C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, January 18, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 13 Headlines ANDX CORP: April 3 Hearing Set on $8M Securities Suit Settlement ARCTIC EXPRESS: New Payment Schedule in Escrow Funds Suit Filed AUSTRALIA: Man Files Suit Over 2005 Eyre Peninsula Bushfires BOEING CO: Dismissal of Racial Discrimination Suit on Appeal CANADA: Disabled War Veterans Denied Appeal in CA$5B Lawsuit COCA-COLA: Ga. "Selbst" Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal Upheld COOPER COS: Answers Amended Complaint in Calif. Securities Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Still Faces Calif. Labor-Related Litigation COSTCO WHOLESALE: Discovery Ongoing in “Alvarado” Labor Lawsuit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals $5.3M Judgment in “Marin” Labor Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Proceedings Ongoing in Membership Litigation COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suits in Wash., Colo. Over Organic Milk ELECTRONIC COS: Tenn. Suit Alleges Computer Monitor Price Fixing GIFT WRAP: Recalls Frames for Lead Paint Standard Violation GUIDANT CORP: Denied Appeal in "Heron” Defibrillator Lawsuit HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Shareholder Seeks Lead Plaintiff Status MERCK & CO: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Cholesterol Statin Drug MORGAN STANELY: Eastman Kodak, Xerox Employees File $145M Suit NBC UNIVERSAL: 'American Gangster' Defamed DEA Agents, Suit Says QUEBEC NURSES: Settle Suit Over 1999 Labor Strike for $60T QUICKSILVER INC: Still Faces Calif. FACTA Violations Lawsuit RAM PUBLISHING: Faces Lawsuit in Penna. Over Missing Phone Books ST PAUL: Court Allows Appeal in Tissue Screening Process Suit TOLL BROTHERS: Seeks Dismissal of Pa. Securities Fraud Lawsuit TOLL BROTHERS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in California TORO CO: Faces Ill. Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Over Lawnmowers Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 11,117 Actions Pending v. RPM Units at Nov. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Awaits 2008 Ruling on Pending Motions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suit v. Chase Corp. Remains Inactive ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement Supervisor Gets 60-Days Jail Time ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-DuPont Worker Sues 39 Companies in W.Va. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FMC Worker Sues 30 Companies in W.Va. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Breaches to Dutch Disposal Laws Reported ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Court Vacates Order, Remands Gregg Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Notes $449M Asbestos Charge ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Faces 100,623 Claims at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mich. Worker Files FELA Lawsuit v. 15 Firms ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Imported Toys Sold Online ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bilaz Inc. Sentenced to 6 Months For Breach ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Worker Sues 88 Companies in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DOL Imposes $1,225 Fine to Sater Electric ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs, B&W Settles with School for GBP3.1M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. District Court Remands Hilbert Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reconsideration Bid Denied for Smith Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zilco to Pay $36,562 for Disposal Breaches ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Welder Sues 60 A.O. Smith, 59 Firms in Tex. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Broome Suit v. Dow Chemical Pending in Tex. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow to Sue Insurers over Husband's Death ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Dust Detected in Seoul Subway ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Okla. Mayor Sentenced for Exposure Breaches ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Spills on Highway in Queens, N.Y. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japanese Subsidy System Utilized 122 Times ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Carpenter Sues A.O. Smith, 68 Firms in Tex. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Ex-Engineer's Death to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Investigations in Queensland Sites Ongoing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Salem-Keizer School District Action Ongoing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Europarl Seeks Better Protection of Workers ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Okla. Worker Sentenced for Cleanup Breaches ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ga. Widower Sues 84 Companies in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Settles w/ Pima County over Violations ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cascino Vaughan Delivers List of Creditors ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cayuga County to Pay $5T for Removal Breach ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NGOs Sue City in Israel for Waste Exposure ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO LLC to Delay Plan Filing By 2 Months ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Decorator's Death to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Korean Group Urges Commuters' Health Study ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Posen Construction Ordered to Remove Hazard New Securities Fraud Cases AMBAC FINANCIAL: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit PZENA INVESTMENT: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit RAIT FINANCIAL: Donal Lomax Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa. SHORETEL INC: KGS Files First Securities Fraud Suit in Calif. VIRGIN MOBILE: Howard Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ********* ARCTIC EXPRESS: New Payment Schedule in Escrow Funds Suit Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- A judge in a case by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assoc. (OOIDA) against the Arctic Express Inc. over truckers' escrow funds filed an order on Jan. 14 that included a new payment schedule, Land Line Magazine reports. In 1997, OOIDA, with members Carl Harp, Garvin Keith Roberts and Michael Wiese, filed a suit against Arctic Express and affiliate leasing company D&A Associates Ltd., claiming violations of the federal truth-in-leasing regulations for their failure to return escrow accounts after the termination of the owner-operators' leases. The Association requested that the case be certified as a class action to include thousands of truckers. Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted that request in September 2001. The class includes all independent owner-operators who entered lease agreements with D&A Associates which purport to lease, with the option to purchase, trucking equipment under the terms of D&A's equipment lease-purchase agreement, and leased that equipment to Arctic Express under the terms of Arctic's federally regulated lease agreement. On Aug. 29, 2001, Judge Marbley issued a written summary judgment in OOIDA's favor finding that Arctic Express had violated the federal leasing regulations and "absconded" with the escrow accounts of the owner-operators. On Oct. 31, 2003, Arctic Express announced it had filed for a voluntary petition to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The petition was filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Columbus, Ohio. D&A Associates Ltd., also filed a Chapter 11 at the same time. After Arctic declared bankruptcy, it had agreed to pay $900,000 on a $5.58 million court-ordered judgment. The motor carrier made the first two ($75,000 each) of eight payments in June and December 2005. Then Arctic officials stopped writing the settlement checks. On April 18, Judge Marbley ordered Arctic to prove that it is not able to make the ordered payments. If detailed evidence is not presented, the judge indicated he will hold Arctic in contempt. The company also failed to make payments in June and December of 2006 totaling $250,000. The judge approved a revised payment schedule in the summer of 2007, but Arctic defaulted on the first payment, which was due July 25, 2007. A Dec. 14, 2007 hearing was scheduled, at which the judge had said he would find Arctic in civil contempt of court if the defendants did not show cause why they failed to meet his previously imposed payment schedule. Arctic paid $205,000 on Dec. 21, which included payment of principal interest and penalties under the previous schedule. As of Jan. 1, Arctic still owed the truckers in the class action $565,000, according to the report. The new payment schedule: Year 2008 2009 2010 Month Amount Month Amount Month Amount March $12,500 March $12,500 April $5,000 April $12,500 April $12,500 May $5,000 May $12,500 May $12,500 June $5,000 June $12,500 June $12,500 July $10,000 July $12,500 July $12,500 August $10,000 August $12,500 August $12,500 September $10,000 September $12,500 September $12,500 October $10,000 October $12,500 October $12,500 November $10,000 November $12,500 November $12,500 December $100,000 December $100,000 December $75,000 The suit is "Owner-Operator Indep, et al. v. Arctic Express Inc., et al., Case No. 2:97-cv-00750-ALM-NMK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Under Judge Algenon L. Marbley with referral to Judge Norah McCann King. Representing plaintiffs are: Joyce E. Mayers, Esq. Paul D. Cullen, Sr., Esq. Gregory Michael Cork, Esq. The Cullen Law Firm 1101 30th Street NW, Suite 300 P.O. Box 25806, Washington, DC 20007-9998 Phone: 202-944-8600 or 202-944-8600 E-mail: jem@cullenlaw.com James Burdette Helmer, Jr., Esq. Paul B. Martins, Esq. Helmer Martins, Rice & Popham Co., L.P.A. 2, 600 Vine Street, Suite 2704 105 E. 4th Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202-4008 Phone: 513-421-2400 Fax: 513-421-7902 E-mail: support@fcalawfirm.com Representing defendants is: Sarah Daggett Morrison, Esq. Chester Willcox & Saxbe – 2 65 E State Street, Suite 1000, Columbus, OH 43215-4213 Phone: 614-221-4000 Fax: 614-221-4012 E-mail: smorrison@cwslaw.com ANDX CORP: April 3 Hearing Set on $8M Securities Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- An April 3, 2008 hearing is set in an $8,000,000 settlement of 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. The hearing will be held before the Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, United States District Court, 299 East Broward Blvd, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, at 1:00 p.m., on April 3, 2008. The class includes all all persons or entities who purchased on the open market the common stock of Andrx Corp. between March 9, 2005 and Sept. 5, 2005, inclusive. Deadline to file Proof of Claim is no later than April 10, 2008. The deadline for submitting objections and requests for exclusions is March 14, 2008. 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. For claims inquiries contact: Andrx Corporation Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 N. Jackson Street - Suite 3 PO Box 230 Media, PA 19063 Tel: (866) 274-4004 Website: http://www.strategicclaims.net 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. Plaintiffs' lead counsel is: Jacqueline Sailer Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP 275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801 New York, NY 10016 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 AUSTRALIA: Man Files Suit Over 2005 Eyre Peninsula Bushfires ------------------------------------------------------------ Lawyers lodged a statement of claim on behalf of Wayne Griffifth who lost his wife and grandchildren in a January 2005 Eyre Peninsula bushfires, Andrew Dowdell of Adelaidenow reports. The suit was filed against Country Fire Service and truck driver Marco Visic, whose car, according to a coronial inquest, ignited and started the fire on January 10, 2005. The bushfires killed nine people, blackened almost 78,000 hectares of land and cost the community an estimated $100 million, according to the report. Mr. Visic is accused of negligence in failing to ensure that the exhaust system of his vehicle was not defective. The Country Fire Service is accused of failing to properly monitor blaze on all levels from the incident controller through to state headquarters. Mr Griffith's claim is being used as a test case for the class action, which could involve as much as $30 million in compensation, according to the report. The claim does not specify how much compensation is being sought. Mr Griffith is being represented by lawyer Peter Humphries. BOEING CO: Dismissal of Racial Discrimination Suit on Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard an appeal against the dismissal without a trial of a lawsuit alleging that The Boeing Co. discriminated against African-American employees because of their race, Joseph Tartakoff of Seattlepi.com reports. The suit was filed in 1998 claiming that Boeing had compensated African-American and white employees differently for similar work. Boeing settled the case for $15 million, but the settlement was thrown out in 2003. The case went to trial again in 2004, but the judge decided to throw out additional claims that Boeing had discriminated in its pay, in part because it violated the four-year statute of limitations. A jury then determined that Boeing had not racially discriminated in its promotion policies. Plaintiffs' attorney argued before the appeals court that they had alleged all the way back to 1998 that Boeing had discriminated in its pay and therefore the court should not have thrown out those claims. And that the years during which the 1999 settlement was on appeal should not count under the statute of limitations. Representing Boeing is Michael Reiss, Esq. Davis Wright Tremaine LLP E-mail: mikereiss@dwt.com Phone: (206) 757-8130 Representing plaintiffs is: Craig Spiegel, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1301 Fifth Avenue, Ste 2900 Seattle, WA, 98101 Phone: (206) 268-9328 Fax: 206-623-0594 CANADA: Disabled War Veterans Denied Appeal in CA$5B Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Supreme Court of Canada has denied disabled veterans leave to appeal a ruling in a class action involving thousands of disabled veterans and their dependents. The disabled veterans, whose class action was certified in 1999, have been seeking redress from the federal government for years of failure to properly administer their money -- in some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars. These were veterans who were injured in the service of their country and were deemed, by the government, incapable of managing their money as a result of their disability. Veterans in the class include those from the First World War onwards. The leave to appeal application, submitted on behalf of the veterans, followed a July 2007 Decision rendered by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Ontario Court of Appeal decision ruled in favor of the federal government on an appeal following a 2005 decision by Ontario Superior Court Justice John H. Brockenshire. An earlier decision quantified the damages owing by the federal government to be CA$5.2 billion. "We are disappointed with the Court's decision," the lawyers said. "In 2003, the Supreme Court said: "The prohibition, "Thou shalt not steal," has no legal force upon the sovereign body", and the Crown's right to take property from Canadians was upheld. The Government, for decades, failed to invest these veterans' funds or pay interest on them - and the veterans had no recourse but to sue them for this failure. Regrettably, the Supreme Court, in agreeing with the Ontario Court of Appeal, has denied justice for these veterans and their families. This is a sad day for them, and for all Canadians who would seek to question the actions of their federal government." "In terms of next steps we will seek direction from our clients. In the meantime however, we will be considering our options. Certainly, there is always the option to try and pursue a political resolution to this lawsuit, but this would require the assistance of Canadians to impress upon the government the need to provide restitution to these veterans. While successive governments have failed them, perhaps this government might see fit to right this historical wrong," the lawyers noted. The members of the legal team are David Greenaway and Ray Colautti, Partners at the Windsor Ontario firm of Raphael Partners LLP and London, Ontario lawyer Peter Sengbusch. "This lawsuit sought to address a number of issues fundamental to our society: fiduciary responsibility; discrimination on the basis of disability; the application and interpretation of Federal statutes and important principles of the law of equity," the lawyers said. "Over a period of nearly 90 years, successive governments failed to exercise their fiduciary responsibility to these veterans and their families. By 1986, the Auditor General of Canada recognized that the $53 M of accumulated funds represented a liability because the government was not investing the funds as is legally required. The government's failure mounted to a breach of fiduciary duty and the government does not dispute this fact," said the legal team. In 2003 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal government had the power to pass a law limiting its own liability, and ruled against the veterans who argued that passage of the 1990 legislation removed their right to property and thus contravened the Canadian Bill of Rights. Despite the government's victory, the lawsuit continued on the basis that Justice Brockenshire ruled the veterans could pursue damages in the case based on the government's failure to act as a proper trustee. While it does not contest that it failed to act as a trustee, the federal government appealed that decision by Justice Brockenshire, and thus the damages awarded. Addressing another central aspect of the case the lawyers said, "On the basis of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Government of Canada passed legislation in 1990 that discriminated against these veterans on the basis of their disabilities. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruling (July 2007) dismissed the Charter argument, depriving these disabled veterans of protection by the fundamental law of this country. They fought for our rights and freedoms, and have been denied an opportunity to challenge a law that fundamentally discriminated against them." Eleanor McMahon, Public Relations Raphael Partners LLP, (519) 966-1300 Ext. 560 or Cell: (647) 201-2820 (For information or copies of the veterans' lawyers memorandum of argument go to http://www.veteransinterest.org) COCA-COLA: Ga. "Selbst" Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal Upheld -------------------------------------------------------------- The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of the securities fraud class action, "Selbst v. The Coca-Cola Co., et al.," according to Alyson M. Palmer of Fulton County Daily Report. On May 9, 2005, the putative class action "Selbst v. The Coca- Cola Co. and Douglas N. Daft," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging violations of antifraud provisions of the securities laws by the company and Mr. Daft, former chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the company. The purported class consists of persons, except the defendants, who purchased company stock between Jan. 30, 2003 and Sept. 15, 2004 and were damaged thereby. The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the class period the company and Mr. Daft made false and misleading statements concerning the financial condition of the company and its business outlook, strategy, business model and relationship with key bottlers in internal corporate memoranda, analysts' conference calls, press releases and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings. The plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative class, seek compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial, extraordinary, equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law to assure that the class has an effective remedy, award of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees, and such other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On July 8, 2005, a putative class action, styled "Amalgamated Bank, et al. v. The Coca-Cola Co., et al." was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against: -- the company, -- Douglas N. Daft, -- E. Neville Isdell, -- Steven J. Heyer, and -- Gary P. Fayard. The suit is alleging violations of antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The purported class consists of persons, except the defendants, who purchased company stock between Jan. 30, 2003 and Sept. 15, 2004 and were damaged thereby. The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the class period the defendants made false and misleading statements about: -- the company's new business strategy/model; -- the company's execution of its new business strategy/model; -- the state of the company's critical bottler relationships; -- the company's North American business; -- the company's European operations, with a particular emphasis on Germany; -- the company's marketing and introduction of new products, particularly Coca-Cola C2; and -- the company's forecast for growth going forward. The plaintiffs claim that as a result of these allegedly false and misleading statements, the price of the company stock increased dramatically during the purported class period. The complaint also alleges that in September and November 2004, the company and E. Neville Isdell acknowledged that the company's performance had been below expectations, that various corrective actions were needed, that the company was lowering its forecasts, and that there would be no quick fixes. In addition, the complaint alleges that the charge announced by the company in November 2004 should have been taken early in 2003 and that, as a result, the company's financial statements were materially misstated during 2003 and the first three quarters of 2004. Plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative class, seek compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial, extraordinary, equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law to assure that the class has an effective remedy, award of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees, and such other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. In September 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint providing, among other things, additional details concerning the original complaint's allegations about disclosures regarding the company's operations in Germany. On November 21, 2005, the company and the individual parties filed a motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs filed their response to that motion on Jan. 27, 2006. On Sept. 29, 2006, the court entered its order granting the company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety and granted the plaintiffs 20 days from its date of entry within which to seek leave to file a second amended complaint to attempt to correct deficiencies noted therein. On Oct. 23, 2006, plaintiffs advised the court that they would not seek leave to file a second amended complaint. The court entered its final order of judgment on March 23, 2007. On April 16, 2007, plaintiffs filed notice of appeal of the Court's order dismissing this case to the U.S. Court of Appeals. In recent developments, according to the Fulton County Daily Report, an unpublished, unsigned opinion issued Jan. 10 by the panel of 11th Circuit Judges Stanley F. Birch Jr. and Ed Carnes and Senior 11th Circuit Judge Emmett Ripley Cox generally adopted the dismissal ruling of Judge Story. Judge Story said that most of the alleged misrepresentations were vague while other allegations weren't stated specifically enough in the complaint. The suit is "Selbst v. The Coca-Cola Co., et al., Case No. 1:05- cv-01226-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Richard W. Story. Representing the plaintiffs are: David Andrew Bain, Esq. Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP 1230 Peachtree Street N.E. 2300 Promenade II Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-3900 E-mail: dab@classlaw.com - and - James A. Caputo, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-4297 Phone: 619-231-1058 Representing the defendants are: Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq. King & Spalding 191 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30303-1763 Phone: 404-572-4600 E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com - and - Paul R. Bessette, Esq. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP Suite 2100, 300 West 6th Street Austin, TX 78701 Phone: 512-499-6250 COOPER COS: Answers Amended Complaint in Calif. Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Cooper Cos., Inc., along with other defendants, has answered the amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On Feb. 15, 2006, Alvin L. Levine filed a putative securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. SACV-06-169 CJC, against: -- the company; -- A. Thomas Bender, its chairman of the board, president and chief executive officer and a director; -- Robert S. Weiss, its executive vice president, chief operating officer and a director; and -- John D. Fruth, a director. Shortly after the filing of the Levine lawsuit, two similar putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case Nos. SACV-06- 306 CJC and SACV-06-331 CJC. On May 19, 2006, the Court consolidated all three actions under the heading, “In re Cooper Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation,” and selected a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 31, 2006. The consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s securities between July 28, 2004, and Dec. 12, 2005, including persons who received Company securities in exchange for their shares of Ocular in the January 2005 merger pursuant to which the Company acquired Ocular. In addition to the Company, Messrs. Bender, Weiss, and Fruth, the consolidated complaint names as defendants several of the Company’s other current officers and directors and one former officer. On July 13, 2007, the Court granted Cooper’s motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend to attempt to state a valid claim. Amended Consolidated Complaint On Aug. 9, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint. As before, the amended consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s securities between July 28, 2004, and Dec. 12, 2005, including persons who received Company securities in exchange for their shares of Ocular in the January 2005 merger pursuant to which the Company acquired Ocular. In addition to the Company, the amended consolidated complaint names as defendants Messrs. Bender, Weiss, Fruth, Steven M. Neil, the Company’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and Gregory A. Fryling, CooperVision’s former President and Chief Operating Officer. The amended consolidated complaint purports to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, contending that the defendants made misstatements concerning the Biomedics product line, sales force integration following the merger with Ocular, the impact of silicone hydrogel lenses and financial projections. The amended consolidated complaint also alleges that the Company improperly accounted for assets acquired in the Ocular merger by improperly allocating $100 million of acquired customer relationships and manufacturing technology to goodwill (which is not amortized against earnings) instead of to intangible assets other than goodwill (which are amortized against earnings), that the Company lacked appropriate internal controls and issued false and misleading Sarbanes-Oxley Act certifications. On Sept. 5, 2007, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On Oct. 23, 2007, the Court granted in-part and denied in-part Cooper and the individual defendants motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed the claims relating to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act certifications and the Company's accounting of assets acquired in the Ocular merger. The Court denied the motion as to the claims related to alleged false statements concerning the Biomedics® product line, sales force integration, the impact of silicone hydrogel lenses and the Company's financial projections. On Nov. 28, 2007, the Court also dismissed all claims against Mr. Fruth with leave to amend. Plaintiff did not amend their consolidated amended complaint within the time permitted by the Court. On Dec. 3, 2007, the Company and Messrs. Bender, Weiss, Neil and Fryling answered the amended consolidated complaint. The suit is "In re Cooper Companies Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:06-cv-00169-CJC-RNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Cormac J. Carney with referral to Judge Robert N. Block. Representing the plaintiffs are: X. Jay Alvarez, Esq. Rudman and Robbins 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Michiyo Michelle Furukawa, Esq. Stull Stull and Brody 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2350 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-209-2468 E-mail: mfurukawa@ssbla.com - and - Eben O. McNair, Esq. Schwarzwald and McNair, 1330 East Ninth Street, 616 Penton Media Building Cleveland, OH 44114-1503 Phone: 216-566-1600 Representing the defendants is: Charles W. Cox, II, Esq. Latham and Watkins 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 Phone: 213-485-1234 E-mail: chuck.cox@lw.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Still Faces Calif. Labor-Related Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corp. continues to face two lawsuits -- one currently on hold -- which were purportedly brought as class actions on behalf of certain present and former managers in California, who principally allege that they have not been properly compensated for overtime work. The suits are: -- “Scott M. Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., U.S. District Court (San Diego), Case No. 02-CV-2003 NAJ (JFS);” and -- “Greg Randall v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC-296369.’ The Randall matter is currently in the class certification briefing phase. The Williams case has been stayed pending the class certification outcome in the Randall case. Claims in these actions are made under various provisions of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees. Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com–- operates membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories in self-service warehouse facilities. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Discovery Ongoing in “Alvarado” Labor Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the purported class action, “Elizabeth Alvarado v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. C-06-04015-MJJ,” which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case was purportedly brought as a class action on behalf of present and former hourly employees in California, in which the plaintiff principally alleges that Costco did not properly compensate and record time worked by employees during routine closing procedures, including security searches. Claims in the case are made under various provisions of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees. Discovery is ongoing, according to the company's Dec. 21, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 25, 2007. The suit is “Alvarado v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 3:06-cv-04015-MJJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins with referral to Judge Maria-Elena James. Representing the plaintiffs are: Matthew Roland Bainer, Esq. Scott Cole & Associates, APC 1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510-891-9800 Fax: 510-891-7030 E-mail: mrbainer@scalaw.com Representing the defendants are: David D. Kadue, Esq. Seyfarth Shaw LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3063 Phone: 310-277-7200 Fax: 310-201-5219 E-mail: dkadue@seyfarth.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals $5.3M Judgment in “Marin” Labor Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corp. is appealing a $5.3 million judgment handed down in favor of plaintiffs in the case, “Anthony Marin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. RG-04150447,” which was filed in the Superior Court for the County of Alameda. The overtime compensation case certified as a class action on behalf of present and former hourly employees in California, in which plaintiffs principally allege that Costco’s semi-annual bonus formula is improper with regard to retroactive overtime pay. Claims in the case are made under various provisions of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees. Costco has filed an appeal challenging both the entry of a $5.3 million judgment in favor of the class and the accompanying award of attorneys’ fees. The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec. 21, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 25, 2007. Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com-- operates membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories in self-service warehouse facilities. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Proceedings Ongoing in Membership Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Proceedings concerning class certification are ongoing in one of two purported class actions against Costco Wholesale Corp. in relation its membership renewal practices. One of the suits is “Evans, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. BC351869,” which was filed in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles and later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The other suit is “Dupler v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Index No. 06-007555,” which was commenced in the Supreme Court of Nassau County, New York and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suits are asserting that the Company violated various provisions of California and New York common law and statutes in connection with a membership renewal practice. Under that practice, members who pay their renewal fees late generally have their twelve-month membership renewal periods commence at the time of the prior year’s expiration rather than the time of the late payment. Plaintiffs in these two actions seek compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement, preliminary and permanent injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, prejudgment interest and, in “Evans,” punitive damages. Proceedings concerning class certification are ongoing in “Dupler,” according to the company's Dec. 21, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 25, 2007. Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com-- operates membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories in self-service warehouse facilities. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suits in Wash., Colo. Over Organic Milk --------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corp. faces two purported federal class actions in Washington, and Colorado in relation to sales of organic milk, according to the company's Dec. 21, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 25, 2007. The suits are: -- “Hesse v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. C07-1975 (W.D. Wash.);” -- “Snell v. Aurora Dairy Corp., et al., No. 07-CV-2449 (D. Col.).” Both actions claim violations of the laws of various states, essentially alleging that milk provided to Costco by its supplier Aurora Dairy Corp. was improperly labeled “organic.” Costco has not yet responded to the complaints; Aurora has maintained that it has held and continues to hold valid organic certifications. The complaints seek, among other things, actual, compensatory, statutory, punitive and/or exemplary damages in unspecified amounts, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees. Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com-- operates membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories in self-service warehouse facilities. ELECTRONIC COS: Tenn. Suit Alleges Computer Monitor Price Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. Allegedly conspired with electronics giants, including: -- Tatung Company of America, Inc., -- LG Electronics, Inc., -- LG Philips Display USA, Inc., -- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co, -- Panasonic Corporation of North America, -- Philips Electronics North America, -- Samsung Electronics America, Inc., -- Samsung Electronics, Co., -- Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. f/k/a Samsung Display Device Co., -- Toshiba Corporation, -- Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc., -- Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., -- MT Picture Display Company, -- MT Picture Display Corporation of America (New York), -- MT Picture Display Corporation of America (ohio), and -- LP Displays to fix prices for computer display monitors at high levels as LCD and plasma screen TVs and monitors came onto the market, the CourtHouse News Service reports. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons and business entities in Tennessee that indirectly purchased CRT Products manufactured, sold, or distributed by defendants, other than for resale, from May 1, 1990 to present. Plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of CRT Products marketed, distributed, and sold in Tennessee; (b) whether defendants conspired to manipulate and allocate the market for CRT Products marketed, distributed and sold in Tennessee; (c) the existence and duration of defendants' horizontal agreements to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of CRT Products marketed, distributed and sold in Tennessee; (d) the existence and duration of defendants' horizontal agreements to manipulate and allocate the market for CRT Products marketed, distributed, and sold in Tennessee; (e) whether each defendant was a member of, or participated in, the arrangement, contract or agreement to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of CRT Products marketed, distributed, and sold in Tennessee; (f) whether each defendant was a member of, or participated in, the arrangement, contract or agreement to allocate the market for CRT Products marketed, distributed and sold in Tennessee; (g) whether defendants' conspiracy was implemented; (h) whether defendants took steps to conceal their conspiracy from plaintiff and the class members; (i) whether defendants' conduct caused injury in fact to the business or property of plaintiff and the class members, and if so, the appropriate classwide measure of damages; (j) whether the agents, officers or employees of defendants and their co-conspirators participated in telephone calls, meetings, and other communications in furtherance of their conspiracy; and (k) whether the purpose and effect of the acts and omissions alleged was to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of CRT Products marketed, distributed, and sold in Tennessee, and to manipulate and allocate the market for CRT Products marketed, distributed and sold in Tennessee. Plaintiff requests that the court enter judgment as follows: -- that this court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and certify the Tennessee class; -- that this court rule that defendants' conspiracy violated Tennessee law and that compensatory damages, including treble damages, are appropriate; -- that this court determine that defendants were unjustly enriched; -- that this court permanently enjoin defendants from conspiring to fix CRT Products' prices and allocating CRT Products' markets or other injunctive relief as this court deems appropriate; -- that this court award plaintiff post-jdugment interest, his costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees; and -- that this court order any other relief as it deems just and proper. The suit is "Charles Benson et al. v. chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Representing plaintiffs are: Gordon Ball Ball & Scott Suite 601, 550 Main Ave. Knoxville, TN 37902 Phone: (865) 525-7028 Fax: (865) 525-4679 E-mail: gball@ballandscott.com - and - Daniel R. Karon Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. 55 Public Square, Suite 1500 Cleveland, OH 44113-1998 Phone: (216) 622-1851 Fax: (216) 622-1852 E-mail: karon@gsk-law.com GIFT WRAP: Recalls Frames for Lead Paint Standard Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- The Gift Wrap Co., of Atlanta, Ga., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 600 hanging photo frames. The company said the surface paint on the photo frames contains excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves 4-inch by 6-inch hanging picture frames. The wooden frames are white with decorations in different colors, and with a coordinating ribbon attached to the top. These recalled hanging photo frames were manufactured in China and were sold at Babies R Us stores nationwide from August 2007 through November 2007 for about $10. Picture of recalled photo frames: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08165.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using this photo frame and contact The Gift Wrap Company for a full refund. For additional information, contact The Gift Wrap Company at (800) 443-4429, or visit the company's Web site: http://www.giftwrapcompany.com GUIDANT CORP: Denied Appeal in "Heron” Defibrillator Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Ontario Superior Court denied an appeal against substitution of plaintiffs in the suit "Heron v. Guidant Corp.," which concerns the company's pacemakers and defibrillators, the Canadian Underwriter reports. According to the report, in August 2005, a class of plaintiffs launched three actions against the manufacturer of pacemakers and defibrillators, claiming damages resulting from both products. Ontario Court Justice Maurice Cullity consolidated two defibrillator actions into one so-called 'Defibrillator Action,' and a third action sued for alleged damages related to both defibrillators and pacemakers. The representative plaintiff in the Pacemaker Action, Herbert Bruce Heron, had been implanted with a defibrillator, but not a pacemaker. In June 2007, Justice Cullity allowed the plaintiffs' lawyers to amend their initial statement of claim, removing Heron from the Pacemaker Action and substituting instead Gerald Lambert (who had a pacemaker installed) and Elsa Ibbitson (asserting a derivative family law claim). Heron was made the representative plaintiff in the Defibrillator Action. The defense appealed the ruling saying the substitution of the plaintiffs in the middle of the proceedings deprived them of mounting a defense based on the limitation period. But the Ontario's Superior Court disagreed saying the actions were substantially similar so as not to deprive the defendant's "substantive right" to mount a limitations defense. The suit (05-cv-295 630 cp) was filed against Guidant Corp., Guidant Sales Corp., Guidant Canada Corp., and Cardiac Pacemarkers Inc. For more information, contact: James M. Newland Brian P. Moher Lerners LLP 130 Adelaide St. West, Suite 2400 Toronto, Ontario M511 3P5 Phone: 416 601 2640 Fax: 416 867 2398 Greg Monforton Jennifer DeThomasis Sandev Purewal Greg Monforton & Partner 1300-100 Ouellette Ave. Windsor, Ontario Phone: 519-258-6490 Fax: 519-258-4104 HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Shareholder Seeks Lead Plaintiff Status -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in a securities fraud class action against Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. chief financial officer J. Larry Sorsby is seeking for his appointment as lead plaintiff in the matter. In Sept. 14, 2007, a class-action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California accusing Mr. Sorsby of inflating the home builder’s share price through false and misleading statements (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 19, 2007. Named plaintiff Herbert Mankofsky brings this securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Hovnanian between Dec. 8, 2005 Aug. 13, 2007, for defendant's violations of the Securities Act of 1934. The suit alleges that during the class period, defendant issued a materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and prospects. As a result of these misleading statements, Hovnanian stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period, reaching a high of $54.29 per share in Jan. 2006. As a result of defendant's misleading statements and failure to disclose, Hovnanian stock traded at inflated levels during the class period. However, as a direct result of the market learning of defendant's wrongdoing, the price of Hovnanian shares declined and plaintiff and the class suffered a loss on their investment in Hovnanian. Plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether the 1934 Act was violated by defendant; (b) whether the defendant omitted and/or misrepresented material facts; (c) whether defendant's statements omitted material facts necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; (d) whether defendant knew or deliberately disregarded that his statements were false and misleading; (e) whether the price of Hovnanian common stock was artificially inflated; and (f) the extent of damage sustained by class members and the appropriate measure of damages. He prays for judgment as follows: -- declaring this action to be a proper class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23; -- awarding plaintiff and the members of the class, damages, including interest; -- awarding plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney's fees; and -- awarding such equitable/injunctive or other relief as the court may deem just and proper. On Nov. 28, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to be appointed Lead Plaintiff, according to the company's Dec. 26, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007. The suit is "Herbert Mankofsky et al. v. J. Larry Sorsby, Case No. CV07-05994MMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing plaintiffs is: Joon M. Khang Lee Hong Degerman Kang & Schmadeka 660 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone: (213) 623-2221 Fax: (213) 623-2211 E-mail: jkhang@lhlaw.com MERCK & CO: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Cholesterol Statin Drug ----------------------------------------------------------- The law firms of Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Douglas & London P.C., Levin Simes Kaiser and Gornick LLP, Bailey Perrin Bailey LLP and Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against Merck & Co., Inc. and Schering-Plough Corp. The class action seeks, in part, refunds to individuals who were prescribed and purchased the popular cholesterol statin drug, Vytorin(R). Vytorin(R) is a single pill combination of two drugs, Zocor and Zetia, (ezetimibe plus simvastatin). The lawsuit alleges that Merck & Co., Inc. and Schering-Plough Corporation, the manufacturers of the prescription drug, Vytorin(R), made misrepresentations and withheld significant information in its approval submissions and filings with the Federal Drug Administration. It is also alleged that misrepresentations were made to the general public through marketing efforts as to the effectiveness of the drug. In reality, studies have shown that it is no better than other available drugs on the market in lowering cholesterol. The suit is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Docket #08-258, before The Honorable Carol Bagley Amon. MORGAN STANELY: Eastman Kodak, Xerox Employees File $145M Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys for former Eastman Kodak and Xerox employees announced the filing of multi-million-dollar class actions, totaling over $145,000,000, in New York State Supreme Court against Morgan Stanley & Company and two of its brokers: Michael J. Kazacos and David Isabella. The class actions are brought on behalf of all Morgan Stanley customers who were falsely promised they could retire early and safely live off their retirement funds. Many of these customers now have a fraction of their life savings remaining. Plaintiffs' attorneys include Robert J. Pearl of Rochester-based Pearl Malarney Smith, and Joe Peiffer of New Orleans-based Correro Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley & Casteix, L.L.P. The class actions show that from 1991 through 2001, Morgan Stanley, Kazacos and Isabella typically targeted blue-collar employees of Kodak and Xerox who were in their early to mid 50s. Through extensive advertising and ongoing seminars, class members were told they could retire early while withdrawing 10% of their portfolio annually. They were assured by Kazacos and Isabella that they would still have "a comfortable income for life." The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has been investigating the scheme involving Morgan Stanley, Kazacos and Isabella for more than fourteen months. Pearl, Peiffer and their clients are cooperating with investigators. They anticipate that regulators will soon release results of their investigation. In a response to these suits, Morgan Stanley issued a statement claiming that previous allegations against these brokers were determined to be unfounded. Commenting on this statement, Peiffer said, "That's news to me. A quick look at the public documents shows that Morgan Stanley has paid out millions of dollars to former Kazacos customers, and that the regulatory authorities are investigating his behavior." The record of Morgan Stanley's payment to Kazacos' former customers and the regulator attention it generated is available by searching "Michael James Kazacos" on the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's website: http://www.finra.org/InvestorInformation/InvestorProtection/Chec ktheBackgroundofYourInvestmentProfessional/index.htm. Kazacos' CRD number is 708547. For more information, contact: Robert J. Pearl Pearl Malarney Smith, P.C. Phone: 585-381-3820 Cell: 239-293-6889 - and - Joe Peiffer Correro Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley & Casteix, L.L.P. Phone: 504-586-5259 Cell: 504-388-3912 NBC UNIVERSAL: 'American Gangster' Defamed DEA Agents, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Louis Diaz, Gregory Korniloff and Jack Toal filed a class-action complaint in New York District Court against NBC Universal claiming it defamed New York agents of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in the movie "American Gangster," the CourtHouse News Service reports. They claim that NBC falsely insinuated that most of the agents in that bureau were convicted criminals. Plaintiffs demand $55 million. QUEBEC NURSES: Settle Suit Over 1999 Labor Strike for $60T ---------------------------------------------------------- The Quebec Federation of Nurses and its affiliated unions reached a $60,000 out-of-court settlement of a suit filed by a patient whose elective surgery was postponed because of an illegal strike by Quebec nurses in 1999, according to CBC Montreal. The federation and its affiliated unions went on strike on June 26, 1999 to demand a wage increase. The strike resulted to the cancellation of exams, tests, treatments and elective surgeries. The suit was filed by Laval businessman Claude Passaro who said he didn't suffer health problems because of the delay, but monetary losses as a business person. The settlement will grant patients affected by the strike between $200 and $750 each depending on the length of their hospital stay, the seriousness of their illness and the number of claimants, according to plaintiff's lawyer Francois Lebeau. The out-of-court settlement still has to be approved by the Quebec Superior Court. A hearing is scheduled for February. The Settlement on the Net: http://recours-collectifs.ca/. QUICKSILVER INC: Still Faces Calif. FACTA Violations Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Quicksilver, Inc. continues to face a purported class action in California, alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act. The suit, "Burnis L. Simon, Jr. v. Quicksilver, Inc. (sic), Case No. CV07-01326," was filed on Feb. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The company has yet to be served with the complaint. The suit specifically alleges willful violation of FACTA based upon certain of the company's retail stores' alleged electronic printing of receipts on which appeared more than the last five digits of customers' credit or debit card number and/or the expiration of such customers' credit or debit card. The complaint seeks statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 for each violation, as well as unspecified punitive damages, attorneys' fees and a permanent injunction from further engaging in violations of FACTA. It does not allege that any class member has suffered actual damages. The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec. 28, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007. The suit is "Burnis L. Simon, Jr. v. Quicksilver, Inc. (sic), Case No. CV07-01326," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Margaret M. Morrow with referral to Judge Jeffrey W. Johnson. Representing the plaintiffs is: Herbert Hafif Law Offices 269 W. Bonita Ave. Claremont, CA 91711-4784 Phone: 909-624-1671 Web site: http://www.hafif.com RAM PUBLISHING: Faces Lawsuit in Penna. Over Missing Phone Books ---------------------------------------------------------------- Erie County (Pa.) lawyer Jeff Connelly filed a class action in Erie County Court seeking damages against Ram Publishing and owner Robert Melzer of Madison, Ohio, the Erie Times-News reports. According to the lawsuit, between the late summer of 2006 and the early spring of 2007, sales agents for Ram Publishing sold space in a new phone book that was to be published in May. Plaintiff claims the checks were all cashed, but the phone books never came. Mr. Connelly said it's not clear what became of the money paid out by prospective advertisers. "It seems to be quite a bit of money that was taken," he said. "Hopefully, we will start to see what (Melzer) had done with it." Although only five plaintiffs are officially named on the suit, Mr. Connelly said he expects to name others as time goes on. As a class action, his lawsuit could represent an entire class of people in addition to specifically named plaintiffs. ST PAUL: Court Allows Appeal in Tissue Screening Process Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- A B.C. Court of Appeal judge granted leave for defendants to appeal a ruling approving the addition of new plaintiffs in a lawsuit alleging negligence in the screening of ear bones and tissue supplied by the B.C. Ear Bank from 1974 until 2002, the Vancouver Sun reports. A Vancouver woman sued a hospital and other entities that are supposedly responsible for ensuring the safeness of the donor tissue she received during reconstructive eardrum surgery in 1994 (Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2006). Margaret Birrell filed the suit in the Supreme Court of B.C. She asked the court to certify the suit as class action, for unspecified punitive damage award. Ms. Birrell's lawyer is David Klein. Defendants in the suit are: -- St. Paul's Hospital, -- B.C. Ear Bank, -- Providence Health Care, -- Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, -- University of B.C., -- Vancouver Hospital The suit alleged the defendants were negligent in the operation and supervision of the ear bank for failing to confirm the transplanted materials from cadavers were properly screened and sterilized and for failing to maintain accurate and complete records. Health Canada ordered three years ago to recall all unused tissue and bone distributed by the B.C. Ear Bank and notify all recipient institutions. Last year, Ms. Birrell received a letter from her surgeon advising her to test, as precautionary measure, for diseases like HIV and hepatitis. She found she did not contract any disease at all, but is pursuing the suit. There is no reported case where a patient was infected of a disease as a result of transplanted tissue from the B.C. Ear Bank. Later, Ms. Birrell, learned that the health-advisory letter had been sent to her in error. She did not receive any products from the B.C. Ear Bank. In 2007, Ms. Birrell withdrew from the suit and have two other plaintiffs, Thomas Little and Robert Corfield, added. The request was granted. Providence and Vancouver Coastal Health recently applied for leave to appeal a ruling granting the substitution. In a ruling released Jan. 15, Appeal Court Justice Pamela Kirkpatrick granted leave to appeal. The plaintiffs still seek to have the lawsuit certified as a class action. Represent the plaintiffs is: David Klein Klein Lyons Suite 1100 1333 West Broadway Vancouver, BC Canada V6H 4C1 Phone: 604.874.7171 Phone: 604.874.7171 E-mail: info@kleinlyons.com TOLL BROTHERS: Seeks Dismissal of Pa. Securities Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Toll Brothers, Inc. is seeking for a dismissal of a purported securities fraud class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 17, 2007, a securities class action was filed against Toll Brothers, Inc. and Robert I. and Bruce E. Toll, two current officers of the company, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The original plaintiff, Desmond Lowrey, has been replaced by two new lead plaintiffs: The City of Hialeah Employees’ Retirement System and the Laborers Pension Trust Funds for Northern California. On Aug. 14, 2007, an amended complaint was filed on behalf of the purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock between Dec. 9, 2004 and Nov. 8, 2005 and the following individual defendants, who are directors and/or officers of Toll Brothers, Inc., were added to the suit: -- Zvi Barzilay, -- Joel H. Rassman, -- Robert S. Blank, -- Paul E. Shapiro, -- Carl B. Marbach, -- Richard Braemer, and -- Joseph R. Sicree. The amended complaint on behalf of the purported class alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The company has responded to the amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss, challenging the sufficiency of the pleadings, according to the company's Dec. 21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007. The suit is “Lowrey v. Toll Brothers, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01513-JG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge James T. Giles. Representing the plaintiff is: Ramzi Abadou, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 E-mail: ramzia@lcsr.com Representing the defendant is: Steven B. Feirson Dechert, Price & Rhoads 1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793 Phone: 215-994-2749 E-mail: steven.feirson@dechert.com TOLL BROTHERS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Toll Brothers, Inc. faces a purported securities fraud class action in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff, on behalf of the purported class of shareholders, alleges that the Chief Financial Officer of the Company violated federal securities laws by issuing various materially false and misleading statements during the class period between Dec. 8, 2005 and Aug. 22, 2007. This suit has not yet been served and, therefore, the company has not yet responded to it, according to the company's Dec. 21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007. Toll Brothers, Inc. -- http://www.tollbrothers.com-- is engaged in designing, building, marketing and arranging finance for single-family detached and attached homes in luxury residential communities. The Company is also involved, directly and through joint ventures, in projects where it is building, or converting existing rental apartment buildings into high-, mid- and low- rise luxury homes. TORO CO: Faces Ill. Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Over Lawnmowers ---------------------------------------------------------- The Toro Co. faces a consumer fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois over horsepower labels on its lawnmowers. On June 3, 2004, eight individuals who claim to have purchased lawnmowers in Illinois and Minnesota filed a lawsuit in Illinois state court against the company and eight other defendants alleging that the horsepower labels on the products the plaintiffs purchased were inaccurate. On May 17, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add 84 additional plaintiffs and an engine manufacturer as an additional defendant. The amended complaint asserts violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and statutory and common law claims arising from the laws of 48 states. The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all persons in the U.S. who, beginning Jan. 1, 1994 through the present, purchased a lawnmower containing a two-stroke or four-stroke gas combustible engine up to 30 horsepower that was manufactured or sold by the defendants. The amended complaint seeks an injunction, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, treble damages under the RICO Act, and attorneys fees. In late May 2006, the case was removed to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. On Aug. 1, 2006, all of the defendants, except MTD Products Inc., filed motions to dismiss the claims in the amended complaint. On Aug. 4, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement with MTD Products, Inc., and certification of a settlement class. All remaining non-settling defendants have filed counterclaims against MTD Products, Inc. for potential contribution amounts, and MTD Products, Inc. has filed cross claims against the non- settling defendants. On Dec. 21, 2006, another defendant, American Honda Motor Co., notified the company that it had reached an agreement of settlement with the plaintiffs. On March 30, 2007, the court entered an order dismissing plaintiffs complaint, subject to the ability to re-plead certain claims pursuant to a detailed written order to follow. The court has not yet entered the detailed written order, according to the company's Dec. 21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007. The suit is “Phillips et al v. Sears Roebuck and Company et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00412-GPM-DGW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois under Judge G. Patrick Murphy with referral to Judge Donald G. Wilkerson. Representing the plaintiffs are: Isaac L. Diel, Esq. Sharp McQueen P.A. 135 Oak Street, Bonner Springs, KS 66012 Phone: 913-667-3788 E-mail: dslawkc@aol.com Vincent J. Esades, Esq. Heins Mills et al. 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 Phone: 612.338.4605 E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com - and - JoDee Favre, Esq. Favre Law Office, LLC 5005 West Main Street Belleville, IL 62226 Phone: 618-257-8605 E-mail: jfavre@favrelaw.com Representing the defendants is: Judy L. Cates, Esq. Cates Law Firm-Swansea Generally Admitted 216 West Pointe Drive, Suite A Swansea, IL 62226 Phone: 618-277-3644 Fax: 618-277-7882 E-mail: jcates@cateslaw.com Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 11,117 Actions Pending v. RPM Units at Nov. ---------------------------------------------------------------- RPM International Inc. states that its subsidiaries had a total of 11,117 active asbestos-related cases as of Nov. 30, 2007, compared with a total of 11,021 cases as of Nov. 30, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 9, 2008. The Company recorded a total of 10,957 active asbestos-related cases filed against its subsidiaries as of Aug. 31, 2007, compared with a total of 10,934 cases as of Aug. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 12, 2007) Certain of the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries, principally Bondex International Inc., are defendants in various asbestos- related bodily injury lawsuits filed in various state courts with the vast majority of current claims pending in five states: Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, Texas, and Florida. For the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2007, the subsidiaries secured dismissals and/or settlements of 292 cases and made total payments of US$26.1 million, which included defense-related payments of US$13.8 million. For the comparable period ended Nov. 30, 2006, dismissals and/or settlements covered 324 cases and total payments were US$13.8 million, which included defense-related payments of US$6.6 million. The Company's subsidiaries had higher year-over-year defense- related payments as a result of implementing various changes to its management and defense of asbestos claims, including transitioning to a new claims intake and database service provider. The Company estimates that its subsidiaries spent about US$9.1 million more than they otherwise would have spent due to these added transitional expenses. The subsidiaries expect to complete these various defense-related initiatives in the third fiscal quarter. Excluding defense-related payments, the average payment made to settle or dismiss a case was about US$42,000 for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2007 and US$22,000 for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006. During fiscal 2006, the Company recorded a liability for asbestos claims in the amount of US$380 million, while paying out US$59.9 million for dismissals and/or settlements, which resulted in the Company's accrued liability balance moving from US$101.2 million at May 31, 2005 to US$421.3 million at May 31, 2006. This increase was based largely upon the analysis of the Company's total estimated liability for unasserted potential future claims through May 31, 2016. As of Nov. 30, 2007, the Company's total asbestos liability was about US$305.4 million, of which US$215.9 million was related to unasserted-potential-future claims, and US$89.5 million was related to pending known claims. 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: RPM Awaits 2008 Ruling on Pending Motions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Subsidiaries of RPM International Inc. anticipate a ruling on pending motions in an asbestos-related coverage lawsuit during the 2008 fiscal year, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 9, 2008. During fiscal 2004, certain of the Company's subsidiaries' third-party insurers claimed exhaustion of coverage. Certain of the Company's subsidiaries have filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, breach of contract and bad faith against these third-party insurers, challenging their assertion that their policies covering asbestos-related claims have been exhausted. The coverage litigation involves insurance coverage for claims arising out of alleged exposure to asbestos containing products manufactured by the previous owner of the Bondex tradename before March 1, 1966. On March 1, 1966, Republic Powdered Metals Inc. (as it was known then), purchased the assets and assumed the liabilities of the previous owner of the Bondex tradename. That previous owner subsequently dissolved and was never a subsidiary of Republic Powdered Metals, Bondex International Inc., RPM Inc., or the Company. Because of the earlier assumption of liabilities, however, Bondex has historically responded, and must continue to respond, to lawsuits alleging exposure to these asbestos-containing products. The Company discovered that the defendant insurance companies in the coverage litigation had wrongfully used cases alleging exposure to these pre-1966 products to erode their aggregate limits. This conduct, apparently known by the insurance industry based on discovery conducted to date, was in breach of the insurers' policy language. Two of the defendant insurers have filed counterclaims seeking to recoup certain monies should the plaintiffs prevail on their claims. The parties have substantially completed all fact and expert discovery relating to the liability phase of the case. The parties have filed dispositive motions (including motions for summary judgment) and related briefs. During last year's second fiscal quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006, Bondex reached a settlement of US$15 million, the terms of which are confidential by agreement of the parties, with one of the defendant insurers. The settling defendant has been dismissed from the case. The Company's subsidiaries are pursuing their claims against the remaining insurers based on the terms of their respective policies. 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: Injury Suit v. Chase Corp. Remains Inactive ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chase Corp. continues to be a defendant in an inactive asbestos- related lawsuit filed in Ohio, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 9, 2008. The Company is one of over 100 defendants in the personal injury lawsuit, which alleges personal injury from exposure to asbestos contained in certain Chase products. The plaintiff in the case issued discovery requests to the Company in August 2005, to which the Company timely responded in September 2005. The trial had initially been scheduled to begin on April 30, 2007. However, that date has since been postponed and no new trial date has been set. Bridgewater, Mass.-based Chase Corp. makes tapes and protective coatings used by the electronic, public utility, and oil industries. Products include insulating and conducting materials for electrical wire, electrical repair tapes, protective pipe coatings, thermoelectric insulation for electrical equipment, and moisture protective coatings for electronics. The Company also provides circuit board manufacturing services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement Supervisor Gets 60-Days Jail Time ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Langill of Woburn, Mass., on Jan. 10, 2008, was sentenced in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Md., to 60 days in prison, 10 months home detention, and two years of supervised release for violating the Clean Air Act over asbestos abatement at the U.S. Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, according to a U.S. Department of Justice press release dated Jan. 10, 2008. The announcement was made by Ronald J. Tenpas, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division and Rod J. Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland. Mr. Langill pleaded guilty on Oct. 26, 2007, before U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte. According to the plea agreement, from 2001 to 2004, Mr. Langill was employed with a Maryland asbestos abatement company as an asbestos abatement project supervisor. In 2003, the company was contracted by the U.S. Navy to remove asbestos-containing material from several buildings undergoing renovation or demolition at the U.S. Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Md. From October 2003 to Jan. 8, 2004, Mr. Langill directed the removal of transite panels containing asbestos from Buildings 692, 213 and 425 in a manner that violated federal asbestos abatement work practice standards, in that workers were directed to remove the panels by smashing them with hammers and crowbars and allowing the transite to fall to the ground and break, thereby rendering the asbestos friable and causing a release of asbestos fibers into the environment. The transite panels from Building 692 had not been adequately wet and no notification of the abatement activity had been given to the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE), the state authority delegated to receive such notification, prior to the commencement of the abatement activity. In addition, unlabeled, improperly sealed bags of the broken asbestos-containing transite panels from Building 692 were stored on the grounds of the naval facility overnight in a truck owned by the company. Asbestos has been designated by the Environmental Protection Agency and Congress in the Clean Air Act as a hazardous air pollutant. Asbestos causes a wide range of illnesses, including various forms of cancer and asbestosis. The EPA has determined that there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. The case was investigated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Criminal Investigation Division and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. The case was prosecuted by Trial Attorney Noreen McCarthy of the Justice Departments Environmental Crimes Section and Gina L. Simms, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-DuPont Worker Sues 39 Companies in W.Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Harold E. Cox filed, on Dec. 14, 2007, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 39 companies in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia record reports. Mr. Cox was formerly employed by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. He filed the suit against DuPont and 38 others, claiming they caused him to be exposed to asbestos and asbestos- containing materials. According to the suit, Mr. Cox worked around asbestos and handled the dangerous mineral as part of his job. As a result, he breathed asbestos and harmful dusts, and developed an asbestos-related disease. Mr. Cox claims the defendants knew of the dangers associated with asbestos, but failed to warn their employees of those dangers, while at the same time, did not provide proper safety equipment. In the 12-count suit, Mr. Cox seeks compensatory and punitive damages for his injuries. Attorney Cindy K. Kiblinger represents Mr. Cox. Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-2669 will be assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FMC Worker Sues 30 Companies in W.Va. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Ray Blake, on Dec. 13, 2007, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 30 companies in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Mr. Blake claims he was exposed to asbestos and other harmful dust while working for FMC Corp. According to the suit, Mr. Blake worked with asbestos and asbestos-containing products. He claims he breathed in the asbestos and other harmful dusts created by the use of the harsh mineral, and developed lung cancer. Mr. Blake claims the defendants knew or should have known that the use of their products and asbestos materials would cause serious lung disease and cancer, and knowing the same, failed to make reasonable precautions to warn Blake of the dangers he was exposed to. Mr. Blake claims he suffered damages of body and mind, distress, embarrassment, inconvenience, loss of wages and earning capacity, economic loss, medical bills, loss of quality and enjoyment of life and a fear of cancer recurrence. In the nine-count suit, Mr. Blake seeks to be fully compensated for his injuries, and receive punitive damages. Attorney Cindy J. Kiblinger represents Mr. Blake. Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-2667 will be assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Breaches to Dutch Disposal Laws Reported ---------------------------------------------------------------- The ANP News Service, on Jan. 10, 2008, reports that regulations on the safe disposal of asbestos during renovation work on buildings were broken in over half of the 1,680 cases controlled by inspectors in 2005 and 2006. There are also strict rules on disposal. Asbestos can only be dumped at 26 designated sites nationwide. However, 75 percent of these dump sites also break regulations, according to the new labor inspectorate report published on Jan. 11, 2008. The inhalation of asbestos fibers can lead to cancer and its use in construction work has been banned in the Netherlands since 1993. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Court Vacates Order, Remands Gregg Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania vacated the order of the Superior Court, and remanded for further proceedings an asbestos-related matter involving John Andrew Gregg and V-J Auto Parts Inc., a supplier of automotive parts. John Andrew Gregg's Motion to Amend the Complaint is transferred to the intermediate appellate court, to be addressed in connection with the review on remand. The case is styled John Andrew Gregg, Executor of the Estate of John I. Gregg, Jr., Deceased, Appellee v. V-J Auto Parts Inc., Appellant. Judges Cappy, Castille, Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Baldwin, and Fitzgerald entered judgment of Case No. 38 EAP 2005 on Dec. 28, 2007. Judges Cappy, Baldwin, and Baer filed dissenting opinions. This was an appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court entered on April 25, 2005, at No. 3528 EDA 2003, reversing and remanding the order of the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Division entered on Nov. 10, 2003 at No. 3888, March Term 1999. The question presented concerns the appropriate application of the "frequency, regularity, proximity" criteria in asbestos product liability litigation. John I. Gregg, Jr. (Mr. Gregg) died in March 1998. A year later, his son, John Andrew Gregg, filed a product liability complaint naming more than 70 defendants and alleging civil liability on their part for Mr. Gregg's death due to his exposure to asbestos-containing products and resultant pleural mesothelioma. John Andrew Gregg asserted that Mr. Gregg was exposed to asbestos throughout a 40-year history of employment with telecommunications companies as a cable splicer and line man, over a four-year period in which he worked as a gas station attendant, and during a three-year period while serving in the U.S. Navy. John Andrew Gregg included as defendants Allied-Signal Inc., a successor corporation to Bendix Corp., which made brake products in the relevant time frame, and V-J Auto. Consequently, the action was settled and/or dismissed with regard to all defendants other than V-J Auto, and the litigation efforts focused on Mr. Gregg's personal automotive maintenance activities. After the deadline for discovery passed, V-J Auto moved for summary judgment, asserting that John Andrew Gregg could not prove that Mr. Gregg was exposed to an asbestos-containing product purchased at V-J Auto's store. In response, John Andrew Gregg argued that his deposition testimony, and that of his sister and a neighbor of the Gregg household in the 1960 to 1965 time frame, sufficiently established Mr. Gregg's exposure to asbestos-containing brake products sold by V-J Auto. Upon receiving John Andrew Gregg's response and the supplemental report, V-J Auto filed a motion to strike the supplemental report and to preclude John Andrew Gregg from relying upon it at trial. The common pleas court granted summary judgment in V-J Auto's favor, on the ground that John Andrew Gregg's product identification testimony was inadequate. John Andrew Gregg appealed to the Superior Court, and a three- judge panel vacated the common pleas court's order and remanded in an unpublished opinion. On remand, the common pleas court denied the motion to strike the supplemental expert report. On remand, the common pleas court again found the record insufficient. The court highlighted that John Andrew Gregg did not remember specific parts purchased from V-J Auto's store; John Andrew Gregg's sister had no knowledge concerning whether products purchased from V-J Auto's store contained asbestos; and the household neighbor assumed that brake products bough from V- J Auto's store had asbestos and could recall two or three times in which he saw Mr. Gregg installing brake products purchased from V-J Auto. In summary, the Supreme Court stated that it is appropriate for courts to make a reasoned assessment concerning whether, in light of the evidence concerning frequency, regularity, and proximity of a plaintiff's/decedent's asserted exposure, a jury would be entitled to make the necessary inference of a sufficient causal connection between the defendant's product and the asserted injury. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the common pleas court did not err in its decision to make this assessment. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Notes $449M Asbestos Charge ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll-Rand Company Ltd. announced that it has taken a non- cash charge to earnings of discontinued operations of US$449 million (US$277 million after tax) relating to the Company's liability for all pending and estimated future asbestos claims through 2053, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 11, 2008. This charge results from an increase in the Company's recorded liability for asbestos claims by US$538 million, from US$217 million to US$755 million, offset by a corresponding US$89 million increase in its assets for probable asbestos-related insurance recoveries, which now total US$250 million. Before the 2007-4th quarter, the Company recorded a liability for its actual and anticipated future asbestos settlement costs projected seven years into the future. The Company did not record a liability for future asbestos settlement costs beyond the seven-year period covered by its reserve because such costs previously were not reasonably estimable. In the 2007-4th quarter, the Company again reviewed its history and experience with asbestos-related litigation and determined that it had now become possible to make a reasonable estimate of its total liability for pending and unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims. With the aid of an outside expert, the Company has estimated its total liability for pending and unasserted future asbestos-related claims through 2053 at US$755 million. Hamilton, Bermuda-based Ingersoll-Rand Company Ltd. is a global diversified industrial firm providing products, services and solutions to transport and protect food and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties, and enhance industrial productivity and efficiency. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Faces 100,623 Claims at Dec. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll-Rand Company Ltd. faced 100,623 open asbestos-related claims as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 101,709 claims as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 11, 2008. In 2007, the Company noted 5,398 new claims filed, 5,005 claims settled, and 1,479 claims dismissed. In 2006, the Company noted 6,457 new claims filed, 6,558 claims settled, and 1,158 claims dismissed. Certain wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as defendants. Most of those claims have been filed against Ingersoll-Rand Co. (IR-New Jersey) and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain of IR-New Jersey's products, primarily pumps and compressors. Although IR-New Jersey was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos, some of its formerly manufactured products utilized asbestos-containing components, like gaskets and packings purchased from third-party suppliers. From receipt of its first asbestos claims more than 25 years ago to Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has resolved (by settlement or by dismissal) about 208,000 claims. The total amount of all settlements paid by the Company (excluding insurance recoveries) and by its insurance carriers is about US$308 million, for an average payment per resolved claim of US$1,480. The average payment per claim resolved during the year ended Dec. 31, 2007 was US$7,491. Over 90 percent of the open claims against the Company are non- malignancy claims. Malignancy claims accounted for: about 73 percent of the Company’s total asbestos-related settlement payments during the three-year period ended Dec. 31, 2004; about 87 percent during the three-year period ended Dec. 31, 2007; and about 93 percent in 2007. Non-malignancy claims accounted for: about 27 percent of the Company’s total asbestos-related settlement payments during the three-year period ended Dec. 31, 2004; about 13 percent during the three-year period ended Dec. 31, 2007; and about seven percent in 2007. For the three month period ended Dec. 31, 2007, total costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax were about US$10 million. For the 12 month period ended Dec. 31, 2007, total costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax were about US$37 million. Hamilton, Bermuda-based Ingersoll-Rand Company Ltd. is a global diversified industrial firm providing products, services and solutions to transport and protect food and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties, and enhance industrial productivity and efficiency. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mich. Worker Files FELA Lawsuit v. 15 Firms ---------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Crump, of Grand Rapids, Mich., on Jan. 7, 2008, filed an asbestos-related Federal Employers' Liability Act complaint against 15 defendants in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Mr. Crump alleges he was exposed to asbestos during his 29-year career with CSX Transportation Inc. Represented by Brent Coon & Associates, Mr. Crump claims he would regularly and frequently service, replace and install asbestos containing brakes on box cars on track 36 in Grand Rapids from 1978 until 2007. Mr. Crump was diagnosed of lung cancer on Oct. 8, 2007. The complaint (Case No. 08 L 2) states, "Although he did not work on engines, but (sic) he worked in close proximity around other tradesmen who were regularly and frequently using, handling, and/or distributing asbestos wrap which caused respirable asbestos to become airborne which he breathed into his lungs." Mr. Crump also claims he worked at Magnus Steel in Clayton, Mo., during the 1960s pouring hot molten steel, working on charged industrial machines and performed tear-out and replacement of asbestos-containing mud and refractory cement on furnaces. Mr. Crump also worked at Bodine Aluminum in St. Louis for a nine-month stint in the early 1970s and as an assistant plumber in St. Louis installing residential sinks and toilets. Mr. Crump claims he was unaware of the dangers of the toxic substances he was working with and around but claims CSX knew or should have known that exposure to toxic substances were dangerous and potentially deadly. Mr. Crump claims CSX failed to provide him a safe place to work, failed to limit his exposure to hazardous substances, failed to warn him of the danger of his chronic exposure, failed to provide appropriate safety garments and equipment to minimize exposure and failed to adequately train and supervise him. Mr. Crump also alleges the railroad failed to satisfy contemporary industrial and relevant government safety standards, failed to inspect their premises, failed to conduct industrial hygiene monitoring, failed to install adequate engineering controls and failed to implement medical monitoring to determine exposure levels. According to Mr. Crump, his lung cancer caused him and will continue to cause physical pain and suffering and mental anguish, loss of wages and benefits and loss of earning capacity in the future, disfigurement and medical expenses. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Imported Toys Sold Online ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chinese-manufactured toys, which contain asbestos, have been sold to Australian children through online auction site eBay and are illegally imported into the country, The Age reports. The Age discovered more than 100 remote-control cars for sale on eBay's Australian website that have asbestos in their brakes. The 1:10 scale cars, available online from a seller called Topwincn, advertise a "super-thick asbestos brake block" among their features. It is illegal to import asbestos into Australia. According to Customs, people buying items from overseas over the Internet are classed as importers and can face prosecution and fines of up to AUD110,000. The discovery of asbestos in the cars is the third scare involving Chinese-made toys in the past five months. In September 2007, toy maker Mattel was forced to recall 22 million products worldwide, including Barbie dolls and toy cars, after it was discovered they contained lead paint. In November 2007, it was found that Chinese-made Bindeez beads contained a chemical that the human body metabolized into the potentially fatal drug gamma hydroxybutyrate, or fantasy. Three children in Australia were admitted to hospital before the product was pulled. According to eBay's records, several of the asbestos-affected toy cars have been sold to Australians and imported into the country. The online auction site identified five models that may contain asbestos. Models that may be affected are: -- 4WD Speed Sonic 2005 RC Car Model 94102; -- HSP Atomic Warhead Nitro Buggy Models 94105 and 94106; -- 2007 Hi-Speed Nitro/Gas Tyrannosaurus Monster Truck Model 94108; -- Gas Powered RC Car Model Frc-10; -- Gas Powered 4WD RC Truck Model Frc-08. Ninety-eight remote-control model trucks remained available for sale for US$210 plus US$70 postage, before Customs told eBay Australia of their presence and they were removed from sale. Leigh Hubbard, executive officer of the Asbestos Diseases Society of Victoria, said the health risks of having children play with the toys were serious. Mr. Hubbard said there was an ethical, if not a legal, obligation on behalf of internet merchants to ensure dangerous or illegal goods were not being offered for sale in Australia. He said it was likely asbestos was coming into Australia in other overseas-made products too. eBay Australia spokesman Daniel Feiler said the items had been removed from sale as soon as eBay was made aware that they might contain asbestos. Mr. Feiler said eBay had also contacted by phone all Australian purchasers, encouraging them to contact state environmental protection agencies. A spokeswoman for Customs said officials had been targeting asbestos imports, especially in mechanical parts such as brakes, clutches and gaskets, since June 2007. Customs screens 100 percent of international mail, and parcels are X-rayed with the contents cross-checked against the declaration paperwork. Goods considered a risk are opened and examined. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bilaz Inc. Sentenced to 6 Months For Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Department of Justice said that Branko Lazic, owner of Bilaz Inc., on Jan. 11, 2008, was sentenced in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to six months home confinement for a Clean Air Act violation for improper removal of asbestos, according to a DOJ press release dated Jan. 11, 2008. Mr. Lazic pleaded guilty in June 2007 to one CAA violation for the improper removal of asbestos from the Mattison Elementary School in Ambler, Pa., in June 2002. Mr. Lazic's sentence includes six months home confinement as a condition of three years probation. In addition, he must complete 50 hours of community service and will be prohibited from working in the asbestos abatement industry while on probation. Mr. Lazic and his company were hired to remove asbestos from several areas in the elementary school, which was undergoing renovation. Mr. Lazic admitted that he left the elementary school during the asbestos removal process despite knowing that it was likely the workers he employed would not properly remove the asbestos. After the removal work was completed in preparation for the new school year, janitors and teachers removed a white dust residue from the floors and furniture. Mr. Lazic will further pay US$6,097 in restitution to RT Environmental Inc., which was the lead contracting company that had to pay for the subsequent cleanup. This is the amount that was not reimbursed by insurance companies and other subcontractors. The case was investigated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division and the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Worker Sues 88 Companies in Ill. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The estate of Monroe Freeman, of Wilmington, Ohio, on Jan. 4, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 88 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. According to the complaint, Mr. Freeman worked as a bellhop from 1952 to 1954 at Driskill Hotel, from 1954 to 1957 as a laborer at Joe Hoffman, from 1956 to 1962 as a laborer with various unknown contractors, and from 1962 to 1983 as