refcosecuritieslitigation.com. REX ENERGY: Jury Trial in Ill. H2S Emissions Suit Set Aug. 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------- An August 18, 2008 jury trial is set in a putative class action filed against Rex Energy Operating Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois over hydrogen sulfide emissions. In general the suit is asserting that the operation of oil wells that are controlled, owned or operated by the company has resulted in contamination of the areas surrounding Bridgeport and Petrolia, Illinois, with hydrogen sulfide, or H2S. The complaint asserts several causes of action, including violation of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, negligence, private nuisance, trespass, and willful and wanton misconduct. The company has filed an answer to the complaint specifically denying virtually all of the allegations in the complaint and asserting affirmative defenses thereto. The plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification requesting that the court certify the case as a class action. On Jan. 26, 2007, the court issued a scheduling and discovery order stating that the court will schedule a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for class certification after Aug. 31, 2007. On Jan. 31, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave seeking permission to file an amended complaint that would add a claim against the defendants for alleged violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, making factual allegations similar to those previously asserted in the plaintiffs’ prior pleadings. A final pretrial conference for this case has been set for Aug. 7, 2008, and the case is scheduled for jury trial on Aug. 18, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The parties to this lawsuit have exchanged initial pretrial disclosures as required under the applicable rules and each side has served and responded to pre-deposition written discovery. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “Leib et al v. Rex Energy Operating Corp., Case No. 3:06-cv-00802-JPG-CJP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge J. Phil Gilbert with referral under Judge Clifford J. Proud. Representing the plaintiffs are: Norman B. Berger, Esq. Varga, Berger et al. Cook County, 224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 350 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: 312-341-9870 Fax: 312-341-2900 E-mail: nberger@vblhc.com - and - Shawn M. Collins, Esq. Collins Law Firm Du Page County, 1770 North Park Street, Suite 200 Naperville, IL 60563 Phone: 630-527-1595 Fax: 630-527-1193 E-mail: smc@collinslaw.com Representing the defendants are: Kenneth R. Heineman, Esq. Husch & Eppenberger 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: 314-480-1500 E-mail: kenneth.heineman@husch.com - and - Edward Lewis, Esq. Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77010-3095 Phone: 713-651-3760 Fax: 713-651-5246 E-mail: elewis@fulbright.com SAKS INC: Still Faces Ala. Suit Over Merchandise Return Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Saks, Inc. continues to face a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama over allegations of breach of contract. Adamson Apparel, Inc. filed the suit on Dec. 8, 2005. The plaintiff alleges that the company improperly assessed chargebacks, timely payment discounts, and deductions for merchandise returns against members of the plaintiff class. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and incidental damages and restitution. The company reported no material development in the matter in its Dec. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 3, 2007. The suit is "Adamson Apparel, Inc. v. Saks Inc., Case No. 2:05 cv-02514-SLB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn. Representing the plaintiff are: Richard T. Dorman, Esq. Cunningham Bounds Yance Crowder & Brown P.O. Box 66705 Mobile, AL 36660 Phone: 1-251-471-6191 E-mail: rtd@cbycb.com Rachel J. Geman, Esq. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP 780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-355-9500 Fax: 212-355-9592 E-mail: rgeman@ichb.com - and - David J. Guin, Esq. Tammy McClendon Stokes, Esq. Donaldson & Guin, LLC The Financial Ctr., 505 20th Street, North Suite 1000 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: 205-503-4505 Fax: 205-226-2357 E-mail: davidg@dglawfirm.com tstokes@dglawfirm.com Representing the defendant is: Andrew J. Sinor, Jr., Esq. Hand Arendall, LLC 1200 Park Place Tower, 2001 Park Place North Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: 205-324-4400 Fax: 205-397-1310 E-mail: dsinor@handarendall.com SEMTECH CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Semtech Corp. faces two purported securities fraud class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In August 2007, a purported class action was filed against the Company and certain current and former officers on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired Semtech securities from September 11, 2002 until July 19, 2006. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with the Company’s past stock option practices. Plaintiffs demand a jury trial but make no specific monetary demand. The Company has not yet responded to the complaint. A very similar lawsuit, filed in October 2007 by another plaintiff, has not been served, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 28, 2007. The suit is “Middlesex County Retirement System, et al. v. Semtech Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-CV-07183,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Denny Chin. Representing the plaintiff is: Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY, 10017 Phone: 212.907.0700 Fax: 212.818.0477 E-mail: info@labaton.com Web site: http://www.labaton.com/ SHARPER IMAGE: May, June Hearings Set in Suits Over Purifier ------------------------------------------------------------ May 12, 2008 and June 10, 2008 hearings were set for two lawsuits that were filed against Sharper Image Corp. in relation to its “Ionic Breeze” purifier product. On or before April 15, 2006, there were five class actions filed against the Company related to claims made with respect to the performance, effectiveness and safety of its Ionic Breeze product. The actions are filed on behalf of purchasers of the Ionic Breeze in the State Courts of California (San Francisco) and Florida (Jacksonville), as well as the U.S. District Courts of Maryland, Florida (Miami) and the Central District of California. Only the San Francisco action has been certified for class representation. The Florida State Court action was stayed pending resolution of the ongoing San Francisco case. The Maryland and Central District of California cases have been dismissed. On Jan. 16, 2007, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release in the case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which if approved by the court would have covered all persons who purchased an Ionic Breeze branded product between May 6, 1999 and the effective date of the Agreement who do not opt out of the Agreement. The proposed settlement would have required the Company to: -- pay up to $1.9 million to the plaintiff’s attorneys for fees and expenses, -- make available free Ozone Guard attachments, -- issue $19 merchandise credits, subject to certain terms and conditions, to members of the Settlement class, and -- agree to certain other measures. Following a fairness hearing, on Oct. 11, 2007, the Court rejected the Agreement. A trial date for the action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has been set for May 12, 2008 and June 10, 2008 for the action filed in the State Court in California (San Francisco). The Florida suit is “Figueroa v. Sharper Image Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-21251-CMA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of Florida, under Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga, with referral to Judge Ted E. Bandstra. Representing plaintiffs are: David L. Aronoff, Esq. Thelen Reid & Priest LLP 333 S Hope Street, 29th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-576-8044 Fax: 576-8080 Daniel Dennis Dolan, II, Esq. Robert L. Parks, Esq. Haggard Parks Haggard & Lewis 330 Alhambra Circle, 1st Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: 305-446-5700 Fax: 446-1154 E-mail: bob@haggardparks.com - and - Enrique J. Gimenez, Esq. Stephen J. Rowe, Esq. Jere F. White, Esq. Lightfoot Franklin & White 400 20th Street North The Clark Building, Birmingham, AL 35203-2706 Phone: 205-581-0774 Fax: 581-0799 Representing defendants are: James S. Toscano, Esq. Terry C. Young, Esq. Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor & Reed P.O. Box 2809, Orlando, FL 32802-2809 Phone: 407-843-4600 Fax: 843-4444 SMITHFIELD FOODS: Dismissal of Suit Over Pennexx Deal Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to dismiss a securities fraud class action filed against Smithfield Foods, Inc. In June 2001, the company acquired a 50% interest in Pennexx Foods Inc. and extended Pennexx a $30 million line of credit, secured by Pennexx's assets. In July 2003, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of shareholders of Pennexx Foods, Inc. against Pennexx, its directors, the company and two of its officers who were former directors of Pennexx. Plaintiffs, who sought unspecified compensatory damages, allege that: -- defendants artificially inflated the price of Pennexx stock by disseminating materially false and misleading statements concerning the company's financial performance, business operations and prospects; and, -- the company breached its fiduciary duties owed to the non-controlling shareholders of Pennexx through its scheme to control and undermine Pennexx's business. At that same time, Pennexx defaulted under the Smithfield Credit Agreement. The company subsequently seized all of the tangible property assets of Pennexx and transferred the assets to its wholly owned subsidiary, terminating Pennexx's ability to continue its business. In January 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the class action, which the court granted in part and denied in part in September 2004. In February 2005, the shareholder plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class of certain Pennexx shareholders. In June 2005, the court dismissed the class action without prejudice for lack of prosecution. The court took this action following the withdrawal of the lead plaintiff and the failure of any other putative class member to step forward as lead plaintiff. In July 2005, the class action plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the appeal in November 2006. In late September 2007, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling and the case was dismissed, according to Smithfield Foods' Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 28, 2007. The suit is "The Winer Family Trust v. Queen et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-04318-JP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge John R. Padova. Representing the defendants are: Alan K. Cotler, Esq. Robert A. Nicholas, Esq. Milind M. Shah, Esq. Reed Smith, LLP 1650 Market St., 2500 One Liberty Pl. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-851-8100, and 215-851-8298 Fax: 215-851-1420 E-mail: acotler@reedsmith.com rnicholas@reedsmith.com mshah@reedsmith.com Edward J. Fuhr, Esq. Terence J. Rasmussen, Esq. Hunton & Williams, LLP Riverfront Plaza, E. Tower, 951 E. Byrd St. Richmond, VA 23219-4074 Phone: 804-788-8201, and 804-788-8632 Fax: 804-788-8218 - and - Eric F. Spade, Esq. Mitts Milavec & Spade, LLC 1835 Market Street, 15TH Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-569-1800 Fax: 215-569-1822 E-mail: espade@mittslaw.com STAR GAS: Discovery in Conn. Securities Fraud Suit Still Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Star Gas Partners, L.P. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut remains stayed pursuant to the mandatory stay provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On or about Oct. 21, 2004, a purported class action on behalf of a purported class of unitholders was filed against the Partnership and various subsidiaries and officers and directors of the company in the U.S. District Court of the District of Connecticut. The suit is “Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et al., No. 3:04-cv-01766-IBA.” Subsequently, 16 additional class action complaints, alleging the same or substantially similar claims, were filed in the same district court. The class actions were consolidated into one consolidated amended complaint. On Sept. 23, 2005, defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under the federal securities laws and failure to satisfy the applicable pleading requirements of the PSLRA, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On July 27, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on the pending motion to dismiss. On Aug. 21, 2006, the court issued its rulings on defendants’ motions to dismiss, granting the motions and dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety. On Aug. 23, 2006, the court entered a judgment of dismissal. On Sept. 7, 2006, the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and to alter and reopen the court’s Aug. 23, 2006 judgment of dismissal and for leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint (Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion). On Oct. 20, 2006, defendants filed their memorandum of law in opposition to the Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion. Plaintiffs filed their reply brief on or about Nov. 20, 2006. On March 22, 2007 the Court issued its decision denying Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion. On April 3, 2007, the Star Gas Defendants filed a Motion for a Mandatory Rule 11 Inquiry and fee shifting which seeks recovery of Defendants’ legal fees pursuant to the PSLRA. On April 24, 2007, class plaintiffs filed their opposition to that motion. The Star Gas Defendants’ reply was due on May 8, 2007. On April 20, 2007, class plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Court of Judge Arterton’s decisions dismissing the amended complaint and denying Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion. Subsequent to the filing of the notice of appeal, class plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal of the appeal as against: * Hanseatic Americas, Inc., * Paul Biddelman, * A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., * RBC Dain Rauscher Inc., * UBS Investment Bank, and * Audrey Sevin On July 6, 2007, class plaintiffs filed their brief on appeal. The Star Gas Defendants’ opposition brief was due on Aug. 21, 2007, and class plaintiffs’ reply brief was due on Sept. 11, 2007. Oral argument on the appeal was scheduled to take place after Oct. 1, 2007. In the interim, discovery in the matter remains stayed pursuant to the mandatory stay provisions of the PSLRA. The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is "In re Star Gas Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-01766-JBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Janet Bond Arterton. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jonathan F. Andres, Esq. Green Schaaf & Jacobson, P.C. 7733 Forsyth, Suite 700 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: 314-862-6800 Fax: 314-862-1606 E-mail: andres@stlouislaw.com - and - David L. Belt, Esq. Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz, P.C. 350 Orange St., P.O. Box 606 New Haven, CT 06503-0606 Phone: 203-772-3100 Fax: 203-772-1691 E-mail: dbelt@jacobslaw.com Representing the defendants are: Terence J. Gallagher, III, Esq. Day, Berry & Howard One Canterbury Green Stamford, CT 06901-2047 Phone: 203-977-7300 Fax: 203-977-7301 E-mail: tjgallagher@dbh.com - and - Elizabeth K. Andrews, Esq. Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn 205 Church St., P.O. Box 1936 New Haven, CT 06509-1910 Phone: 203-784-8200 Fax: 203-777-1181 E-mail: eandrews@tylercooper.com TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: GTA Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 25 ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a fairness hearing on June 25, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. For a proposed settlement in the matter, “In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK.” The hearing will held before Judge Shirley Wohl Kram in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be made on or before April 25, 2008. Deadline for the submission of a claim form is on May 16, 2008. Case Background In July 2005, the defendants (Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., and its subsidiary Rockstar Games) received four purported class actions. Two of the four complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, one was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and one was filed in the Circuit Court in St. Clair County, Illinois. The plaintiffs, alleged purchasers of the defendants' Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas First Edition game manufactured before July 20, 2005, assert that the company engaged in consumer deception, false advertising and breached an implied warranty of merchantability and were unjustly enriched as a result of the company's alleged failure to disclose that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas contained “hidden” content, which resulted in the game receiving a Mature 17+ (M) rating from the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) rather than an Adults Only 18+ (AO) rating. The complaints seek unspecified damages, declarations of various violations of law and litigation costs. In January 2006, the City of Los Angeles filed a complaint against the company in the Superior Court of the State of California alleging violations of California law on substantially the same basis. The state court actions were removed to federal court (a motion to remand filed by the City of Los Angeles is pending) and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which consolidated them under the caption, “In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation (No. II), 06-MD- 1739 (SWK)(MHD).” Settlement In the last half of 2007, defendants reached a settlement in the matter. Under the terms of the settlement, class members will be able to claim benefits if they swear that they: (a) bought a copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas before July 20, 2005; (b) were offended and upset by the ability of consumers to modify and alter the game's content using the third- party Hot Coffee modification; (c) would not have bought the game had they known that consumers could modify and alter the game's content using the third-party Hot Coffee modification; and (d) would have returned the game, upon learning the game could be modified and altered, if they thought this possible. Settlement class members who attest to these facts may apply for benefits that range from an exchange of the game disk for an edited copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to a cash payment of up to $35 for consumers who submit detailed proofs of purchase. The actual value of all cash payments under the settlement will depend on the number of class members that apply for benefits. Take-Two has committed to spend at least $1.025 million on settlement benefits, and the settlement generally caps the defendants' out-of-pocket costs at no more than $2.75 million, in addition to the costs of providing notice to class members and paying a fee to plaintiffs' counsel. A copy of the settlement notice is available at: http://gtasettlement.com/Default.htm The suit is "In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shirley Wohl Kram. The Class Counsel is: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Locks Law Firm PLLC 110 East 55th St. New York, NY 10022 Phone: (888) 8LLF NYC Representing the company is: Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq. Debevoise & Plimpton LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 909-6000 TICKETMASTER: Ticket Buyer's Suit Alleges Online Billing Fraud -------------------------------------------------------------- Ticketmaster Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed Jan. 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that Ticketmaster signs up customers for "an unwanted online coupon service, without the customer's knowledge." Named plaintiff Stephen C. Stearns brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased tickets from Ticketmaster from April 1, 2004 to the present, and who were subsequently enrolled in, and charged fees for, the Entertainment Rewards program. Plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants' actions in signing up and charging customers for a service that they did not want, request or use is false, deceptive, misleading and/or unfair; (b) whether in signing up and charging customers for a service that they did not want, request or use, defendants violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (c) whether in signing up and charging customers for a service that they did not want, request or use, defendants committed fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation; (d) whether in signing up and charging customers for a service that they did not want, request or use, defendants committed conversion; (e) whether in signing up and charging customers for a service that they did not want, request or use, defendants breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in their contracts with class members; and (f) the scope of injunctive relief that should be imposed against defendants to prevent such conduct in the future. Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: -- for restitution; -- for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to, without limitation, California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. and California civil Code Section 1780 (a)(2); -- for compensatory damages, the amount of which is to be determined at trial; -- for the value of the unlawful charges; -- for the greater of actual or compensatory damages according to proof or $1000 pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1780; -- for interest at the legal rate on the foregoing sum from and after the date of the unlawful charges; -- for reasonable attorneys' fees according to proof pursuant to, without limitation, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (California Civil Code Section 1750, et seq) and California civil Code Section 1021.5; -- for punitive damages according to proof pursuant to, without limitation, California Civil Code Section 1780; -- for any class member who is a senior citizen or a disabled person, an award of $5,000; -- for costs of suit incurred; and -- for such further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Stephen C. Stearns et al. v. Ticketmaster Corp., et al., Case No. CV08-00117," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Eric M. George Michael A. Bowse Dreir Stein Kahan Browne Woods George LLP 450 N. Roxbury Drive, Seventh Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (310) 274-7100 Fax: (310) 275-5697 E-mail: egeorge@dskbwg.com or mbowse@dskbwg.com - and - Lee A. Weiss Rebecca Tingey Dreier LLP 499 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 328-6100 Fax: (212) 652-3801 E-mail: lweiss@dreierllp.com or rtingey@dreierllp.com TWEEN BRANDS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio -------------------------------------------------------------- Tween Brands, Inc. faces a consolidated securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Since Aug. 24, 2007, three purported class action complaints have been filed by purported purchasers of the Company’s common stock against the Company and certain of its officers, asserting claims under the federal securities laws. To date all of these actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. These cases include: -- “June Gruhn v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al. (07 CV 852),” -- “Allison Andrews v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al. (07 CV 894),” and -- “John Sefler v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al (07 CV 925).” These actions purport to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s common stock during various periods beginning as early as Feb. 21, 2007 and ending on Aug. 21, 2007 and allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and, in one action, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s business and prospects during the class period. These actions also allege that the Company’s CEO sold stock while in possession of adverse non-public information. A status conference was held on Oct. 23, 2007, at which time the actions were consolidated and a preliminary schedule was set. Three plaintiffs have filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff. Non-oral hearing on all motions to appoint lead plaintiff was set Dec. 7, 2007. The chosen lead plaintiff has until Feb. 22, 2008 to file a consolidated amended complaint, including a definitive proposed class period and the naming of defendants. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is due on April 4, 2008. A non- oral hearing on the motion to dismiss has been scheduled for May 16, 2008. The suit is “June Gruhn, et al. v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-00852,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Gregory L. Frost. Representing the plaintiffs are: Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY, 10016 Phone: 212-889-3700 Fax: 212-684-519 E-mail: info@abbeyspanier.com Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101 Phone: 619.231.1058 Fax: 619.231.7423 Paskowitz & Associates 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor New York, NY, 10165 Phone: 212.685.0969 Fax: 212.685.2306 E-mail: classattorney@aol.com Roy Jacobs & Associates 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000 New York, NY, 10118 E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com 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 Strauss & Troy The Federal Reserve Building, 150 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH, 45202-4018 Phone: 513.621.2120 Fax: 513.241.8250 E-mail: wlwoods@strauss-troy.com VISA CHECK/MASTERMONEY ANTITRUST: $185M Settlement Checks Out ------------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 2, 2008, Constantine Cannon (formerly Constantine & Partners), Lead Counsel for United States merchants in the Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation, CV 96-5238, advised Class Members that: Lead Counsel has directed the Claims Administrator to mail checks to Class Members for overcharges on Visa and MasterCard signature debit and credit card transactions during the period October 1992 to July 2003. This distribution of approximately 55,000 payments involves more than $185,000,000. This is the fourth round of distribution, the previous rounds having occurred in December 2005, June 2006, and December 2006. Case Background The Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation is a class action that was filed and litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn, New York. The class consists of all businesses and organizations in the U.S. that accepted Visa and MasterCard debit and credit cards for payment at any time during the period Oct. 25, 1992 to June 21, 2003. The Class Plaintiffs claimed that, through their "Honor All Cards" policies, Visa and MasterCard forced merchants to accept Visa and MasterCard signature debit card (also Visa Check, MasterMoney or Debit MasterCard) transactions at supracompetitive prices. The merchants also claimed that Visa and MasterCard were attempting to monopolize the debit card business in the United States. In April 2003, just as the trial was about to begin, Visa and MasterCard settled with the plaintiffs' Class. As part of the settlement, Visa and MasterCard agreed to eliminate their “Honor All Cards” policies, which required merchants that accepted their credit cards to also accept their signature debit card transactions. Prior to this untying of credit and debit, they also agreed to lower debit card fees for an interim period by one-third. In addition, they agreed to re-label the Visa Check and MasterMoney debit cards with the word "DEBIT" on the front and to do other things related to the untying of debit cards from credit cards. Visa and MasterCard also agreed to pay $3.05 billion over time into a Settlement Fund. This Settlement Fund will be used to provide compensation to Class Members, and will be distributed to Class Members after the attorneys fees, expenses and cost of notice and administration approved by the Court have been deducted. Recent Distribution Notice With these four distributions, Lead Counsel will have paid out over $985,000,000 to Class Members. It will have paid 701,026 of 803,258 claims received to date for overcharges on Visa and MasterCard signature debit and credit card transactions. Lead Counsel expects that payments for online PIN debit overcharges will be made to all or most qualifying Class Members in 2008 when the Settlement Fund is replenished. Merchants may visit the case website at: http://www.InReVisacheckMasterMoneyAntitrustLitigation.comto determine whether their claims are among those being paid in this distribution. In addition to this cash monetary relief, the Settlement in this case includes an injunction valued by the Court in the range of $25-$87 billion to U.S. Merchants and consumers. In approving the Settlement, the U.S. District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated that it is “the largest antitrust settlement in history,” that “the compensatory relief by itself constitutes the largest settlement ever approved by a federal court;” and “produced significant and lasting benefits for America’s merchants and consumers.” Additional information regarding the claims and payment process is also available by calling 1-888-641-4437 or visiting http://www.inrevisacheckmastermoneyantitrustlitigation.com. VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: $10M Securities Suit Settlement Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted preliminary approval to a proposed settlement of all federal securities class action claims that were filed against the Company. The previously disclosed settlement requires that Vitesse adopt certain corporate governance measures which include implementing certain policies for stock option grants and compensation decisions, incorporating greater shareholder participation in the procedures for nominating independent directors, adopting additional standards of director independence, and adding a lead independent director. Vitesse will also be implementing additional accounting policies, procedures and guidelines. The Court has scheduled a final hearing on the matters for March 17, 2008 in Los Angeles. Case Background On May 2, 2006 an investor sued Vitesse Semiconductor in federal court, accusing the company of securities law violations. The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who acquired Vitesse securities from Oct. 23, 2003 to April 26, 2006, inclusive. The lawsuit claims that Vitesse and three individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder. Vitesse engages in the design, development, manufacturing, and marketing of integrated circuits for systems manufacturers in the communications and storage industries. According to the complaint, Vitesse and three individual defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements during the class period that artificially inflated the company's stock price. Specifically, the defendants: -- failed to properly account for credits issued to or requested by customers; -- failed to properly apply payments received to the appropriate account receivable; and -- failed to properly account for the stock options granted to senior officers and directors. Settlement In 2006, Vitesse entered into a proposed settlement of all federal securities class action claims. According to a report by WELT ONLINE, Christopher R. Gardner, Chief Executive Officer stated, "We are very pleased to reach a settlement with the plaintiffs in these actions. This litigation has been a distraction for Vitesse management and employees as well as its customers and shareholders. This settlement, if approved by the Court, will resolve the uncertainty associated with these litigations and put an end to the significant legal expenses we would have incurred in the event we had to continue to litigate.” The proposed settlement of the class action will include a cash payment to the settlement fund of $10.2 million: -- $8.75 million to be paid by Vitesse’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurers, and -- a total of $1.45 million to be paid by Louis R. Tomasetta and Eugene F. Hovanec, two of the former executives of Vitesse. The same two former executives also will contribute all shares of Vitesse common stock that they own, totaling 1,272,669 shares. In addition, Vitesse will contribute 2,650,000 shares of Vitesse common stock and no cash to the class fund. In addition, under the proposed agreement, the Company and certain current and former officers and directors of the Company who were named as defendants will be dismissed from the lawsuits and will obtain releases from the class plaintiffs. The next step will be the filing of motions in the federal court asking for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and authorization to provide current and former shareholders of Vitesse with notice of the proposed settlement. The settlement will require final approval from the federal court before they become effective. The suit is “In Re: Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-CV-02639,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge. Representing the plaintiffs are: Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY, 10016 Phone: 212-889-3700 Fax: 212-684-519 E-mail: info@abbeyspanier.com Brodsky & Smith, LLC 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39 Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 Phone: 610.668.7987 Fax: 610.660.0450 E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com Federman & Sherwood 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720 Oklahoma City, OK, 73102 Phone: 405-235-1560 E-mail: wfederman@aol.com - and - Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt, Ste 2525 Baltimore, MD, 21202 Phone: 410.332.0030 E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Suits Related to Cipro ---------------------------------------------------------- Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc., The Rugby Group and other company affiliates continue to face lawsuits in relation to Cipro, an antibiotic used to treat bacterial infections. Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits were filed against Watson, Rugby and other company affiliates in various state and federal courts alleging claims under various federal and state competition and consumer protection laws. Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints and motions seeking class certification. As of March 8, 2006, approximately 42 cases had been filed against Watson, Rugby and other Watson entities. Twenty-two of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York as, “In re: Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 001383.” On May 20, 2003, the court hearing the consolidated action granted Watson’s motion to dismiss and made rulings limiting the theories under which plaintiffs can seek recovery against Rugby and the other defendants. On March 31, 2005, the court hearing the consolidated action granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all of plaintiffs’ claims, denied the plaintiffs’ motions for class certification, and directed the clerk of the court to close the case. On May 7, 2005, three groups of plaintiffs from the consolidated action (the direct purchaser plaintiffs, the indirect purchaser plaintiff purchasers and plaintiffs Rite Aid Corp. and CVS Meridian Inc.) filed notices of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing, among other things, the May 20, 2003 order dismissing Watson and the March 31, 2005 order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The three appeals were consolidated by the appellate court. The defendants have moved to transfer the appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the ground that patent issues are involved in the appeal. The plaintiffs have opposed the motion to transfer. The appellate court has not ruled on the motion or the pending appeal. Other actions are pending in various state courts, including New York, California, Kansas, Tennessee, Florida and Wisconsin. The actions generally allege that the defendants engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with alleged agreements, entered into prior to Watson’s acquisition of Rugby from Aventis, related to the development, manufacture and sale of the drug substance ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer’s brand drug, Cipro. The actions generally seek declaratory judgment, damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities. The courts hearing the cases in New York have dismissed the actions. Plaintiffs have sought leave to appeal the dismissal of the New York action. In Wisconsin, the plaintiffs appealed and on May 9, 2006, the appellate court reversed the order of dismissal. On June 8, 2006, the defendants filed a petition for review in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. On July 13, 2007, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court, and remanded the case for further proceedings. In the action pending in Kansas, the court has stayed the matter pending the outcome of the appeal in the consolidated case. In the action pending in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego, “In re: Cipro Cases I & II, JCCP Proceeding Nos. 4154 & 4220,” on July 21, 2004, the California Court of Appeal granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ petition for a writ of mandate seeking to reverse the trial court’s order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Pursuant to the appellate court’s ruling, the majority of the plaintiffs will be permitted to pursue their claims as a class. On April 13, 2005, the Superior Court granted the parties’ joint application to stay the California case pending the outcome of the appeal of the consolidated case. In addition to the pending actions, Watson understands that various state and federal agencies are investigating the allegations made in these actions. Aventis has agreed to defend and indemnify Watson and its affiliates in connection with the claims and investigations arising from the conduct and agreements allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson’s acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of these actions. The suit is "In Re: Ciprofloxin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:00-md-01383-DGT-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge David G. Trager. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert S. Schachter, Esq. Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10010 Phone: 212-223-3900 Fax: 212-371-5969 E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com Representing the company is: David E. Everson, Esq. Stinson, Mag & Fizzell, P.C. 1201 Walnut, Suite 2900, Kansas City, MO 64106 Phone: 816-842-8600 Fax: 816-691-3495 E-mail: deverson@stinsonmoheck.com WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: In Talks to Settle Mass. AWP Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. is working to settle two lawsuits in relation to alleged improper or fraudulent reporting practices made by the company related to the reporting of average wholesale prices and wholesale acquisition costs of certain products. Beginning in July 2002, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies, were named as defendants in various state and federal court actions alleging improper or fraudulent reporting practices related to the reporting of average wholesale prices and wholesale acquisition costs of certain products, and that the defendants committed other improper acts in order to increase prices and market shares. Some of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1456). The consolidated amended complaint in that case alleges that the defendants’ acts improperly inflated the reimbursement amounts paid by various public and private plans and programs. The amended complaint alleges claims on behalf of a purported class of plaintiffs that paid any portion of the price of certain drugs, which price was calculated based on its average wholesale price, or contracted with a pharmacy benefit manager to provide others with such drugs. The Company has filed Answers to the various amended consolidated class action complaints, and has opposed, with other defendants, the plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Fifth Amended Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Defendants in the consolidated litigation have been divided into two groups. The Company and its named subsidiaries are contained in a large group of defendants (the “Track Two” Defendants) that is currently awaiting a ruling on the plaintiffs’ request for certification of classes of plaintiffs to maintain a class action against the drug company defendants. Certain other defendants, referred to as the “Track One” defendants, have proceeded on a more expedited basis. The presiding judge in the matter granted class certification with respect to certain companies and individuals in the group of Track One Defendants. A trial was held with respect to some of the claims against this group of defendants, and the judge ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs as to some defendants and awarded damages. The Track One Defendants agreed to settle some of the claims filed on behalf of one of the classes certified in that case, and one of the Track One Defendants has agreed to settle with all of the classes certified in that case. The presiding judge has ordered the Company and other Track Two Defendants to enter mediation proceedings to explore the possibility of settling some or all of the claims pending in that case. These mediation proceedings are ongoing, and the Company is participating. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit Dismissal Review Junked --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied appellants’ petition for rehearing of a district court's judgment dismissing a consolidated securities fraud suit against Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. Beginning in November 2003, several securities class actions were commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Watson and certain of its present and former officers and directors. On February 9, 2004, the federal court issued an order consolidating all of the federal actions as “In re: Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-03-8236 AHM.” In addition to the federal consolidated actions, two shareholder derivative actions were filed in California Superior Court for the County of Riverside: * “Philip Orlando v. Allen Chao, et al., Case No. 403717;” * “Charles Zimmerman v. Allen Chao, et al, Case No. 403715” These federal and state cases all relate to the drop in the price of the Company’s common stock in November 2001, and allege generally that the Company failed to timely advise investors about matters such as falling inventory valuations, increased competition and manufacturing difficulties, and therefore, the Company’s published financial statements and public announcements during 2000 and 2001 were false and misleading. The shareholder derivative actions were dismissed without prejudice on November 16, 2004. On August 2, 2004, the United States District Court for the Central District of California court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the federal consolidated action, and allowed plaintiffs until August 30, 2004 to file an amended complaint. On August 30, 2004, the lead plaintiff in the federal consolidated action notified the court that it did not intend to file an amended complaint in response to the court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On September 2, 2004, the District Court entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of the defendants. On October 1, 2004, one of the non-lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal of the action with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Pension Fund v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., USCA Docket No. 04-56791). The court heard oral argument on the appeal on November 17, 2006. On December 1, 2006, the court ordered appellants to file a new and separate action against defendants within 28 days or show cause why they had not done so. Appellants did not file a new and separate action, responding that such a filing would be time-barred and requesting a ruling on their appeal. As of August 1, 2007, the appellate court had not ruled on the matter. On August 16, 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s judgment of dismissal and on October 15, 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the appellants’ petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. WORLDCOM INC: Request to Distribute Settlement Fund Filed --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York gives notice in relation to "In Re Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation," that: on Dec. 21, 2007, Lead Plaintiff New York State Common Retirement Fund filed a Motion to Conduct a Second Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any opposition to Lead Plaintiff's motion is due Jan. 18, 2008. Lead Plaintiff's reply to any opposition received is due Jan. 25, 2008. The initial notice of distribution was sent in 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 29, 2006) after Judge Cote authorized the release of a $4.52 billion payout in the main class action over WorldCom, Inc.'s collapse. Several defendants have made payments billion to resolve allegations that they helped WorldCom sell bonds when they should have known the phone company was concealing its true financial condition. Case Background The litigation -- http://www.worldcomlitigation.com/-- is a consolidated, certified class action that is being prosecuted on behalf of a court-certified class of all individuals or entities who purchased or acquired publicly traded securities of WorldCom, Inc. from April 29, 1999 through and including June 25, 2002, and who were injured thereby. Lead Plaintiff On Aug. 15, 2002, Judge Cote appointed the Comptroller of the State of New York, the sole Trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, which is the nation's second-largest public pension fund, to serve as lead plaintiff in the WorldCom Securities Litigation and approved lead plaintiff's selection of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as co-lead counsel for the class. Fresno County Employees Retirement Association, the County of Fresno, California and HGK Asset Management are additional named plaintiffs and class representatives. The consolidated complaint of the lead plaintiff was filed in the fall of 2002, and updated in August 2003 and in December 2003. On Nov. 7, 2002, Judge Cote ordered the parties to participate in settlement negotiations under the supervision of Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger. In the fall of 2003, the court invited the Honorable Robert W. Sweet, U.S. District Court Judge, to assist in oversight of the settlement discussions. Judge Cote certified the lawsuit as a class action on Oct. 24, 2003. Defendants The director defendants were: Bernard J. Ebbers, former president, CEO; Scott D. Sullivan, former CFO; James C. Allen, former member of the audit committee; Judith Areen, former member of the audit committee; Carl J. Aycock; Max E. Bobbitt, former chairman of the audit committee; Francesco Galesi, former member of the audit committee; Clifford L. Alexander, Jr.; Stiles A. Kellett, Jr., former chairman of compensation committee; Gordon S. Macklin; John A. Porter; Bert C. Roberts, Jr., former chairman; John W. Sidgmore, former vice chairman; and Lawrence C. Tucker. Other individual defendants were: David F. Myers, controller and senior vice president; Buford Yates, Jr., director of General Accounting; and Arthur Andersen LLP. Underwriter defendants were: Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., Salomon Brothers International Limited; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.; J.P. Morgan Securities, Ltd.; Banc of America Securities LLC; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (n/k/a Deutsche Bank Alex Brown Inc.; Chase Securities Inc. (n/k/a J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.; Lehman Brothers Inc.; Blaylock & Partners, L.P.; Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; UBS Warburg LLC; ABN/AMRO Inc.; Utendahl Capital; Tokyo- Mitsubishi International plc; Westdeutsche Landesbank; Girozentrale (n/k/a WestLB AG); BNP Paribas Securities Corp.; Caboto Holding SIM S.p.A.; Fleet Securities, Inc.; Mizuho International plc. The Salomon defendants were: Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., as employer of Jack Grubman; Salomon Brothers International Limited; Jack B. Grubman, former telecommunications analyst at Salomon; Citigroup, Inc., corporate parent of Salomon. WorldCom, Inc. -- http://www.worldcom.com/-- was not a defendant because on July 21, 2002, it filed for bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York confirmed WorldCom's Plan on Oct. 31, 2003, and on Apr. 20, 2004, the company formally emerged from U.S. Chapter 11 protection as MCI, Inc. Settlements * Former WorldCom executives $6.136 billion Scott Sullivan, David Myers, and Buford Yates (taken with the anticipated proceeds from the Sullivan settlement) * Arthur Andersen LLP $65 million (funds have already been transferred to an escrow account) * Former Chairman Bert Roberts $4.5 million * 11 Other former director defendants $20.25 million * Insurance companies that had written $36 million directors and officers liability coverage ($1 million to settle the claims against Mr. Roberts and an additional $35 million to settle the claims against the other former directors) * Bank of America $460.5 million * Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, $100.3 million Credit Suisse First Boston, and UBS Warburg * ABN AMRO, Mitsubishi Securities $428.4 million International, BNP Paribas Securities Corp. and Mizuho Int'l. * WestLB and Cabato Holding $112.5 million * Deutsche Bank $325 million * Blaylock & Partners, L.P. $572,840 * Utendahl Capital Partners, L.P. $234,000 * J. P. Morgan Securities and certain of affiliates $2 billion * Citigroup Defendants $2.575 billion (including Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. as employer of Jack Grubman; Salomon Brothers International Ltd.; Jack B. Grubman, former telecommunications analyst at Salomon; Citigroup, Inc.) For more details, contact: WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. Claims Administrator P.O. Box 9000 #6247, Merrick, NY 11566-9000 Phone: 1-866-808-3556 Fax: 1-631-940-6549 E-mail: worldcominfo@gardencitygroup.com Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bunnell Action Remanded to Madison Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, S.D. Illinois, remanded an asbestos- related Federal Employers' Liability Act lawsuit, filed by William James Bunnell against Union Pacific Railroad Co. and other defendants, to the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois. The case is styled William James Bunnell, Plaintiff, v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Aqua-Chem Inc., CSR Ltd., Ingersoll-Rand Co., Elliott Turbocharge Group Inc. & Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc., Defendants. District Judge Reagan entered judgment of Case No. 07-cv-0686- MJR-DGW on Dec. 19, 2007. In September 2007, Mr. Bunnell filed a second amended complaint in Illinois state court naming eight Defendants, one of which was Union Pacific, which was sued as successor to Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. (CNW). Mr. Bunnell alleged that he sustained personal injuries (including mesothelioma) from asbestos exposure while working for CNW for one year between 1948 and 1949. His suit was filed under FELA. Union Pacific removed the case on Oct. 2, 2007. Judge Reagan noted that Union Pacific bore the burden of demonstrating that all jurisdictional requirements have been satisfied. The second amended complaint plainly pleaded a FELA claim, but Union Pacific argued that Mr. Bunnell never worked for Union Pacific or any other railroad and did not work as a subcontractor for CNW during the period alleged. The Court directed Union Pacific to clarify the citizenship issue and directed Mr. Bunnell to respond to Union Pacific's argument that the operative complaint stated no real FELA claim. On Oct. 24, 2007, Union Pacific provided a detailed jurisdictional memorandum quelling any concern regarding diversity of citizenship. However, Mr. Bunnell moved to remand the case. The District Court granted Mr. Bunnell's Oct. 24, 2007 motion and remanded this case to the Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill. Robert B. Ramsey, Brent Coon & Associates, St. Louis, represented William James Bunnell. Allan M. Goodloe, Jr., Thompson Coburn, St. Louis, represented Union Pacific Railroad Co., Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Aqua-Chem Inc., CSR Ltd., Ingersoll-Rand Co., Elliott Turbocharge Group Inc., and Elliot Turbomachinery Company Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Judge Sets Chick Sentencing to Feb. 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. has set the sentencing of John Chick, who pleaded guilty to illegally removing asbestos from a Cayuga County, N.Y., building, for 11:00 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008 in Syracuse, N.Y., The Citizen reports. Judge Scullin set the date following hearing dates in the fall of 2007 in which attorneys made their cases for what the sentence should be. Those hearings included the testimony of then-Cayuga County Legislature Chairman George Fearon, who said he did not know about the illegal activity until months after it took place. Mr. Chick, a county carpenter who has been on paid suspension for most of 2007, pleaded guilty in January 2007 to illegally removing asbestos from the county Board of Elections building in February 2006. Mr. Chick has insisted he was simply following orders, and should be given a light sentence. However, federal prosecutors said Mr. Chick has been deceptive throughout their investigation and they likely will not be charging anyone else in connection with the case. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ireland Public Park Closed Due to Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- A public pathway in Knocknacarra Park in County Galway, Ireland, has been closed two days after an oil tank fire left asbestos scattered across public and private property, Galway News reports. The roofs of two oil tank boiler sheds exploded during the Jan. 1, 2008 blaze and sent shards of white corrugated asbestos into nearby gardens, cars, driveways and onto a public pathway in Knocknacarra Park. Galway city council officials, the Gardai and community wardens are at the scene and have closed the public pathway in the housing estate. The asbestos cannot be touched and only three companies in the country are licensed to safely dispose of the toxic substance. Galway city council has undertaken to remove the asbestos on public property but is refusing to remove any asbestos shards from inside private property. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. 56 Firms Filed Last Dec. 7 in W.Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- On Dec. 7, 2007, Barbara Brewster, the widow of Jack Donsell Brewster Sr. who died of mesothelioma, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 56 companies in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.V., The West Virginia Record reports. Filed on Mr. Brewster's behalf, the suit specifically mentions Guyan International Inc., where he worked from 1953 to 1987. According to the suit, Mr. Brewster worked in close proximity to others working with and using asbestos and asbestos-containing products. The suit says, "The defendants did manufacture, supply, sell or install asbestos and asbestos-containing products with which the decedent came in daily contact with aforementioned, as a result of which, the decedent contracted and suffered from mesothelioma." Mr. Brewster was diagnosed with mesothelioma and died on Dec. 10, 2005. According to the suit, prior to death he suffered severe physical pain, mental anguish, worry, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of income and medical expenses. Mrs. Brewster claims she has loss the consortium, guidance, kindly office, support and services of her husband. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages for her husband's estate and for the damages she has suffered. Attorney John E. Sutter represents Mrs. Brewster. Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-2627 will be assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Local Sues 72 Companies in Ill. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robin Seward of West Chester, Ohio, on Dec. 27, 2007, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 72 defendants in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Ms. Seward alleges that she was exposed to airborne asbestos fibers from her father's clothing. Ms. Seward claims her father was employed by Fox Paper Inc. in Lockland, Ohio, and on many occasions would work with and around asbestos and asbestos-containing materials. The complaint states, "Dust created by working with and around asbestos and asbestos-containing products would permeate the skin, hair and clothing of the plaintiff's father. This dust contained large amounts of asbestos fiber." Ms. Seward claims her father would carry the asbestos dust on his clothing home with him where it would again become airborne. The suit claims that Ms. Seward was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2005, and subsequently became aware that his illness was wrongfully caused. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to require and advise their employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home. As a result of the alleged negligence, Ms. Seward claims she was exposed to fibers containing asbestos, and developed a disease caused only by asbestos which has disabled and disfigured her. Ms. Seward also claims that she has sought, but has been unable to obtain, full disclosure of relevant documents and information from the defendants leading her to believe the defendants destroyed documents related to asbestos. Ms. Seward claims that as a result of each defendant breaching its duty to preserve material evidence by destroying documents and information, she has been prejudiced and impaired in proving claims against all potential parties. Represented Michael Bilbrey and James Stever of Edwardsville, Ill., Ms. Seward seeks compensatory damages in excess of US$700,000, plus punitive damages. Case No. 07 L 1086 has been assigned to Circuit Judge Daniel Stack. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lab Tests Confirm Hazard in Common Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Recent tests by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization have confirmed the presence of harmful levels of asbestos in everyday products, including toys, according to an ADAO press release dated Jan. 3, 2008. The results have been surprising thus far, particularly because of the emergence of asbestos, which was banned by federal law nearly a quarter-century ago, within children's products. Some of the ADAO's findings have resulted in the removal of these products from store shelves, indicating an acknowledgment of the gravity of these product's health consequences. Asbestos, when inhaled is extremely difficult for the body to break down, resulting in a sustained irritation within the body's internal structures. Children in particular, are at a specific risk because they are often less discriminatory about what products they may ingest or inhale. Once within a child's body, the asbestos inflammation may cause a harmful scar tissue over several years, ultimately leading to mesothelioma. Because the health complications that result from asbestos exposure take many years to manifest, childhood exposure could potentially see a person develop mesothelioma in their 20s or 30s. Typically prognoses for mesothelioma are between 12 and 18 months, as the cancer slowly collapses the lungs and suffocates the patient. This and other health complications are the devastating consequences of an innocent childhood exposure to asbestos. Asbestos exposures are not uncommon in occupational settings but the potential emergence of exposures in the household, and particularly among children are disturbing. Anything that contains at least one-percent asbestos is considered an asbestos-containing material and should be avoided The Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center has long been recognized as the web's leading resource for accurate and up to date information concerning mesothelioma, asbestos, and their health implications. In addition the MAAC is recognized as the leading source of information about mesothelioma treatment and features a live clinical trials database. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquests Set for 2008 on York's "Time Bomb" ---------------------------------------------------------------- More inquests are set to be held in 2008 into alleged victims of York, England's asbestos time bomb, The Press reports. Nearly 100 former workers at York Carriageworks have already died from asbestos illnesses like mesothelioma, and yet more inquests are set to be held in 2008. Coroner's officer George Rawlings said a precise number was not available, but said there were a number of asbestos-related hearings waiting to take place. Among them is the inquest into 81-year-old Roy Anderson, who spent 45 years at the Holgate Road site before retiring in 1986. He died in November 2007, and believed his ill-health may have been linked to exposure to asbestos. The cause of Mr. Anderson's death was initially given as pulmonary fibrosis, but that has since been changed to also include bronchial pneumonia and an inquest will be held later in 2008. Mr. Anderson worked for two years in the building shop, which was known as one of the areas most affected by asbestos. He spent most of the rest of his career as a fitter in the tool room. The matter has been taken up by campaigner Paul Cooper, a former union leader at the Carriageworks, who met with Mr. Anderson before his death. Mr. Anderson's widow Joyce said that during the time that her husband had been ill in hospital, he became increasingly certain that asbestos must be a factor. The asbestos scandal at York Carriageworks first came to light more than 25 years ago, after the then Yorkshire Evening Press highlighted the rising number of cases of mesothelioma in former workers. Workers were widely exposed to asbestos from the 1950s onwards, unaware of the dangers. Some told afterwards how they threw clumps of asbestos around like snowballs. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dublin Docklands to Clean Up Bottling Site ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Dublin Docklands Development Authority states that they will remove asbestos from the Irish Glass Bottle site in Poolbeg in Ireland as part of their demolition and remediation works that began there before Christmas, Dublin People reports. The work is to be handled by Becbay Ltd., which is a joint venture involving Bernard McNamara, Derek Quinlan and the DDDA. The site remediation work includes the decommissioning of the plant, demolition of buildings and the removal of about two meters of underlying soil material. The DDDA confirmed that there is asbestos on the site. The material will be extracted under an integrated control license issued by the Environmental Agency, they said. A statement from the DDDA reads, "The soil materials will be removed from the site to Dublin South Port via South Bank Road for onward shipment to a suitable processing facility in Europe. All sub-contractors employed will be suitably licensed and experienced to handle and dispose of hazardous materials." In April 2007, the DDDA received approval from the Oireachtas Committee on Environment for the preparation of a planning scheme for over 100 acres in the Poolbeg Peninsula area. According to the DDDA, they plan to transform the area "in a way that delivers sustainable mixed use development, while at the same time preserving the natural heritage and developing amenities." A spokeswoman said the authority did not yet have any specific plans for the site and were still in the process of preparing a 'Poolbeg Planning Scheme.' ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Records $354M Liability at Sept. 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Inc.'s long-term asbestos liability, as of Sept. 28, 2007, amounted to US$354,091,000, according to the Company's registration statement, on Form S-1, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 4, 2007. As of Sept. 28, 2007, the Company's current accrued asbestos liability amounted to US$29,032,000 and its current asbestos insurance asset amounted to US$26,632,000. As of Sept. 28, 2007, the Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$52,276,000 and its long-term asbestos insurance asset amounted to US$294,910,000. The Company's legacy asbestos gain amounted to US$23,714,000 in the nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007, compared with a legacy asbestos expense of US$24,376,000 in the nine months ended Sept. 29, 2006. In the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's legacy asbestos expense amounted to US$33,816,000. COMPANY PROFILE: Colfax Corp. 8730 Stony Point Pkwy., Ste. 150 Richmond, Va. Phone: 804-560-4070 Fax: 804-560-4076 http://www.colfaxcorp.com Description: The Company supplies fluid handling products, including pumps, fluid handling systems and specialty valves. Products include rotary positive displacement pumps, which include screw pumps, gear pumps and progressive cavity pumps. The Company serves five markets: commercial marine, oil and gas, power generation, global navy, and general industrial. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Corp. Has 38,477 Claims at Sept. 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corp. recorded 38,477 asbestos-related claims in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with 53,291 claims in the nine months ended Sept. 29, 2006, according to a Company registration statement, on Form S-1, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 4, 2007. In the nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007, the Company recorded 5,986 claims filed and 17,529 claims resolved. In the nine months ended Sept. 29, 2006, the Company noted 4,451 claims filed and 10,377 claims resolved. The Company has established reserves of US$383.1 million as of Sept. 28, 2007 and US$388.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, for the probable and reasonably estimable asbestos-related liabilities the Company believes the subsidiaries will pay through the next 15 years, and have also established recoverables of US$321.5 million as of Sept. 28, 2007 and US$297.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2006 for the insurance recoveries that are deemed probable during the same time period. Net of these recoverables, the Company's expected cash outlay on a non-discounted basis for asbestos-related claims over the next 15 years was US$61.6 million as of Sept. 28, 2007 and US$91.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. Two of the Company's subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with components that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Those components were acquired from third-party suppliers and were not made by any of the Company's subsidiaries nor were the subsidiaries producers or direct suppliers of asbestos. The manufactured products that are alleged to have contained asbestos generally were provided to meet the specifications of the subsidiaries' customers, including the U.S. Navy. In 2003, one of the Company's subsidiaries brought an action in the New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County, against a number of its insurers and its former parent to resolve a variety of disputes concerning insurance coverage for the asbestos personal injury claims asserted against it. In 2004, the Company's primary insurance carrier ceased payments alleging that its policies were exhausted. The subsidiary requested proof of exhaustion which the primary carrier refused to provide. Thereafter, most of the subsidiary's excess and umbrella carriers also refused to provide payments for a variety of reasons, including reliance upon the lack of evidence of exhaustion and other timing and allocation defenses. Generally, the insurance companies have not contested coverage. In 2004, the subsidiary began making substantially all of the payments required to cover liability and defense costs for the asbestos-related lawsuits while pursuing a lawsuit against the insurers. In addition, in this suit, the subsidiary alleges that its former parent is responsible for any coverage that would have been provided by any insurance company that is insolvent. In 2007, certain of the insurance carriers agreed to settle with the subsidiary by reimbursing the subsidiary for amounts the subsidiary paid for liability and defense costs in the past as well as entering into formal agreements detailing the payment of future liability and defense costs in an agreed to allocation for that insurer. In addition, a number of non-settling insurance carriers have made payments of significant amounts for liability and defense costs paid by the subsidiary in the past and continue to pay a share of liability and defense costs as they are incurred. As a result, the subsidiary’s insurance carriers are once again paying a substantial portion of the subsidiary's current asbestos-related costs. Trial is scheduled for April 2008. To date, the Company's other subsidiary involved in asbestos litigation has had all of its liability and defense costs, excluding litigation costs of pursuing insurance coverage, covered in full by its primary and umbrella insurance carrier, subject to potential retrospective premiums under its primary policy. The subsidiary has a substantial amount of umbrella and excess insurance available to it from solvent carriers. The subsidiary is in litigation in the Delaware Chancery Court with its primary and umbrella insurer and with a third-party company concerning the availability of insurance under certain policies issued to the then-parent of both the subsidiary and the third-party company. While coverage for the claims is not in dispute, the third-party company is seeking a partition of the insurance policy limits for its sole benefit. The subsidiary has also brought an action against all of its insurers in Massachusetts Superior Court. In that action, the subsidiary primarily seeks declaratory relief regarding the excess insurers' obligations to fund in full the defense and settlement of the asbestos suits following the exhaustion of the underlying umbrella policies. COMPANY PROFILE: Colfax Corp. 8730 Stony Point Pkwy., Ste. 150 Richmond, Va. Phone: 804-560-4070 Fax: 804-560-4076 http://www.colfaxcorp.com Description: The Company supplies fluid handling products, including pumps, fluid handling systems and specialty valves. Products include rotary positive displacement pumps, which include screw pumps, gear pumps and progressive cavity pumps. The Company serves five markets: commercial marine, oil and gas, power generation, global navy, and general industrial. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Has $7.5M Liability Reserve at Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corp. has established an asbestos-related reserve of US$7.5 million at Sept. 28, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006 for probable and reasonably estimable liability it expects to pay related to retrospective premiums under primary insurance policies. Two of the Company's subsidiaries facing asbestos claims have substantial primary and excess insurance coverage. For one subsidiary, the primary insurer historically has paid and continues to pay all liability and defense costs. However, during 2006, the primary insurer asserted that certain insurance policies contain provisions specifying retrospective premium adjustments. For the other subsidiary, until June 2004, based on an interim agreement, the primary insurers paid at least two-thirds of all liability and defense costs, as agreed among the parties. In 2003, the subsidiary sued a large number of its insurers and its former parent to resolve a variety of disputes concerning insurance coverage for asbestos bodily injury claims asserted against it. Although none of the defendant insurance companies contested coverage, they disputed the timing, reasonableness and allocation of payments. One of the primary insurers and one of the excess insurers stopped or severely reduced payments alleging that their policies were exhausted, and the subsidiary began paying various amounts of liability and defense costs during 2004. In 2007, certain insurance carriers agreed to settle with the subsidiary by reimbursing the subsidiary for amounts it paid for liability and defense costs in the past as well as entering into formal agreements detailing the payment of future liability and defense costs in an agreed to allocation for that insurer. In addition, a number of non-settling insurance carriers have paid significant amounts for liability and defense costs paid by the subsidiary in the past and continue to pay a share of costs as they are incurred. The subsidiary received US$7.5 million from certain insurers during the 2007-1st quarter, of which about US$6.3 million relates to insurance policies which are not included in its 15 year estimate of asbestos-related liability cost and, as such, was recorded as income. This settlement also eliminates the insurers' defense and indemnity obligations and transfers the risk back to the subsidiary. Subsequent to Sept. 28, 2007, the subsidiary has received about US$58 million from certain insurers of which US$47.8 million represents reimbursement of past cost, while US$10.2 million represents settlement in full from one insurer for future costs not yet incurred by the subsidiary. Presently certain insurers are paying about 71 percent of costs for current claims. For this subsidiary, the Company said it believes, based upon consultation with legal counsel and application of allocation models, that recovery is probable for at least 87.5 percent of all liability and defense costs paid after Sept. 28, 2007. For the period between Dec. 31, 2005 and Sept. 28, 2007, the Company estimated that recovery was probable for 75 percent of all liability costs paid and 85 percent of defense costs paid. Prior to Dec. 31, 2005, the Company estimated that recovery was probable for two-thirds of all liabilities paid. As a result, the Company recorded a receivable for liability costs in the amount of US$21.8 million as of Sept. 28, 2007 and US$16.9 million as of and Dec. 31, 2006, for which insurance recovery is deemed probable. The Company has also recorded a receivable for defense costs incurred in the amount of US$30.5 million as of Sept. 28, 2007 and US$24.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, for which insurance recovery is deemed probable. In addition, legal defense expense related to these liabilities was US$1.2 million for the nine-month period ended Sept. 28, 2007 and US$700,000 for the nine-month period ended Sept. 30, 2006, net of estimated insurance recoveries. Legal costs related to the subsidiaries' action against their asbestos insurers were US$9.6 million for the nine month-period ended Sept. 30, 2007 and US$9.2 million for the nine-month period ended Sept. 29, 2006. COMPANY PROFILE: Colfax Corp. 8730 Stony Point Pkwy., Ste. 150 Richmond, Va. Phone: 804-560-4070 Fax: 804-560-4076 http://www.colfaxcorp.com Description: The Company supplies fluid handling products, including pumps, fluid handling systems and specialty valves. Products include rotary positive displacement pumps, which include screw pumps, gear pumps and progressive cavity pumps. The Company serves five markets: commercial marine, oil and gas, power generation, global navy, and general industrial. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Lawmakers Urged Not to Pass Changes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Retired Kanawha Circuit Judge Andrew MacQueen, an expert on how West Virginia courts handle asbestos claims, on Jan. 6, 2008, urged legislators to avoid proposed changes to the system, Charleston Daily Mail reports. For 22 years on the bench until his retirement in 2000, Judge MacQueen presided over thousands of cases in which workers alleged injuries from exposure to asbestos. Judge MacQueen said, "For such a small state, for a number of reasons, West Virginia used an inordinate amount of asbestos- containing products." Judge MacQueen also helped West Virginia's Supreme Court develop a plan to manage the volumes of asbestos claims filed in the state. This Case Management Plan has since helped resolve tens of thousands of asbestos cases. However, Judge MacQueen said proposed legislation would threaten that system. Pursued without success during the last several annual sessions, it would create new standards for the handling of evidence and the review of medical claims. It is expected to re-emerge when the Legislature begins this year's 60-day regular session on Jan. 9, 2008. Insurance interests and the state Chamber of Commerce are among the bill's supporters. However, Judge MacQueen said those involved in asbestos cases, including the companies targeted by claims and their lawyers, have praised the management plan as fair. Sen. Ron Stollings, D-Boone and a physician, suggested the bill was necessary. He invoked "Unleashing Capitalism," the book edited by West Virginia University economics professor Russ Sobel. It applies a libertarian approach to allege problems throughout the state, particularly with its court system. Judge MacQueen disagreed. He cited the recent study by two West Virginia University political science professors, Richard Brisbin and John Kilwein. They found no objective data to support the allegations about West Virginia's courts and civil lawsuit filings as expressed in Mr. Sobel's book and elsewhere. Judge MacQueen added that those allegations also unfairly and inaccurately reflect the work he and his colleagues performed during his decades as a judge. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Del. Panel to Investigate Surge of Filings ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James T. Vaughn Jr. of Delaware Superior Court, described as the state's top judge, has appointed a panel to look into business complaints of a flood of out-of-state asbestos claims into the state of Delaware, PointofLaw.com reports. James A. Wolfe, the state Chamber's president and chief executive officer, noted that there were 62 cases, nearly all alleging exposure in Delaware, on the court's docket in 2004. However, between May 2005 and Sept. 30, 2007, 577 more cases were filed, 445 by non-residents who largely allege they were exposed to asbestos in another state. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Claimants File Appeal to Dana Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- A group, known as the ad hoc committee of asbestos claimants, on Jan. 3, 2008, filed an appeal with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan on the confirmation of Dana Corp.'s Plan of Reorganization, Associated Press reports. This group represents "tens of thousands" of people who claim they were injured by asbestos in Dana's products. The committee has argued that Dana's bankruptcy plan did not set aside enough money to settle all the asbestos personal-injury claims against the Company. In December 2007, the Company said it had US$240 million in cash and other assets to cover future asbestos and environmental contamination liabilities. The Company said it has enough money to satisfy all the claims based on the number of active cases pending against it and the number of dismissed cases. Dana spokesman David Lilly said the appeal "was not unexpected." He said the appeal will not affect Dana's plans to emerge from Chapter 11 protection by the end of January 2008. Dana reached settlements with some asbestos personal-injury claimants as it worked its way through the bankruptcy process. The Company agreed to pay a total of US$2 million to a group of about 7,500 who claim they were injured by asbestos in Dana products. Dana's plan allows other asbestos claimants to retain their right to sue Dana once the company emerges from bankruptcy. The Company filed for bankruptcy in March 2006 amid a downturn in the vehicle manufacturing industry. Its plan was confirmed by Judge Burton Lifland in December 2007. The plan calls for unsecured creditors to be repaid between 72 percent and 86 percent on their claims. Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Corp.'s core products include axles and driveshafts, as well as sealing, thermal, and structural products. Customers include OEMs like Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, and Toyota. The Company also supplies companies that make commercial and off-highway vehicles such as PACCAR and Navistar. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $9M Awarded to N.Y. Claimants Last Dec. 17 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A New York City jury, on Dec. 17, 2007, awarded a total of US$9 million to compensate two New York City mesothelioma victims and their wives for damages caused by asbestos exposure, according to a Levy, Phillips & Konigsberg LLP press release dated Jan. 4, 2008. The two cases (Rosenberg and Casale) were joined for a single trial before Justice Marcy S. Friedman, Supreme Court, New York County, located in downtown New York City. The mesothelioma law firm representing both families is Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP. The jury verdicts in these cases are being viewed as ground-breaking by mesothelioma trial attorneys, as the verdicts were handed down against companies against whom no jury verdicts had ever been returned in the long history of asbestos exposure litigation in New York City. The case of Joel and Sharon Rosenberg v. Alpha Wire Co., et. al, Index No. 106697/06 involved the asbestos exposure that Mr. Rosenberg sustained as the result of working as a life-long electrician in New York with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 3. Mr. Rosenberg started in the trade while still a teenager in 1960. He suffered asbestos exposure while working in New York as an electrician. Mesothelioma due to workplace asbestos exposure developed in Mr. Rosenberg from a variety of New York work sites including the Arthur Kill Powerhouse in Staten Island, the Vista Hotel in the Financial District, the Cross Bay Bridge and the Deutsche Bank Building. He sustained asbestos exposure in the workplace from various sources including the cutting, sawing and skinning of wire and cable that was insulated with asbestos. In the Rosenberg case, the New York jury returned a verdict in favor of the Rosenbergs against a manufacturer of asbestos- containing power cable. This represents the first verdict against a manufacturer of cable used in a commercial setting in the history of asbestos exposure litigation in New York. The jury awarded US$3 million for Mr. Rosenberg's pain and suffering and US$1 million to Mrs. Rosenberg for loss of services and society. Mr. Rosenberg developed mesothelioma during his retirement while living in New Jersey. He died at the age of 64. The Casale case (Joseph and Dolores Casale, Index No. 104299/06), involved the asbestos exposure of Mr. Casale during his career as a steam fitter (also known as pipe fitter) in New York. At the time, steamfitters were unknowingly endangered with asbestos exposure in their workplace due to asbestos being used on equipment such as valves, steam trap and boilers. While still a teenager Mr. Casale worked at shipyards, including the Brooklyn Navy Yard, as a member of the Local 638 Union. He continued in the same union and worked in the steam fitter trade at job sites in New York City throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Mr. Casale later moved to Florida but his mesothelioma diagnosis was linked to his asbestos exposure which occurred in New York. Mr. Casale was exposed to asbestos from various products including valves and steam traps, from both internal asbestos components and asbestos insulation that was applied to the products. The jury awarded a total of US$5 million in the Casale case: US$1.5 million for Mr. Casale's pain and suffering up to the date of the verdict; US$1.5 million for Mr. Casale's future pain and suffering; US$1 million for Mrs. Casale's loss of service and society up to the date of the verdict; and US$1 million for Mrs. Casale's future loss of service and society. In the Casale case, the New York jury returned a verdict in favor of the Casales against a manufacturer of valves, as well as a manufacturer of steam traps. This represents the first verdicts involving valves and steam traps in the history of asbestos exposure litigation in New York, and is reportedly the first asbestos verdict in the nation involving the use of steam traps. Mr. Casale, who is living with mesothelioma at age of 66, testified at trial. The LPK mesothelioma trial attorneys that obtained the verdicts in these cases were Jerome H. Block, Patrick J. Timmins and Holly C. Peterson. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harris’ Bid to Remand Suit v. Viad Junked ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division, denied Mary Ellen Harris' motion to remand, in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed against Viad Corp. and other defendants. The case is styled Mary Ellen Harris, Special Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Lee Harris, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Rapid American Corp., et al., Defendants. Senior District Judge James B. Moran entered judgment of Case No. 07 C 6055 on Dec. 18, 2007. Thomas Harris enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1957 and was stationed at Great Lakes Naval Training Center. After training to become a machinist mate, he was assigned to the U.S.S. Montrose to work on the ship's evaporators, pumps and compressors. He worked in this capacity until he was discharged in 1960. Mrs. Harris alleged that Mr. Harris was exposed to asbestos- containing evaporators made by Viad's predecessor, Griscom- Russell. Specifically, the alleged exposure took place while Mr. Harris was in active service and stationed at Great Lakes Naval Training Center and on board the U.S.S. Montrose. Viad did not challenge Mrs. Harris' assertion that Mr. Harris was exposed to asbestos. However, Viad contended that the Navy specified all mechanical equipment in question and dictated what warnings were to be provided with the equipment. As such, Viad asserted a military contractor defense that, it contended, allowed it to litigate this case in federal court. Mr. Harris died of asbestos-caused lung cancer on Sept. 15, 2007. Mrs. Harris brought this action against Viad and other defendants in Illinois state court. Her claims were derived solely from state law. Viad, asserting Federal Officer jurisdiction, removed the entire action to the District Court. Mrs. Harris moved for remand to state court. The District Court subsequently denied Mrs. Harris' motion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Satterfield Lawsuit v. ALCOA Inc. Continues ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos-related injury lawsuit, filed by Amanda Satterfield and continued by her father Doug Satterfield against ALCOA Inc., is continuing in Tennessee, The Daily Times reports. The Satterfield action, filed in 2003, was scheduled for trial on Jan. 8, 2008 in Tennessee Supreme Court. The Court is expected to rule by April 2008. Ms. Satterfield filed the lawsuit against ALCOA and Breeding Insulation Company Inc., of Nashville, Tenn., on Dec. 8, 2003. In the suit, she alleged ALCOA did not warn her father of the dangers of asbestos exposure. Mr. Satterfield previously told The Daily Times that he hauled asbestos for ALCOA, starting his career with the company in 1973. He served in the military from 1975 to 1978 and then returned to work at ALCOA. Ms. Satterfield's lawsuit sought US$10 million in compensatory and US$10 million in punitive damages. Blount County Circuit Court Judge W. Dale Young dismissed the suit in March 2006, but Mr. Satterfield's attorneys immediately filed an appeal. In April 2007, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed Judge Young's decision, reinstated the lawsuit and charged ALCOA with the cost of the appeal. Mr. Satterfield's lawyers have maintained that Mr. Satterfield was exposed to asbestos at ALCOA Tennessee Operations and that he brought home harmful dust and fibers on his clothes, resulting in Ms. Satterfield contracting mesothelioma. Ms. Satterfield died Jan. 1, 2005, at the age of 25. Following her death, her father was named representative of her estate and the lawsuit continued. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Industry Thrives in Indonesia ---------------------------------------------------------------- The asbestos industry in Indonesia continues to grow, in which most of the consumers are people who live in the countryside and do not understand the hazards, The Jakarta Post reports. A few weeks ago, tsunami survivors from Deah village near Banda Aceh burned five houses built with aid from the Aceh-Nias Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Board (BRR). The people were angry over the use of asbestos in their houses' construction. After a BRR official signed a pledge saying the asbestos would be replaced, the government reversed course, and ran a media campaign declaring asbestos safe. BRR may be assuming the tsunami victims don't know that asbestos can kill. That's why BRR allowed the use of asbestos in the houses constructed in Deah Village. Debates had prevailed within the BRR about asbestos. In January 2007, the BRR's deputy of housing, Andi Siswanto, recommended all houses using asbestos be rebuilt immediately, citing the hazards of asbestos for humans. However, he retired from BRR a month later, making him unable to follow up his decision. Andi's proposal was supported by research conducted by the Research and Development Division of the Industry and Trade Ministry. Based on this research, the BRR supervisory council asked the body to replace the asbestos. Initially, the BRR promised to remove the asbestos, but eventually it insisted the houses would not be rebuilt, saying asbestos is not a dangerous material. In many countries, asbestos has been banned as a construction material. In the United States, asbestos became a hot topic in the 1980s. The issue won a lot of attention because housewives, children and construction workers have died, originally seemingly of emphysema. Medical examiners discovered the disease was caused by microscopic particles of asbestos used in housing materials. After 1985, most construction companies in the U.S. stopped using asbestos. A U.S. non-profit group called the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization has campaigned about the dangers of asbestos and promoted the rights of victims. The ADAO estimates that in 20 years more than 100,000 people across the globe will suffer from the effects of asbestos. This means 30 people fall ill every day. Canada, a staunch defender of asbestos, says a ban against the material will damage industries. Canada also insists that asbestos is not dangerous if handled correctly. Canada is one of the biggest asbestos producers in the world, with the commodity exported mostly to Asia and Africa. Despite the anti-asbestos campaigns, asbestos is still used in many countries. Besides being inexpensive, it also employs a lot of people. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gov’t to Review Inspection Systems in Tokyo ---------------------------------------------------------------- Three types of asbestos previously thought to never have been used in Japan recently have been detected at eight public facilities, including nursery schools for children in Tokyo, The Yomiuri Shimbun reports. The discovery indicates that three of six types of asbestos may have been left uncontrolled. It likely will prompt local governments to recheck public facilities to confirm the hazardous substances' existence and review their inspection systems. In fiscal 2005 and 2006, local governments conducted surveys on the possible existence of asbestos at schools and other public facilities. The Yomiuri Shimbun has learned that about 75 percent of prefectural governments and government ordinance cities did not check for the three types of asbestos -- tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite -- during the survey. The World Health Organization defines six types of mineral substances as asbestos. They are white asbestos (chrysotile), brown asbestos (amosite), blue asbestos (crocidolite), tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite. The six types of asbestos are all carcinogenic and subject to inspection under a standard analysis method in the United States. Major domestic building material makers had said they never used asbestos varieties other than white asbestos, brown asbestos and blue asbestos. Therefore, it was previously assumed that tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite have never been used in the country. However, according to surveys by local governments as of March 2007, tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite were found in three Tokyo wards, Yokohama, Chiba and Niigata. At a public nursery school for children in Chuo Ward, Tokyo, a high density of tremolite -- consisting of 53 percent of sprayed materials used on the ceiling in a machine room -- was detected. In fiscal 2005, the government told local governments to check for the possible use of asbestos in building materials at public facilities after it was revealed that residents near construction material and machinery maker Kubota Co.'s plant in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture, suffered asbestos-related illness. The government initially planned to conduct inspections that would cover all six types of asbestos. However, the government document sent to local governments that requested they conduct a survey on asbestos did not include a list of the asbestos types to be checked. Because the Japanese Industrial Standards stipulating asbestos analysis procedures only says "mainly white, brown and blue" asbestos should be inspected, many local governments surveyed these three types of asbestos only. The Yomiuri Shimbun contacted 120 local governments including Tokyo and other prefectural governments, government-ordinance cities and prefectural capitals. It found that 91 local governments conducted the survey for the three types of asbestos at educational facilities, while 89 checked for them at other public facilities. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Century Objects to Clause in ASARCO Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Century Indemnity Co. says it generally supports the request to extend the neutrality clause to other insurance companies other than to Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. Century, however, believes that certain modifications of the insurance neutrality clause will help ensure that the estimation proceedings of ASARCO LLC and the other Debtors' asbestos liabilities will be unequivocally insurance neutral for all purposes and contexts, including without limitation, all pending and future court proceedings, arbitration, alternative dispute resolution-type proceeding, and other disputes involving one or more of the Debtors' insurers. Century says it is concerned that some parties may later argue that the "insurance neutrality" clause should not be interpreted as broadly as intended. Mt. McKinley Insurance Co. and Everest Reinsurance Co., on the other hand, tell the Court that they did not request for "insurance neutrality" from the Debtors. Mt. McKinley and Everest questions the Debtors' fundamental premise of "neutrality" at this juncture of their bankruptcy cases. Representing Mt. McKinley and Everest, Daniel F. Patchin, at McLain & Patchin P.C., Houston, says without a disclosure statement or a plan of reorganization filed to frame the context in which a party's rights or impairment of rights can be judged, the Debtors have deprived themselves of any basis to argue on the merits that the insurance companies' rights are unimpaired by the proposed Addendum. "They have truly put the cart well ahead of the horse," Mr. Patchin asserts. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 62; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Motion to Retain Dean Baker Filed in ASARCO ---------------------------------------------------------------- In May 2005, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors, in ASARCO LLC's bankruptcy case, employed L. Tersigni Consulting, P.C., as its financial advisors. Loreto Tersigni, the 100 percent owner and president of the Tersigni firm, died in May 2007. Following Mr. Tersigni's death, certain issues of alleged billing irregularities by the Tersigni firm in other bankruptcy cases had reach the Asbestos Committee's attention, Al Brayton, at Brayton Purcell, in Novato, Calif., relates. As a result, the Asbestos Committee terminated the Tersigni firm as its financial advisor in June 2007 and informed the U.S. Trustee for Region 7 of the termination. In November 2007, the Tersigni firm filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition before the U.S. District of Connecticut, Bridgeport Division. The Asbestos Committee wishes to appear in Tersigni's bankruptcy case to monitor its progress and developments; pursue any potential claims against Tersigni; and otherwise protect its interests, Mr. Brayton says. In accordance with applicable local rules in the state of Connecticut, the Asbestos Committee seeks the Court's permission to retain the Law Offices of Dean Baker as its local Connecticut counsel. As local counsel, Dean Baker will: (a) Serve as the Asbestos Committee's representative at any court hearings and proceedings before the Connecticut Court; (b) Prepare any pleadings, motions, answers,notices orders, and reports that are required by the Asbestos Committee in Tersigni's bankruptcy case; (c) Provide legal advice and consultations; and assist the Asbestos Committee in its investigation of the acts, conducts, assets, liabilities, and financial condition of the Tersigni firm, the operation of its business and the desirability of the continuance of its business, and any other matter relevant to the Tersigni firm's bankruptcy case; (d) Assist the Asbestos Committee in the negotiation of or opposition to or support of a plan or plans of reorganization in the Tersigni case; and (e) Render other necessary advice as the Asbestos Committee may require. Mr. Baker has agreed to represent the Asbestos Committee at a fee commensurate with his normal hourly rate of US$385 per hour. The Asbestos Committee seeks the Court's permission to pay Mr. Baker's fees and reimburse his expenses from either the existing Wells Fargo Escrow Account or the Escrow Account created under the settlement agreement with certain London market insurers. Mr. Baker attests that he does not represent any interest adverse to the Asbestos Committee or the Debtors' estates, and is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14). (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 62; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Braces for Bankruptcy Judge's Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co. is getting ready for U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald's asbestos-related ruling to a question that would otherwise be handled by an army of judges and jurors, Associated Press reports. The question set for trial in January 2008 is how much the Company owes for injuries, death and other damage linked to its asbestos products. The trial will begin Jan. 14, 2008 in a Delaware bankruptcy court and will produce the number that will be the core of the Company's Chapter 11 exit plan. If the answer from Judge Fitzgerald is US$700 million or a little more, Grace and its shareholders are safe and on their way out of bankruptcy, with enough value to cover the asbestos damage bill and have something left over for shareholders. However, if Judge Fitzgerald estimates asbestos liabilities at US$2 billion or US$3 billion or more, Grace will become the property of people damaged by its toxic products. Experts for the asbestos camp say Grace's liabilities are at least US$3.7 billion. Roger Frankel, a lawyer for asbestos creditors, "If the asbestos experts are even close to right, then the equity in this company is severely at risk, or it will simply be wiped out." Investors are betting heavily that Grace, bankrupt for more than six years and under criminal indictment for allegedly covering up its asbestos troubles, will be the Chapter 11 case where phony claims are finally exposed, and "junk science" trashed. Speculators pounce on every court filing, and are paying about US$25 per share for the stock, an unusually high amount for a company in bankruptcy. David Bernick, a lawyer with Kirkland & Ellis, said, "Grace is the last circumstance in which a bankruptcy court has the ability to say which claims are good and which claims are bad." Asbestos lawyers say the Company is trying to convert a forum that was intended to promote negotiation into a platform for eliminating vast numbers of asbestos-injury claims. If Grace gets its way, thousands of people who would be entitled to press their claims before a hometown judge and jury will instead have their fates determined in a faraway bankruptcy courtroom. Grace and its shareholders say the Company is solvent and capable of paying valid asbestos claims in full. However, attorneys for asbestos plaintiffs say that assertion is belied by the Company's six-year stay in bankruptcy. Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. has restructured from six product groups into two units. The Company's Davison Chemicals unit makes silica-based products, chemical catalysts, and refining catalysts. The Company's Performance Chemicals unit makes concrete and cement additives, packaging sealants, and fireproofing chemicals. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of Tex. Senior Center ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Big Spring Senior Center in Big Spring, Tex., has been closed due to the presence of asbestos in the flooring, CBS 7 reports. On Jan. 3, 2008, state health officials inspecting the center discovered floor tiles recently removed may pose an asbestos risk. The City is in talks to pass over responsibility of the center to the county, that is why the county removed the tiles to check the depth of the floor, which created the asbestos abatement. Until the Senior Center reopens on Jan. 14, 2008, Scenic Mountain Medical Center will prepare the meals and they will be delivered as usual. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Decision in Plymouth's Favor ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, upheld the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division's ruling, which granted summary judgment to Plymouth Environmental Inc., in an asbestos-related Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) action filed by David Lau. The case is styled David Lau, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Plymouth Environmental Inc., Defendant-Respondent, and Eastern Insulation Inc., Defendant. Judges Weissbard and Baxter entered judgment of Docket No. A- 2804-06T5 on Dec. 3, 2007. In 1998, Archway, a subcontractor of Eastern Insulation Inc., hired Mr. Lau as an asbestos removal supervisor. Archway stationed him at a facility known as Coastal Eagle Point Oil Co. Eastern had entered into a contract with Coastal to perform insulation and asbestos removal. In September 2002, Archway sold its subcontract to Plymouth. Thereafter, Eastern entered into a new subcontract with Plymouth. Mr. Lau retained the same position and performed the same work as he had with Archway. In January 2004, Sunoco Inc. purchased Coastal. At the now Sunoco-owned location, Mr. Lau continued his work removing insulation and asbestos. Mr. Lau testified that on March 7, 2004, Matt Wilson, Eastern's onsite supervisor, asked Mr. Lau and his two-man crew to perform a job on overtime. The job involved stripping insulation from a large pipe on the roof of a building. Mr. Lau testified that he told Mr. Wilson that his crew could not perform the job for reasons including that there was a large amount of asbestos. Plymouth asserted that Mr. Lau did not inform Mr. Wilson that he believed that there were safety issues concerning this job. About one week after Mr. Wilson's first request, Mr. Wilson again asked Mr. Lau to perform the job. Mr. Lau declined once again. Mr. Lau did not inform any of his Plymouth supervisors about Mr. Wilson's requests. Mr. Wilson informed Mike Duffy, Mr. Lau's direct supervisor at Plymouth, that Mr. Lau would not perform the job and asked that Mr. Duffy speak with Mr. Lau. On March 24, 2004, Mr. Duffy called Mr. Lau while Mr. Lau was at work to discuss why he did not perform the job. On March 26, 2004, two days after the initial conversation between Mr. Lau and Mr. Duffy, Mr. Duffy went to the refinery where he informed Mr. Lau that he was being transferred to another crew. Mr. Duffy further explained that Mr. Lau should have expressed his concerns about the project directly to Plymouth. Plymouth alleged that on two other occasions prior to the events of March 2004, Plymouth questioned Mr. Lau's job performance. Mr. Lau maintained that he could not respond to the request because he was "involved in a different job for another maintenance team." Mr. Duffy stated that he told Mr. Lau that he must respond to the foreman's request and that he could have left his workers and looked at the requested job. On May 12, 2004, Mr. Lau filed his complaint against Plymouth and Eastern alleging violations of CEPA. Eastern was granted summary judgment on Aug. 18, 2006, and Mr. Lau has not appealed that order. On Oct. 5, 2006, Plymouth moved for summary judgment, asserting that Mr. Lau failed to establish a prima facie case under CEPA. On Dec. 15, 2006, after hearing oral argument, the court granted Plymouth's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Mr. Lau's complaint with prejudice. Mr. Lau appealed. The Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the ruling of the Superior Court, Law Division. Begelman & Orlow, P.C., represent David Lau (Jordan R. Irwin, on the brief). Golden, Rothschild, Spagnola, Lundell, Levitt & Boylan, P.C., represent Plymouth Environmental Inc. (Christopher H. Westrick, of counsel and on the brief; Rey O. Villanueva, on the brief). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Has $57.5M Current Liability at Nov. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- RPM International Inc.'s current asbestos-related liability stood at US$57,500,000 for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2007, compared with US$58,458,000 for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 8, 2008. For the year ended May 31, 2007, the Company's current asbestos- related liabilities stood at US$53 million. The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$53 million as of Aug. 31, 2007, compared with US$58,575,000 as of Aug. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 5, 2007) The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities stood at US$247,895,000 for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2007, compared with US$332,626,000 for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006. For the year ended May 31, 2007, the Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities stood at US$301,268,000. The Company’s long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$278,445,000 as of Aug. 31, 2007, compared with US$346,268,000 as of Aug. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 5, 2007) During the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2007, the Company paid US$26.1 million in pre-tax asbestos costs, compared with US$13.8 million in the year-ago period. Excluding transitional costs of US$9.1 million, all of which were directly attributable to management- initiated changes to the Company's defense and claims handling capabilities, the Company's total pre-tax asbestos costs would have been US$17 million. President and CEO Frank C. Sullivan said, "As noted during the first quarter, we have been making several changes in how we will manage our asbestos claims in the future. During the second quarter, we completed these changes and marked the peak of these transitional costs. It is also important to note that our year- to-date cash costs are not indicative of any adverse changes in the underlying litigation, nor in our key reserve assumptions. We are tracking consistent with these assumptions and if these transitional costs were excluded, our ongoing core defense costs would actually be lower than prior-year levels." The Company's total asbestos reserve balance stood at US$305.4 million at Nov. 30, 2007. Medina, Ohio-based RPM International Inc. is a holding company that owns subsidiaries that deal in specialty coatings and sealants. The Company's industrial products include roofing systems, sealants, corrosion control coatings, flooring coatings and specialty chemicals. The Company's consumer products are used by professionals and do-it-yourselfers for home maintenance and improvement, automotive and boat repair and maintenance, and by hobbyists. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling to Favor TIG Insurance ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Court of Illinois, 1st District, 3rd Division, affirmed the ruling of the Circuit Court of Cook County, which granted summary judgment to TIG Insurance Co., as successor by merger to International Insurance Co. (TIG), on the Board of Education of Township High School District No. 211, Cook County, Ill.'s (Board) claim for coverage of its asbestos-related damages. The case is styled Board of Education of Township High School District No. 211, Cook County, Ill., Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. TIG Insurance Co., as Successor by Merger to International Insurance Co., Defendant-Appellee and Cross- Appellant. Justices Cunningham, Theis, and Karnezis entered judgment of Case No. 1-05-1732 on Dec. 26, 2007. The two insurance policies issued to the Board by TIG covered the periods from April 1, 1981, through April 1, 1984, and April 1, 1984, through April 1, 1986. It is undisputed that the Board first learned that asbestos in some of its high school buildings had become friable in June 1983, as reported to it by ARCON Associates, an architectural firm hired by the Board to inspect the buildings at all five of its high schools. At the Board's request, ARCON then prepared an asbestos remediation program, which it submitted to the Board in August 1983. In that report, ARCON recommended that the Board remove all asbestos from all five of its high schools, and in January 1984, the Board adopted that recommendation. The Board began these remedial efforts in June 1985. The cost of these removal efforts between June 1984 and July 1986 was more than US$2.6 million. When removal was finally completed in 1994, the total cost was over US$17.5 million. No formal written notice of an "occurrence" was given to TIG by the Board until July 17, 1991, more than eight years after the Board first learned that it had friable asbestos in some of its school buildings. During the spring of 1984, the Board consulted with ARCON and others regarding safety issues, including air quality levels arising from asbestos. In compliance with regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Board posted signs in its buildings alerting the reader to the presence of asbestos. After the posting of these signs, an individual who was a representative of the Board's insurance broker and who was also TIG's designated agent for receipt of notices under the policies toured some of the Board's buildings, including Hoffman Estates High School in September of 1983, and again in September of 1984. In the spring of 1985 the Board asked TIG for the issuance of an endorsement to the existing insurance policies naming a contractor as an additional insured in connection with asbestos removal at Fremd High School. The Board first sued various asbestos manufacturers, distributors, and sellers on May 15, 1985, seeking damages for expenses incurred in connection with the removal of asbestos from its buildings. Some of those defendants, including Carey-Canada Inc., W.R. Grace & Co., and U.S. Mineral Products, were insured by TIG. TIG received no formal notice of any "occurrence" or claim by the Board until it received the Board's letter dated July 17, 1991. TIG rejected the Board's claim and the Board filed an action in the trial court seeking a declaratory judgment against TIG to recover over US$20 million. After the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court found for TIG on the ground that the Board had failed to "immediately" give TIG notice of an occurrence causing costs which would "likely result in payment" by TIG. The Board appealed from the order of the trial court, which held that the Board had breached its notice obligations to TIG under the applicable policies. However, in the event that the Appellate Court found as a matter of law that notice was sufficient, the trial court ruled in the alternative that it would grant summary judgment for the Board, an order from which TIG has filed a cross-appeal. The Appellate Court did not reach the findings upon which the trial court based that alternative ruling, for it determined that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment for TIG on the basis of the Board's breach of its notice obligations. The Appellate Court also denied TIG's motion, taken with the case, to strike certain portions of the Board's amended opening brief. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Worker Sues 72 Companies in Ill. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry L. Rice, Sr., of Saylersville, Ky., on Dec. 11, 2007, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 72 companies in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Mr. Rice claims that the defendants are responsible for exposing him to asbestos, which caused his mesothelioma. The 63-year-old Mr. Rice was diagnosed with mesothelioma on May 21, 2007. He worked at various job sites in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan from 1965 to 2000. According to the suit filed by attorney Victoria L. Antion, Mr. Rice breathed the harmful dust created by use of asbestos- containing products. The suit says the companies failed to warn Mr. Rice of the dangers of asbestos, and failed to inform of the importance of sufficient apparel and safety equipment. Mr. Rice claims he developed severe, permanent and disabling lung disease and suffered the damages and losses related to the disease. In the 18-count suit, Mr. Rice seeks compensatory and punitive damages for his injuries. Charleston, W.Va., attorney William K. Schwartz is also counsel for Mr. Rice. Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-2645 will be assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: French Court Affirms Decision v. Michelin ---------------------------------------------------------------- A French Appeals Court, on Jan. 8, 2008, has confirmed Compagnie Generale des Etablissements Michelin's conviction for gross negligence in exposing former workers to asbestos in the 1960s and 1970s, AFX News Limited reports. The Nov. 16, 2006 decision made by the Tribunal des affaires de Securite Sociale in Clermont-Ferrand, France, related specifically to four former employees, including three who had died from asbestos related cancer. It was said that, between them, the four men insulated 1,400 meters of pipes with asbestos every month until 1973. Although Michelin claimed that the employees' exposure to asbestos occurred in an era when the health dangers of asbestos were not widely known, the appeals court upheld the decision related to the three deceased employees. A judgment is still to be made in the case of the fourth man. The ruling means that in addition to paying compensation, Michelin must pay the widows of the workers a monthly allowance equivalent to their deceased husbands' salaries. Two of the former Michelin employees who suffered from their exposure to the disease-causing mineral died in 2002 and 2003. Michelin said it would analyze the Court's decision and examine different possible responses. Clermont-Ferrand, France-based Compagnie Generale des Etablissements Michelin sells about 36,000 products, including tires, wheels, and inner tubes used on passenger cars and trucks, aircraft, bicycles, and agricultural vehicles. Other company products include travel publications like road maps and travel guides. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Owes $5T Over Contract, Creditor Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Stone, an asbestos creditor, asserts that he is entitled to a US$5,000 payment from Dana Corp. and the other Debtors as cure of their default under a contract between the parties. Mr. Stone tells the Court that the Debtors, before the Petition Date, agreed to pay US$5,000 in exchange for a release and dismissal of asbestos claims he asserted against Dana Corp. in the Montana 8th Judicial District Court. Mr. Stone says the Debtors have not paid the US$5,000 required by the pre-petition agreement. (Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 68; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navy Worker Sues 71 Companies in Ill. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Malcolm Henley of Idaho, on Dec. 17, 2007, filed an asbestos- related lawsuit against 71 defendant corporations in Madison Circuit Court, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Mr. Henley alleges that he was exposed to asbestos while enlisted in the U.S. Navy from 1965 through 1968 at various locations including Great Lakes Naval Training in Illinois and as a mechanic at various locations in Massachusetts and Idaho. Mr. Henley claims that during the course of his employment and during home and automotive repairs he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers emanating from certain products he was working with and around. According to the complaint, Mr. Henley was diagnosed with mesothelioma on April 24, 2007. Mr. Henley claims the defendants knew or should have known that the asbestos fibers contained in their products had a toxic, poisonous and highly deleterious effect upon the health of people. Mr. Henley also alleges that the defendants included asbestos in their products even when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide any or adequate instructions concerning the safe methods of working with and around asbestos. Mr. Henley also claims that the defendants failed to require and advise employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home. Mr. Henley also claims that he has sought, but has been unable to obtain, full disclosure of relevant documents and information from the defendants leading him to believe the defendants destroyed documents related to asbestos. Mr. Henley claims that as a result of each defendant breaching its duty to preserve material evidence by destroying documents and information he has been prejudiced and impaired in proving claims against all potential parties. As a result of the alleged negligence, Mr. Henley claims he was exposed to fibers containing asbestos. He developed a disease caused only by asbestos which has disabled and disfigured him, the complaint states. He seeks damages to help pay for the cost of his treatment. The complaint states that Mr. Henley also suffers "great physical pain and mental anguish, and also will be hindered and prevented from pursuing his normal course of employment, thereby losing large sums of money." Mr. Henley seeks at least US$250,000 in damages for negligence, willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of evidence among other allegations. Perry Browder, John Barnerd and Christopher Guinn of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Henley. The case has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: St. George Re to Center on Asbestos Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- St. George Re Ltd., on Jan. 9, 2008, said it would begin operations as the first company dedicated solely to offering U.S. companies protection against asbestos claims, Reuters reports. St. George said it had arranged with units of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., the insurance and investment company run by Warren Buffett, for reinsurance coverage that would let it underwrite the largest of claims, according to St. George Chief Executive Colin Barnes. Mr. Barnes said, "We are currently in the underwriting process for over US$5 billion of coverage." He said the insurance was designed "to remove uncertainty and provide resolution to historical corporate asbestos risk." Asbestos has cost cost companies an estimated US$70 billion and forced more than 70 firms into bankruptcy. St. George Re said it would offer insurance coverage to protect against risk of loss from future asbestos claims and the costs of defending against those claims. The Berkshire units' arrangement with St. George Re is not the first time the Omaha, Nebr.-based insurer has been willing to take asbestos exposure. In March 2007, a Lloyd's of London insurer transferred billions of dollars of liabilities to Berkshire Hathaway. Insurance executives have said that asbestos claims are beginning to decline due to court decisions that limit the number of filers. Berkshire owns more than 70 businesses, including auto insurer Geico Corp. and reinsurer General Re Corp. It ended September 2007 with more than US$47 billion in cash. Hamilton, Bermuda-based St. George Re Ltd. was formed to respond to demand from companies faced with asbestos-related personal injury liability for true insurance risk transfer products. The Company's founding investors are funds managed by Context Capital Management LLC, Plainfield Asset Management LLC, and Silver Creek Capital Management LLC. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Law Firm Warns of Lung Cancer's Danger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. would like to inform the public of the risk of lung cancer from asbestos exposure, according to a Weitz & Luxenberg press release dated Jan. 9, 2008. CancerCare predicts that lung cancer will account for 15 percent of cancer diagnoses and 29 percent of all cancer deaths in 2008. While it is common knowledge that cigarette smoking is the leading cause of the disease, the public is rarely informed that asbestos exposure can also cause lung cancer. According to a study compiled by the Environmental Working Group, about 5,000 people die from asbestos-related lung cancer every year in the United States. This is of great concern to Weitz & Luxenberg, which through its extensive experience with asbestos-related lung cancer cases, has seen that many of those grappling with the disease are often unaware that they have legal recourse. Additionally, the National Cancer Institute states that the combination of smoking and asbestos exposure significantly increases a person's risk of developing cancer of the air passageways in the lung. Joseph P. Williams, a trial attorney with the Asbestos Litigation unit, said, "The public should know how dangerous asbestos is and how exposure to it can multiply a person's likelihood of developing lung cancer, particularly if that person smokes." In May, Weitz & Luxenberg obtained a jury verdict of US$37 million for two smokers with lung cancer who had been exposed to asbestos (Index Nos. 100016/99 and 113583/05, New York Supreme Court). The defendant was Robert A. Keasbey Co., a former insulation contractor and distributor of asbestos products. In 2006, the firm secured a US$25 million jury verdict in a trial against DaimlerChrysler AG for a New York City brake reliner who lost his right lung to mesothelioma. Asbestos invades people's homes and workplaces through everyday products like floor and ceiling tile, insulation, brake pads and boilers that contain the carcinogen. People who are most at risk include those who worked with asbestos more than 10 years ago. This is because asbestos-related diseases have a long latency period. Boiler-making, automobiles, construction and textiles are some of the many industries that have exposed workers to the carcinogen, causing untold numbers to die of asbestos-related lung ailments like mesothelioma. It is equally crucial for the household members of those workers to get tested for asbestos diseases. The family of an exposed worker is at risk for secondhand contact by inhaling the asbestos fibers that the worker brought home on his or her clothes. Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. offers free case reviews from www.weitzlux.com. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Begins at Wigginton School in York ---------------------------------------------------------------- Decontamination work has begun at the Wigginton School, a school in York, England, which has been closed since Jan. 7, 2008 after asbestos was found there, The Press reports. The Health and Safety Executive gave the go-ahead for City of York Council to start decontamination of the school on Jan. 8, 2008. The Press reported how asbestos had been discovered during a structural inspection at the school over the Christmas holidays. City of York Council is working with the school and the HSE to resolve the situation as soon as possible, and the council has now said some, but not all of the 247 children will be able to return to school. Some pupils might have to be found places at neighboring primary schools if the situation continues for much longer. As yet it is not known how many children will need to go to other schools and which schools will take them in. A spokeswoman for the HSE said, "The HSE are investigating the reasons around the disturbance of asbestos insulating board at Wigginton School and the local authority has an obligation to ensure all the asbestos related material is removed before the children are returned to the premises." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Veteran “Demoted” for N.Y. School Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos whistleblower John Kielbasa is claiming that has been demoted for speaking out about asbestos problems at New York City schools, NEWSInferno.com reports. According to a press release from his lawyer, Mr. Kielbasa, a 22-year veteran steamfitter for the New York City Department of Education has been reassigned to sweeping warehouse floors. Nicknamed the "Serpico of the Schools" by co-workers, Mr. Kielbasa has been vigilant about reporting loose friable asbestos in various New York City Schools over the last 15 years. Mr. Kielbasa was informed by a New York City Law Department employee that the city recovered and continues to pursue claims against asbestos manufacturers. However, recovered monies are earmarked for the general fund and not asbestos abatement. Until 2003, the notification method for loose friable asbestos in schools was to simply contact a supervisor by telephone. This outdated system did not mandate documentation so there is no known proof of asbestos notifications before 2003. Mr. Kielbasa’s attorney, Pete Gleason, believes the system was more malevolent than incompetent, guaranteeing no legitimate record would ever be maintained, much less created. Public records confirm some city Schools were closed in the 1990s for asbestos contamination. In 2003, the DOE set up a fax notification system for asbestos in the schools. However, this system has not resulted in increased asbestos in schools. Mr. Kielbasa and his lawyer believe he is being punished for speaking up, "How can they label me a troublemaker if I'm bringing something important to people's awareness?" Mr. Kielbasa asked. Mr. Gleeson contends Eric Wienbaum, who was recently and quietly transferred for undisclosed reasons, instigated the harassment Mr. Kielbasa has suffered over the past six years. When his notifications went unanswered, Mr. Kielbasa collected loose friable asbestos from the city schools to which he was assigned and sent them to the EMSL lab. All samples were confirmed positive for loose friable asbestos. Rather than address the problem, the DOE chose to discipline Mr. Kielbasa. This matter is now the subject of a U.S. Department of Labor complaint. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Md. Court Junks Appeal in Silbersack Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals has refused to allow the family of Dominic Casino, who died of lung cancer, to file a wrongful death lawsuit against asbestos defendants "on ice" while appealing the dismissal of tobacco defendants, The Maryland Daily Record reports. The case is styled Donna Silbersack, Personal Representative of the Estate of Dominic Casino, et al. v. ACandS Inc., et al. CA No. 53, Sept. Term 2007. Judge Alan M. Wilner entered judgment on Jan. 4, 2008. Judge Wilner said, "Ultimately, the question is whether the case should remain in trial court until the case is over, which, for good reason, is what the law generally requires." Kathleen McDonald of Kerr McDonald LLP, attorney for Lorillard Tobacco Co., said, "We think the court correctly decided the case and we are very pleased." There are only specific circumstances under which a party can appeal a decision before a final judgment, or determination, has been issued resolving all claims in a lawsuit. However, one particular rule allows for an entry of judgment that does not encompass all claims or parties, which creates an immediate right to appeal a decision. Mr. Casino's widow, Donna Silbersack and the personal representative of his estate, filed suit in Baltimore City Circuit Court in 1997 against 19 defendants after Mr. Casino died of lung cancer. The wrongful death and personal injury lawsuit claimed that Mr. Casino's death was caused by exposure, during his employment at the Bethlehem Steel Corp., to asbestos products that were allegedly manufactured or distributed by the defendants. A year prior to filing this suit, Mr. Casino was also part of a class of plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Philip Morris filed by The Law Office of Peter G. Angelos. After the class certification was vacated in that lawsuit in 2000, requiring each plaintiff to file separate lawsuits, the appellants amended their complaint to add seven more defendants from the tobacco industry. The lower court dismissed the tobacco defendants from the suit, finding joinder of the defendants improper. After nine of the asbestos defendants remaining in the lawsuit filed for bankruptcy, the appellants sought to "reinstate" the tobacco defendants. When the lower court denied the request, the appellants asked the court to enter a "final judgment," which would allow them to appeal the dismissal and proceed against the tobacco defendants. The lower court denied the request, and the appellants appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, arguing that the denial itself was an appealable, final judgment. Before the intermediate court could make a decision, the Court of Appeals decided to take the case, and dismissed the appeal. The court found that a final judgment had not been entered in the case by which an appeal could be taken. R. Bruce McElhone represented Donna Silbersack, Personal Representative of the Estate of Dominic Casino, et al. James K. Archibald, David B. Hamilton, Kathleen McDonald and David W. Skeen represented the appellees. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Historic Hall Closed After Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- A historic Grade 1 listed hall in Greater Manchester, England, U.K., has been temporarily closed after asbestos was found, BBC News reports. It was discovered just before Christmas in a boiler room at 12th Century Ordsall Hall, Salford. Salford City Council, which owns the building, has called in contractors to remove the substance, which can cause lung disease. The council hopes to re-open the hall by the end of January 2008. A council spokeswoman said, "Ordsall Hall has been closed as a precautionary measure to enable checks to be made on the asbestos that was found during maintenance work. "We hope to re-open for visitors before the end of the month." Salford Council and Friends of Salford Museums recently launched a bid to transform the Grade I listed hall into a state-of-the- art visitor attraction. Asbestos, which is heat-resistant and has good insulating properties, was a popular building material in the 19th Century. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Detected at La Habra City Hall ---------------------------------------------------------------- City officials of La Habra Heights, Calif., said that reconstruction of this city's council chambers, damaged by a car that crashed through its walls, will be more expensive and take longer to complete due to asbestos discovered there, Whittier Daily News reports. The damage to the council chambers was caused Dec. 10, 2007 when 27-year-old Jason Reza Mohammed suffered an epileptic seizure while driving a 1999 Chevrolet Tahoe and swerved off of Hacienda Road and crashed into the council chambers, said deputy James Bickel of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. The asbestos must be removed from the areas exposed to the atmosphere. City officials still do not know the cost, but hope the room will be back in service in time for the city's Feb. 14, 2008 council meeting. In part, it's up to the city's insurance carrier, the Southern California Joint Powers Authority, said Bruce Barrette, public works manager. But for now, yellow warning tape remains outside the chambers where there is a large hole in the wall. No one is allowed inside. Mr. Barrette said the city won't have to pay more than US$5,000, its deductible, to the authority. City Hall formerly was Hacienda Elementary School, which was built in 1953 when asbestos was used for insulation in most buildings, Mr. Barrette said. The school was closed in 1979 and sold to the city in 1980 and then became City Hall. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: More Asbestos Delays Mass. Library Opening ---------------------------------------------------------------- The discovery of additional asbestos delayed the Jan. 7, 2008 reopening of the West Springfield Public Library in West Springfield, Mass., The Republican reports. Instead, library officials are hoping for a Jan. 19, 2008 reopening. Library Director Antonia Golinski-Foisy said, "We hope to welcome the public right back in." Ms. Golinsky-Foisy said laborers discovered the asbestos when floor tiles popped up as the workers were removing carpeting in the periodical and nearby sitting areas. This was the second asbestos surprise for the library on Park Street. In December 2007, workers found asbestos under the tiles in the Carnegie wing and the mezzanine. This added US$24,285 to the US$79,500 cost of replacing the carpet. This latest asbestos removal will cost US$24,500, but the city will not be asked to foot the bill. Instead, the West Springfield Public Library Trustees decided to use some of the state funds that come to the library to fund the work, Ms. Golinski-Foisy said. The asbestos removal started as soon as the asbestos was confirmed, Ms. Golinski-Foisy said. "Right now, about three- quarters of the building is sealed in plastic," she said. The plastic shields the staff from the work area. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Removal at Md. Public Schools to Begin June ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nate Brown, an environmental health specialist with Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland, said that asbestos-laden floor tiles and adhesives will be taken out of a storage room, a lounge and six classrooms after the school year ends in June 2008, Gazette.Net reports. Asbestos-containing building materials will be removed from 13 to 14 schools this summer. Asbestos-containing materials remain in about half of the county's public schools, according to Lynne Zarate, an environmental safety coordinator with the school system. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Web site, asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous mineral commonly used in many kinds of building materials, can cause cancer or lung disease if the fibers are released into the air and inhaled over a period of time. MCPS began its asbestos removal program after the federal Asbestos Hazardous Emergency Response Act went into effect in 1989, according to Mr. Brown. The act requires school systems to inventory asbestos-containing building materials in all its facilities, create a management plans for each building and remove the materials if they become damaged or pose a health risk, according to the EPA. Mr. Brown said about four or five classrooms with asbestos- containing floor tiles will remain after the work this summer at Poolesville Elementary, which was built in 1960 and renovated in 1978. There are no cost estimates for the removal at this time, and MCPS hopes to receive bids for the project in March, he added. Though Mr. Brown said the start date for construction is tentative, a recent letter to school administrators from Mr. Brown e-mailed to The Gazette in December 2007 estimated that the project would run from June 16, 2008 through June 27, 2008. New Securities Fraud Cases INTERNATIONAL COAL: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in West Va. -------------------------------------------------------------- Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP announced that a class action against International Coal Group, Inc., and certain of its Officers and Directors, has been commenced in Federal Court in Charleston, West Virginia on behalf of all persons and entities who, during the Class Period of April 18, 2005, through June 6, 2006: (1) purchased securities in ICG, Inc.; or (2) exchanged ICG, Inc. securities for International Coal Group, Inc. (NYSE: ICG), pursuant to the November 2005 reorganization; or (3) purchased shares of International Coal Group, Inc. subsequent to November 21, 2005. The complaint charges International Coal Group, Inc., and certain of its Officers and Directors, with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. International Coal Group, Inc. is a coal producer with coal mining operations in West Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland and Illinois. The complaint alleges that statements made by International Coal Group, Inc., including representations contained in its registration statements filed in connection with the November 21, 2005 reorganization, and December 7-8, 2005 stock offering, and post-offering filings with the SEC were materially false and misleading in describing its business, including its capital requirements and equipment needs, the impact of their legally deficient safety and maintenance practices, and the historic foreseeable ongoing and current result of operations. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all class members. For more information, contact: Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP The Koll Center 501 West Broadway, Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: 619.238.1333 Fax: 619.238-5425 E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.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 * * *