C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, January 25, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 18 Headlines AK STEEL: Feb. 12 Hearing Set for $663M Settlement in Ohio Suit ALLIED MORTGAGE: Mo. Court Reverses Class Certification Ruling COFFEYVILLE GROUP: Kan. Court Dismisses Oil Spill Lawsuit C&O MOTORS: Faces Suit in W. Va. Over Destruction of Evidence DANNON CO: Faces False Advertising Suit Over “Probiotic” Yogurt DEERE & CO: Recalls Utility Tractors Due to Collision Hazard DISCOUNT SCHOOL: Recalls Play Mats on Paint's High Lead Level GEORGIA: Dougherty County Property Owners Sue Over Revaluation ILLINOIS: Engineers' Union Accused of Privacy Rights Violations ILLINOIS: Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Atheist Student's Suit INTEL CORP: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Windows, Linux OS LIBERTY NATIONAL: Accused of Discriminating Against Haitian MISSOURI: Eight Circuit Affirms Ruling in Inmate's Abortion Case NEW YORK: Faces Suit Over Home Energy Assistant Program Benefits NEW YORK: City of Buffalo, Mayor Face Lawsuit Over Pay Raise NEW YORK: Couple Sues Department, Chancellor Over Racial Quotas PENNSYLVANIA: Dauphin County Seeks Nixing of Strip Search Suit RC2 CORP: $30M T&F Suit Settlement Inadequate, Lawyers Claim SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces Customer Privacy Litigation in Illinois SHIMS BARGAIN: Recalls “BabyTown” Pacifiers Due to Choking Risk STUBHUB INC: Faces Litigation in Oregon Over “Online Scalping” UNITED STATES: Deportees' Suit v. ICE to Continue, Despite Memo Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ONCONASE in Phase III for Cancer Treatment ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Settlement Totals $593M at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re Records $311M Charge at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mediation on ASARCO Claims Set for Jan. 24 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asarco Inc. Urges Court to Appoint Examiner ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Links Worker's Death to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Police Officer's Death Linked to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Legal Statement Submitted for Probe in Del. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Ct. Issues Split Ruling in A-Best Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Corp. Gets $125M from Trust ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Remand Motion in Scott Case Pending in Pa. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Prison Inmates File Action v. State of Ohio ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Corp. Claimants File Amended Plan ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Protesters to Head to London on Jan. 29 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Plumber's Widow Gets GBP100,000 Payout ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Council to Probe Hazard on Railroad Tracks ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Discovered at Burned Down Va. Site ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Die From Exposure in Cape Former Mines ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Arkansas Town Council OKs Money for Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. School Deals with Asbestos Abatement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fireman's Fund Partial Summary Judgment OKd ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Delaware Court Favors ICI in Riedel Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Plaintiffs Favored in A-C Product Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Arbitration Denial in Crowley ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Ericsson Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Partially OKs Ruling in Bolick Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Summary Judgment Upheld in Van Fossen Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks McCord Motion in Wilkerson Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Court Upholds Ruling in Favor of DuPont ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Board Conducts Probe Before Demolition ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Factory Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tests Continue for Marine Atlantic Workers ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Botched Criminal Raid Triggers Hazard Scare ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Panel Conducts Talks on Out-of-State Trials ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Discovered in 124 Scotland Schools ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Florida County Assumes 70% of Entek's Claim ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Local Sues 10 Companies in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DoD to Prioritize Mesothelioma in Research ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NICE Dismisses Appeal on Mesothelioma Drug ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McDermott Ind. Staff Evacuated from Barge ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. DEP Issues $23T Penalty to Seven Lakes ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 200 Workers to File Asbestos Suit v. Gov't. New Securities Fraud Cases LEAP WIRELESS: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Fraud Suit NATIONAL CITY: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Suit in Ohio ********* AK STEEL: Feb. 12 Hearing Set for $663M Settlement in Ohio Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 12, 2008 for a proposed $663 million settlement in the matter, "Bailey et al. v. AK Steel Corp., Case No. 1:06-cv- 00468-MRB." Case Background On June 1, 2006, AK Steel notified approximately 4,600 of its current retirees (or their surviving spouses) who formerly were hourly and salaried members of the Armco Employees Independent Federation (AEIF) that AK Steel was terminating their existing healthcare insurance benefits plan and implementing a new plan more consistent with current steel industry practices which would require the retirees to contribute to the cost of their healthcare benefits, effective October 1, 2006. On July 18, 2006, a group of nine former hourly and salaried members of the AEIF filed a purported class action (the “Retiree Action”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1-06CV0468, alleging that AK Steel did not have a right to make changes to their healthcare benefits. The named plaintiffs in the Retiree Action seek injunctive relief (including an order retroactively rescinding the changes) and unspecified monetary relief for themselves and the other members of the putative class. On August 4, 2006, the plaintiffs in the Retiree Action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent AK Steel from implementing the previously announced changes to healthcare benefits with respect to the AEIF-represented hourly employees. AK Steel opposed that motion, but on September 22, 2006 the trial court issued an order granting the motion. On that same day, AK Steel filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit seeking a reversal of the decision to grant the preliminary injunction. While the appeal was pending, however, the Company announced on October 8, 2007 that it had reached a tentative settlement of the claims of the retirees in the Retiree Action. Accordingly, on October 18, 2007, the pending appeal from the preliminary injunction was dismissed at the request of the parties. The tentative settlement is subject to approval by the Court. In connection with that settlement, on October 25, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification and on October 26, 2007, AK Steel filed a response to that motion. On October 25, 2007, the parties filed a joint motion asking the Court to approve the settlement. The number of Class Members has increased to approximately 5,000 since the original notification of the benefit changes was sent on June 1, 2006. With dependents of the Class Members, the total number of persons covered by the settlement is approximately 8,300. A Feb. 12, 2008 fairness hearing has been set. Settlement Terms Under terms of the settlement, if approved, AK Steel will transfer to a Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association trust (the VEBA) all post employment benefit obligations (the OPEB Obligations) owed to the Class Members under the Company’s applicable health and welfare plans. The VEBA will be utilized to fund the future OPEB Obligations to the Class Members. AK Steel will initially fund the VEBA with a contribution of $468 million in cash, with three subsequent annual cash contributions of $65 million each, for a total of $663 million. Under the terms of the settlement, AK Steel will have no further liability for any OPEB Obligations to the Class Members. If the Court does approve the settlement, AK Steel is obligated to make the initial cash payment of $468 million to the VEBA within two business days after entry of the judgment approving the settlement. Claims for health and welfare benefits incurred after the effective date of the settlement will be the responsibility of the VEBA. After the effective date of the settlement, Trustees of the VEBA will determine the scope of the benefits to be provided to the Class Members. A Judgment approving the settlement may be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In the event of such an appeal, the VEBA will continue to be responsible for the OPEB Obligations to the Class Members during the pendency of the appeal. If such an appeal is still pending at the time the next payment is due from AK Steel to the VEBA under the terms of the settlement, the funds which otherwise would have been paid to the VEBA will be placed into an escrow account to be invested by the Trustees of the VEBA. If the Judgment is affirmed on appeal, the funds placed into the escrow account, including interest or other earnings, will be paid to the VEBA. If, however, the Judgment is reversed, modified or vacated as a result of the appeal in such a way as to place the responsibility on AK Steel for payment of all of the OPEB Obligations to Class Members, then all of the monies placed into the escrow account, including interest or other earnings, will revert to AK Steel. In addition, under those circumstances, the Company will be immediately designated as the sole fiduciary controlling the VEBA and all assets of the VEBA will be subject to, and payable in connection with, any health or welfare plans maintained and controlled by AK Steel for the benefit of any of its employees or retirees, not just the Class Members. In the event of a reversal, modification or vacation of the Judgment that results in only part of the OPEB Obligations returning to the responsibility of AK Steel, then AK Steel will be designated as the sole fiduciary with respect to an appropriate pro-rata share of the VEBA assets relative to the portion of the OPEB Obligations for which AK Steel has resumed responsibility. OPEB Liability As of September 30, 2007, the Company’s total OPEB liability for all of its retirees was approximately $2.1 billion. If and when the Judgment approving the settlement is entered, the Company’s total OPEB liability (prior to any funding of the VEBA) is projected to be reduced to approximately $1.7 billion. Once the settlement is final and no longer subject to appeal, the Company’s only remaining liability with respect to the OPEB Obligations to the Class Members will be to contribute whatever portion of the $663 million due to the VEBA that has not yet been paid. The Company will have no other liability or responsibility with respect to OPEB Obligations to the Class Members. After payment of the initial and subsequent annual contributions due to the VEBA under the terms of the settlement, the Company’s total OPEB liability will be further reduced by the amount of each payment. In total, it is expected that the $663 million settlement with the Class Members ultimately will reduce the Company’s total OPEB liability of $2.1 billion as of September 30, 2007 by approximately $1.0 billion. As noted above, if the Judgment is not affirmed on appeal, the result will be that the Company resumes responsibility, in whole or in part (depending upon the terms of the judicial decision reversing, vacating or modifying the Judgment) for the OPEB Obligations to some or all of the Class Members. Under such circumstances, the Company’s total OPEB liability would increase accordingly, but the Company cannot reliably project at this time the amount of that increase because it is dependent upon the specific terms of the judicial decision. At that point, as to any such OPEB Obligations for which the Company has resumed responsibility as a result of the judicial decision, AK Steel may restart the retiree litigation and seek to judicially enforce what it continues to believe is its contractual right to unilaterally reduce, or even completely eliminate, OPEB benefits provided to any Class Members as to whom the settlement no longer applies. The suit is "Bailey et al. v. AK Steel Corp., Case No. 1:06-cv- 00468-MRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Michael R. Barrett. Representing the plaintiffs are: David Marvin Cook, Esq. Stephen A. Simon, Esq. 22 West Ninth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-721-6500 and 513-721-7500 E-mail: dcook@dmcllc.com ssimon@dmcllc.com ALLIED MORTGAGE: Mo. Court Reverses Class Certification Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- The Missouri Supreme Court unanimously reversed a ruling that certified a class in a lawsuit against Allied Mortgage Capital Corp., a state mortgage company, Rob Luke of Legal News Line reports. The Supreme Court's reversal came in the lawsuit, “Brennan and Kimberly Vandyne v. Allied Mortgage Capital Corp. (docket# SC88273).” In general, the plaintiffs in the suit alleged that Allied Mortgage misrepresented third-party charges in their home-loan contracts. In rejecting class certification of the matter, the high court pointed out that the problem was that the class had been certified before its basis for its certification had been proven. Writing on behalf of the Supreme Court, Judge Richard B. Teitelman said, "The circuit court abused its discretion in certifying a class that includes a determination of a key liability issue in the case and that does not sufficiently define "loan-related" services and fees." Judge Teitelman added, “The class definition in this case contains a legal conclusion that requires the court to resolve a paramount liability question in order to identify class membership.” He pointed out, “This is an improper merit determination.” The Supreme Court also determined that the attorneys and lead plaintiffs in the litigation could continue representing the class. Allied Mortgage had objected to a family relationship between one lawyer and a named class-action plaintiff, however the high court ruled it immaterial. COFFEYVILLE GROUP: Kan. Court Dismisses Oil Spill Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Kansas at Wichita dismissed a class action filed on behalf of numerous individuals and business owners who have sustained losses as a result of the Coffeyville Resources refinery oil spill On July 1 and July 2, 2007, more than 71,000 gallons of crude oil spilled from the Coffeyville Resources refinery, far more than the 42,000 gallons that was initially reported. Due to widespread flooding that was occurring at the time of the oil spill, the crude oil reached and damaged a very large area. More than 2,500 residents and businesses have been displaced by the oil slick and "toxic soup" that made its way on the Verdigris River. In excess of 200 properties have already been destroyed by these uncontrolled waterborne poisons. Refinery officials said they are still investigating how the spill occurred. On July 5, the law firms filed the suit on behalf of a man who lost his house and business as a result of oil spilled from the Coffeyville Resources refinery (Class Action Reporter, July 10, 2007). The suit originally named the following as defendants: -- Coffeyville Resources, LLC; -- Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC; -- Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC; -- Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC; -- Coffeyville Resources Pipeline, LLC; and -- Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC. The economic effects of oil spills can be devastating and far- reaching. Large companies, sole proprietors, and individuals alike stand to endure major economic losses when oil spills occur. Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the responsible party is liable for the costs associated with the containment or cleanup of the spill and any damages resulting from the spill. Oil spills cause large-scale damage, destruction and death to aquatic environments. The type of oil determines the type of damage. Crude oil is suffocating and has a toxic effect because it is like a heavy tar. Refined petroleum such as gasoline is generally more toxic but evaporates quickly. Crude oil causes much damage to birds and mammals; it sticks to their fur or feathers, causing hypothermia by reducing insulation and making them easy prey. It also causes loss of weight due to lack of ability to feed and also causes damage to the digestive systems when the oil is ingested. Refined petroleum causes damage not due to stickiness but due to toxicity. Animals become poisoned when they ingest refined petroleum products, and the poison travels up the food chain. Respiratory, immune and adrenal systems are also damaged. Blood and organs are damaged. Breeding is interrupted or halted, or offspring become poisoned and die. In July 2007, the law firms Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, Hutton & Hutton Law Firm LLC, Neblett, Beard & Arsenault and Becnel Law Firm LLC named additional defendants to the suit (Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2007). The additional defendants include: -- Coffeyville Acquisition, LLC, an entity principally owned by Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., -- its subsidiary J. Aron & Company, -- Kelso & Company and/or its affiliates -- CVR Energy, Inc. -- Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC -- Coffeyville Refining and Marketing Inc. -- Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC -- Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC and -- Coffeyville Resources Pipeline, LLC. On November 6, 2007 the court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, a court must decline jurisdiction if two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants, are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed. The suit was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the court determined that two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants, were citizens of Kansas. It is possible that the plaintiffs in the federal suit may appeal the dismissal in federal court or take other actions to continue their claims, in which case, we plan on vigorously defending against such claims. Due to the uncertainty of such claims, the company is unable to estimate a range of possible loss at this time. Presently, they do not expect that the resolution of these claims will have a significant adverse effect on their business and results of operations. The suit is “Dunham v. Coffeyville Resouces, LLC et al., Case No. 6:07-cv-01186-JTM-DWB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas under Judge J. Thomas Marten with referral to Judge Donald W. Bostwick. Representing plaintiffs is: Andrew W. Hutton Hutton & Hutton 8100 E. 22nd St., North-Bldg. 1200 P. O. Box 638 Wichita, KS 67201-638 Phone: 316-688-1166 Fax: 316-686-1077 E-mail: andrew.hutton@huttonlaw.com C&O MOTORS: Faces Suit in W. Va. Over Destruction of Evidence ------------------------------------------------------------- C&O Motors, its president and chief operating officer, James F. Love III, and its general manager Gene Walker face a class action in Kanawha Circuit Court in West Virginia, alleging that employees of the St. Albans car dealership destroyed evidence in an older class action, Chris Dickerson of The West Virginia Record reports. James Dalton, as the class plaintiff, filed the suit Jan. 8, 2008. The suit is now assigned to Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey Walker, under Case No. 08-C-44. Mr. Dalton and other potential plaintiffs previously were represented by the law firm of Bell & Bands in civil actions against C&O over misrepresentations and omissions that happened in its Finance & Insurance offices, transactions that were videotaped by C&O when vehicles were purchased. According to the complaint in 2002, Bell & Bands filed two civil suits against C&O alleging fraudulent acts in the sale of vehicles. Subsequently, the firm filed numerous individual fraud-based civil actions against C&O. As those cases proceeded, Bell & Bands would learn that C&O videotaped customer transactions in the Finance & Insurance office. The original 2004 civil actions have been settled, however, the new complaint states that those plaintiffs and class were not aware that "critical evidence" had been destroyed. In the new suit, the class would consist of those previously represented by Bell & Bands in the earlier Kanawha County suits and reached settlement with C&O. That is at least 75 people, according to Bell & Bands. The plaintiff and all members of the class seek compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees, court costs and other relief. For more details, contact: Bell & Bands PLLC 30 Capitol Street, P.O. Box 1723 Charleston, WV 25326 Phone: (304) 932-4225 or (866) 912-3007 Fax: (304) 345-1715 Web site: http://www.belllaw.com DANNON CO: Faces False Advertising Suit Over “Probiotic” Yogurt --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action filed in the Central District of California revealed that while spending more than $100 million to falsely claim that "probiotic" yogurt products such as Activia and DanActive have "clinically" and "scientifically" "proven" health benefits not available in other yogurts, The Dannon Company, Inc.'s own studies flatly disproved the Company's deceptive boasts. The marketing campaign promoting the supposed health benefits of the products allegedly helped Dannon sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of yogurt in recent years. According to the lawsuit filed, in its advertisements and on its label for Activia, Dannon continues to falsely claim that it is "proven" to improve one's "intestinal rhythm" and "regulate your digestive system." Similarly, the label and ads for Dannon's DanActive incorrectly state that it "has been clinically proven to help naturally strengthen the body's defenses" and to improve the body's "immune system." As a result of the massively deceptive advertising campaign, Dannon is able to charge consumers a 30% premium for its Activia yogurt. In fact, Dannon's marketing for yogurts containing "probiotics" led to one of the most successful product launches in recent food-industry history. Dannon spent more than $100 million on what is described as a "360-degree marketing plan" to falsely promote its probiotic yogurts. As a result, Dannon sold $128 million of Activia in 2006 and is estimated to have sold approximately $300 million last year. However, Dannon itself knew that numerous scientific studies failed to support the health benefits touted in the ads. In fact, a study conducted by leading microbiologists and funded by Dannon determined in 2006 that there was "no conclusive evidence" of probiotics providing health benefits. The report, entitled "Probiotic Microbes: The Scientific Basis," was prepared by the American Academy of Microbiology, a leadership group of the American Society of Microbiology. In an interview with financial analysts, Franck Riboud, the current Chairman and CEO of Dannon's France-based parent company Groupe Danone admitted that Activia's success was based solely on the product's fraudulent marketing, saying, "The success of Activia is not coming from the product itself. The probiotic, everybody knows now about probiotic all over the world. The success is coming from the way you launch the product, how do you enrich the product, the marketing...." The class action, filed on behalf of tens of thousand of consumers who paid a premium for the products because of the deception, seeks redress for consumers who purchased the products based on the bogus claims, and asks Dannon to replace the misleading marketing with honest ads that correct the record. "Deceptive advertising has enabled Dannon to sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ordinary yogurt at inflated prices to responsible, health conscious consumers," said consumer attorney Timothy G. Blood. Lead counsel for plaintiffs are: Timothy Blood Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 - and - Jayne A. Goldstein Mager & Goldstein LLP 1818 Market Street, Suite 3710 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Phone: 215-640-3280 Fax: 215-640-3281 DEERE & CO: Recalls Utility Tractors Due to Collision Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ Deere & Company, of Moline, Ill., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 5,400 John Deere Compact Utility Tractors. The company said the forward drive pedal can get stuck, posing a risk of loss of control and injury to the operator and bystanders. Deere & Company has received seven reports of incidents. No injuries have been reported. The recalled tractor is model number 3203, which is painted on the side of the tractor. The recall includes the following serial numbers: LV3203H000001 through LV3203H000010 LV3203H190001 through LV3203H193434 LV3203H393093 LV3203H394001 through LV3203H396669 The serial number plate is located on the tractor?s frame above the right front wheel. These recalled compact utility tractors were manufactured in the United States and were being sold by John Deere dealers nationwide from September 2005 through December 2007 for about $15,500. Picture of recalled compact utility tractors: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08536.jpg Consumers should stop using the recalled vehicles immediately and contact any John Deere dealer to schedule a free repair. Registered owners were sent direct mail notification of this recall. For additional information, contact Deere & Company at (800) 537-8233 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday and between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. ET Saturday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.johndeere.com DISCOUNT SCHOOL: Recalls Play Mats on Paint's High Lead Level ------------------------------------------------------------- Discount School Supply, of Monterey, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 60 Tic Tac Turtle Toss Mats. The company said the paint on the Tic Tac Turtle Toss mats contains excess levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves 50-inch vinyl/polyester play mats. The double sided mats have a number design on one side and a turtle design on the other. The mats are yellow with numbers and designs painted in red, blue, green and black. The mat has the Discount School Supply name and logo printed in the corner on both sides of the mat. Bean bags pictured with the mat are sold separately. These recalled play mats were manufactured in China and were being sold at Discount School Supply catalogs and the company?s Web site from June 2007 through September 2007 for about $40. Pictures of recalled playmats: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08537a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08537b.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the mat immediately and contact Discount School Supply to receive a credit or refund. For additional information, contact Discount School Supply at (800) 993-3603 between 6 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday; visit the firm's Web site: http://www.discountschoolsupply.comor email: tossrecall@discountschoolsupply.com GEORGIA: Dougherty County Property Owners Sue Over Revaluation -------------------------------------------------------------- About 15 property owners in Dougherty County, Georgia filed a purported class action in Dougherty County Superior Court seeking equitable relief from a countrywide tax revaluation, The Albany Herald On-line reports. Calling the action “unconstitutional, illegal, null and void,” the plaintiffs are asking the court to reinstate property values based on the county’s 2006 tax digest. The lawsuit, which named Dougherty County Tax Director Denver Hooten and members of the Board of Tax Assessors as defendants, was assigned to Judge John Crosby, senior judge with the Tifton Judicial Circuit Prepared by outgoing Albany City Commissioner Bo Dorough of the Albany law firm Divine, Finney & Dorough PC, the suit lists the following as plaintiffs: -- Richard R. Thomas, -- Fred Carter, -- Lonnie H. Smith, -- Dottie Smith, -- Judy Lee, -- Michael Smith, -- C.W. Hopkins, -- Curtis H. Smith, -- John O’Brien, -- Jerry Brooks, -- Doug Miller, -- Hilton Merchant, -- Wayne Carter, -- Tim Coley, and -- Cecil Musgrove. The plaintiffs ask, among other things: -- that the suit be deemed a class action, -- that an expedited hearing be held before Jan. 20 (the date taxes are due), -- that the revaluation be declared unconstitutional, illegal, null and void, -- that the plaintiffs receive a jury trial, and -- that county taxpayers receive “such other and further relief as may be deemed just and appropriate” by the court. For more details, contact: Bo Dorough, Esq. Divine, Finney & Dorough, P.C. 600 N. Jackson Street, P.O. Box 64 Albany, Georgia 31702-0064 Phone: 229.883-1610 Fax: 229.883.1647 E-mail: info@dfdpclaw.com Web site: http://www.dfdpclaw.com/ ILLINOIS: Engineers' Union Accused of Privacy Rights Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyer Robert Hanlon of Woodstock, Ill., representing a woman whose identity is withheld, filed a class action accusing Local 150, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO of illegally obtaining and disclosing information from members' drivers licenses, and of using the information to stalk, intimidate, harass and assault the named plaintiff, a woman, and violate her privacy, the CourtHouse News Service reports. According to the complaint, the union allegedly obtained license plate and personal data on "millions" of people, ostensibly to check their plates at construction sites, which plaintiffs say is an illegal use of the data. Plaintiff claims the union's "pursuit agents" used the information they obtained about her to stalk her for months, to follow her home from work, to endanger her, to insist that she "call" her stalker, and to assault her. She says she had to have the police restrain the stalkers. She demands punitive damages and a restraining order and injunction. The class demands statutory damages, and punitive damages if the illegal use of data was willful. ILLINOIS: Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Atheist Student's Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District District of Illinois is set to hear oral arguments over whether to grant class-action status to the case, “Sherman v. Township High School District 214 et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-06048.” The suit was filed by Buffalo Grove High School freshman Dawn S. Sherman, an atheist, and her father, Robert I. Sherman on Oct. 26, 2007. It names as defendants: -- Dr. Christopher Koch, State School Superintendent, and -- Township High School District 214. In general, it challenges an Illinois statute (105 ILCS 20/1 a.k.a “The Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act”) requiring public schools to provide a moment of silence each day for “reflection and student prayer,” alleging that it violates the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction preventing defendants from implementing 105 ILCS 20/1, which mandates a period of silence for silent prayer or reflection at the start of each school day. In November 2007, Dr. Koch moved to dismiss the case as against him, which was denied. The court instead granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. In the injunction, Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ordered Township High School District 214, which oversees Buffalo Grove High, not to have a moment of silence. Additionally, the judge also has barred the superintendent of the state school board from enforcing the rule or issuing any directive on how the issue should be handled in other schools. Judge Gettleman is to hear oral arguments this month over whether to grant class-action status to the Shermans' case. The suit is “Sherman v. Township High School District 214 et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-06048,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District District of Illinois under Judge Robert W. Gettleman. Representing the plaintiffs is: Gregory E. Kulis, Esq. Gregory E. Kulis and Associates, Ltd. 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2140 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 580-1830 E-mail: vsmith@kulislawltd.com Representing the defendants are: Thomas A. Ioppolo, Esq. Illinois Attorney General's Office 100 West Randolph Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 814-3313 E-mail: tioppolo@atg.state.il.us - and - Brian Dennis McCarthy, Esq. Franczek Sullivan, P.C. 300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 986-0300 Fax: 312-986-9192 E-mail: bdm@franczek.com INTEL CORP: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Windows, Linux OS ---------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho claiming it holds a monopoly in microprocessors that run Windows and Linux operating systems. Named plaintiff Seininger Law Offices claims: -- "Intel has forced major customers into exclusive or near-exclusive deals; -- "Intel has conditioned rebates, allowances and market development funding on customers' agreement to severely limit or forgo entirely purchases from AMD or other competitors; -- "Intel has established a system of discriminatory, retroactive, first-dollar rebates triggered by purchases at such high levels as to have the practical and intended effect of denying customers the freedom to purchase any significant volume of processors from AMD and others; -- "Intel has threatened retaliation against customers introducing AMD computer platforms, particularly in strategic market segments; -- "Intel has established and enforced quotas with key retailers, effectively requiring them to stock overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, Intel-powered computers, thereby artificially limiting consumer choice; -- "Intel has forced PC makers and technology partners to boycott AMD product launches and promotions; -- "Intel has abused its market power by forcing on the industry technical standards that have as their central purpose the handicapping of AMD and others in the marketplace." Plaintiff further claims, Intel has violated consumer and antitrust laws from California to Maine in doing so. Plaintiff brings this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of all persons and entities residing in the United States who from June 28, 2001 through the present, purchased an x86 microprocessor in the United States, other than for resale, indirectly from the Defendant or any controlled subsidiary or affiliate of Defendant. Plaintiff wants the court to rule on: a. whether Intel has possessed monopoly power in the relevant market since at least June 28, 2001; b. whether Intel acquired or maintained monopoly power within the relevant market through anticompetitive activity; c. whether Intel’s unlawful conduct has enabled Intel to increase, maintain, or stabilize above competitive levels the prices it charges for x86 microprocessors; if so, whether such supra-competitive prices were passed on to Class members; and if so, the appropriate class-wide measure of damages; d. whether Intel violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; e. whether Intel violated Sections 16720 and 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code; and f. whether Intel violated the antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection laws and unjust enrichment laws as alleged below. Plaintiff prays: -- That Intel’s conduct alleged herein be adjudged and decreed to violate the laws alleged in this Complaint. -- That Plaintiff and the Class or Subclass members recover damages, as provided by the state laws alleged in this Complaint, and that a joint and several judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the Class be entered against Intel in the maximum amount permitted by such laws; -- That Intel, its affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors, partners, agents, and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be permanently enjoined and restrained from in any manner continuing, maintaining, or renewing its anticompetitive conduct or adopting or following any practice, plan, program, or device having a similar purpose or effect; -- That Plaintiff and Class or Subclass members be awarded restitution, including disgorgement of profits obtained by Intel as a result of its acts of unfair competition and unjust enrichment. -- That Plaintiff and Class or Subclass members be awarded pre- and post-judgment interest, and that that interest be awarded at the highest legal rate from and after the date of service of the initial complaint in this action; -- That Plaintiff and Class or Subclass members recover their costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by law; and -- That Plaintiff and Class or Subclass members have such further relief as the case may require and the Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. The suit is "Seineger Law Offices, PA et al. v. INtel Corp.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. Representing plaintiffs are: Phillip H. Gordon Gordon Law Offices 623 W. Hays Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 345-7100 Facsimile: (208) 345-0050 Email: pgordon@gordonlawoffices.com or bbistline@gordonlawoffices.com - and - Steve W. Berman Anthony Shapiro Steven W. Fimmel Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 LIBERTY NATIONAL: Accused of Discriminating Against Haitian ----------------------------------------------------------- Liberty National Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Torchmark Corp., is facing a class-action complaint filed Jan. 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida claiming the insurance company discriminated against Haitians, the English Business News reports. The lawsuit was filed by three Haitian-Americans who live in Florida and is seeking at least $75,000 (euro51,461) in compensatory damages. Plaintiffs claim their insurance was canceled or undervalued because of discrimination against Haitian-Americans. Liberty National allegedly asked leading questions about their foreign travel plans and that underwriters listened for a "Haitian" accent. According to the complaint, since 2004, Liberty National has denied policies "based solely on the applicant's race and Haitian ancestry, ethnicity and national origin," or replaced them with policies normally only sold to the terminally ill. The suit is “Joseph et al v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company, Case Number: 1:2008cv20117,” filed in the U.S District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Judge Jose E. Martinez. MISSOURI: Eight Circuit Affirms Ruling in Inmate's Abortion Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the right of female Missouri inmates to obtain elective abortions while incarcerated, Mark Morris of The Kansas City Star reports. The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel came in a class action challenging the state's policy banning inmates from obtaining non-medically necessary abortions. Case Background The suit was originally brought by an inmate plaintiff known as "Jane Roe," who was denied an abortion in 2005. Before that, the Missouri Department of Corrections had provided transportation for women seeking an abortion, but amended their policy to do so if the abortion is not medically necessary (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 28, 2007). The American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit on behalf of “Jane Roe.” U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple in Jefferson ordered officials granted her request on the same year she filed the case. The office of the Attorney General, on behalf of the Department of Corrections, appealed Judge Whipple's order up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the district court's ruling. In 2006, Judge Whipple upheld his preliminary injunction. He ruled that women prisoners maintain their constitutional right to abortion and that prison officials must provide access to the procedure. The Attorney General appealed again. Assistant Attorney General Michael Pritchard argued for the state. He said the prison officials' primary concern is with the safety of prisoners, guards and the public because the trip to the hospital poses an increase risk of inmate escape. On Jan. 22, the appeals court ruled in favor of female Missouri inmates. The suit is "Roe v. Crawford et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-04333-DW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri under Judge Dean Whipple. Representing the plaintiffs are: Thomas Michael Blumenthal, Esq. Paule Camazine & Blumenthal, PC 165 N. Meramec Ave., 6th Floor St. Louis, MO 63105-3789 Phone: 314-727-2266 Fax: 314-727-2101 E-mail: tblumenthal@pcblawfirm.com Talcott Camp, Esq. Diana Kasdan, Esq. Jennifer Nevins, Esq. Chakshu Patel, Esq. American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004-2427 Phone: (212) 549-2632 Fax: (212) 549-2652 E-mail: tcamp@aclu.org dkasdan@aclu.org jnevins@aclu.org cpatel@aclu.org - and - James G. Felakos, Esq. American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri 4557 Laclede Ave. St. Louis, MO 63108 Phone: (314) 361-3635 Fax: (314) 361-3135 E-mail: jim@aclu-em.org Representing the defendant is: Michael Pritchett, Esq. Missouri Attorney General P.O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Phone: 573-751-8864 Fax: (573) 751-9456 E-mail: mike.pritchett@ago.mo.gov NEW YORK: Faces Suit Over Home Energy Assistant Program Benefits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The New York State Department of Family Assistance and New York city Department of Social Services are facing a class-action complaint filed Jan. 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging it illegally cut off Home Energy Assistant Program benefits to poor people without proper notice, the CourtHouse News Service reports. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Low-income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981, 42 USC Section 8621 et seq. Plaintiffs allege that defendants unlawfully deprived them of their constitutional and statutory right to adequate notice and an opportunity for a fair hearing to contest eligibility determinations pertaining to their receipt of HEAP benefits. They contest the following policies and practices: (a) defendant Doar's provision of inadequate notices of HEAP eligibility to persons identified by defendants' "autopay" computer methodology as categorically eligible to receive regualr HEAP benefits and who pay separately to heat their abodes (autopay heater households) that fail to explain how HEAP eligibility and benefit amounts were computed or provide meaningful citation to the specific laws, regulations and policy issuances upon which the determinations were based; and (b) defendants' failure to toll the time limit to request an administrative fair hearing to autopay heater households who received no notice or inadequate notice of the regular HEAP benefit paid on their behalf and who requested administrative review of the adequacy of said benefits more than 105 days after the end of a particular program year. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all New York City households categorically eligible for regular HEAP benefits with primary responsibility to heat their abodes who since Jan. 22, 2005 were not, or in the future will not be: (1) mailed a notice of HEAP eligibility that explains how financial eligibility and benefits amounts were calculated to the same extent and in the same manner as members of the plaintiff class in "Kapps v. Wing;" and/or (2) mailed a notice of HEAP eligibility that cites the specific law, regulation and policy issuance supporting the regular HEAP payment; and/or (3) afforded an opportunity for a fair hearing more than 105 days after the end of a particular program year to contest the amount of their regular HEAP benefit amount lacking the aforementioned information is issued to them. They want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants' failure to provide class members with adequate notices of HEAP eligibility which explains the computation of financial eligibility and benefit amounts violates their constitutional right to due process and equal protection and 18 NYCRR Section 358-2.2(a)(14), and/or (b) whether defendants' failure to provide class members with adequate notices that cite the specific laws, regulations and policy issuances supporting the determination violates their constitutional right to due process and equal protection and 18 NYCRR Section 358-2.29A0(4); and/or (c) whether State Defendant's imposition of the 105 day rule to deprive class members of an opportunity for a fair hearing to contest the regular HEAP benefit amount when defendants issue no notice or inadequate notice of the HEAP payment amount violates New York Social Services Law Section 22{4}(a) and their constitutional right to due process and equal protection. Plaintiffs ask that the court: -- assume jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 USC Sections 1331, 1337, 1343(3) and 1367; -- enter an order pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that this action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of the proposed class; -- enter a final judgment pursuant to 28 USC Section 2201 and Rules 54 and 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure declaring that: (1) City defendant's policy and practice of rendering regular HEAP notices to plaintiffs and similarly situated autopay heater households which fail to explain how determinations of HEAP benefits, and State defendant's tolerance of said practice, is arbitrary, capricious and violates the Due Process and Equal Protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I Sections 6 and 11 of the New York State Constitution and 18 NYCRR Section 358-2.2(a)(14); (2) city defendants' policy and practice of rendering regular HEAP notices to plaintiffs and similarly situated autopay heater households which fail to cite to specific laws, regulations and policy issuances upon which the determination is based, and State defendant's tolerance of said practice, is arbitrary, capricious and violates the Due Process and Equal Protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I Sections 6 and 11 of the New York State Constitution and 18 NYCRR Section 358-2.2(a)(4); (3) State defendant's policy and practice of depriving autopay heater households of the opportunity for a fair hearing more than 105 days after the close of a particular program year whenever these households received no notice or inadequate notice of regular HEAP benefits is arbitrary, capricious and violates the Due Process and Equal Protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 USC Section 8624(b)(13) and New York Social Services Law Section 22[4](a); (4) State defendant's 105 day rule, as set forth in 18 NYCRR Sections 358-3.5(b)(4) and 393.5(e), limits the right to a fair hearing not set forth in federal or state law or in New York's HEAP State Plan, is arbitrary, capricious and violates the Due Process and Equal Protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States constitution, 42 USC Sections 8624(b)(13) and 8624(c)(1)(F) and New York Social Services Law Section 22[4](a); -- enter a final judgment pursuant to 28 USC Section 2202, 42 USC Section 1983 and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enjoining: (1) City defendant from failing to0 render notices to autopay heater households which explain how determinations of HEAP eligibility and benefit amounts are calculated and cite the specific laws, regulations and policy issuances supporting the determinations; and (2) State defendant from failing to provide fair hearings to autopay heater households who receive no notice or inadequate notice of regular HEAP benefits without regard to the dates on which their administrative appeals are requested; and (3) State defendant from failing to reverse and annul the Decision After Fair Hearing to plaintiff Brian Pedersen dated Sept. 20, 2007 to the extent that State defendant declined to take jurisdiction of the issues raised therein because the fair hearing request was made more than 105 days after the closure of the applicable HEAP seasons referenced therein, and render a new Decision After Fair Hearing without regard to the "105 day" rule; -- award plaintiffs' counsel a reasonable attorney's fee and litigation-related costs and disbursements pursuant to Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 42 USC Section 1988 and Article 86 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules; and -- grant such additional and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Brian Pedersen et al v. David A.Hansell et al., Case No. CV 08 313," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Representing plaintiffs is: Peter Vollmer Vollmer & Tanck, P.C. 500 North Broadway, Suite 149 Jericho, New York 11753 Phone: (516) 870-0335 NEW YORK: City of Buffalo, Mayor Face Lawsuit Over Pay Raise ------------------------------------------------------------ The City of Buffalo, New York, and its Mayor Byron Brown face a purported class action that was filed on behalf of 65 Seasonal Workers who are seeking a pay raise, WGRZ-TV reports. One plaintiff in the suit is Abraham McKinney, 54, a “Seasonal Worker” who makes $8.15 per hour picking up garbage. His lawyers claim that he and dozens of others like him should now be making $11.11 per hour and that they've waited long enough to get it. Aside from Mr. McKinney, there are three other plaintiffs listed in the class action. The suit, filed in the State Supreme Court, claims that the workers are owed the raises under the City's Living Wage Law passed more than four years ago. Seasonal Workers often work side by side, doing the same job, and for as many hours as full time workers, but they do so at a significantly reduced rate of pay and without benefits, according to a report by WGRZ-TV. To maintain their status as “Seasonal,” the city merely lays them off for a day or two every six months according to Allison Duwe, Director of the Coalition for Economic Justice, the advocacy group that was instrumental in pressuring the city to pass the living wage law in August of 2003. The suit seeks monetary compensation back to at least January 2002, according to Newsday. NEW YORK: Couple Sues Department, Chancellor Over Racial Quotas --------------------------------------------------------------- The New York City Department of Education, and Chancellor Joel I. Klein face a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York over the city's racial quotas that kept an Indian girl out of an elite public school, The New York Post reports. The suit, “Rau et al v. New York City Department of Education et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00210-JBW-KAM,” was filed on Jan. 15, 2008, by an Indian couple from Brooklyn whose daughter was kept from entering the Mark Twain School in Coney Island because of the quotas. In May 2007, Dr. Anjan Rau's daughter Nikita was rejected by Mark Twain. Officials said Nikita had to score at least 84.4 score to be accepted. However, white students needed to score only 77. Nikita scored 79 on music admission test. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in two other cities' cases that race could not be used to decide which public schools kids attend. However, Chancellor Klein has not sought to end the quotas until now. The suit is “Rau et al v. New York City Department of Education et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00210-JBW-KAM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Jack B. Weinstein with referral to Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael Evan Rosman, Esq. Center For Individual Rights 1233 20th Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 833-8400 Fax: 202-833-8410 E-mail: rosman@cir-usa.org - and - Rosemarie Arnold, Esq. Law Offices Rosemarie Arnold 1386 Palisade Avenue Fort Lee, NJ 07024-5209 Phone: 201-461-1111 Fax: (201) 461-1666 Web site: http://www.rosemariearnold.com PENNSYLVANIA: Dauphin County Seeks Nixing of Strip Search Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys for Dauphin County are seeking for the dismissal of a purported class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania over the strip searching of several out-of-state partygoers at the county prison. Case Background The suit, “Reynolds et al. v. The County of Dauphin, Case No. 1:07-cv-01688-CCC,” was filed by Elmer Robert Keach, III, an upstate New York attorney, on Sept. 16, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 15, 2007). Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are: -- Ashley McCormick, -- Devon Shepard, -- Herbert Carter, and -- Jennifer Reynolds. More than 125 partygoers in the Labor Day weekend rave at McCormicks Island were arrested. At least 50 out-of-state residents who were unable to make bail ended up in the Dauphin County Prison. The federal class action against the county is alleging that those detainees’ civil rights were violated when they were strip-searched at the prison. It seeks to end the prison's alleged practice of strip-searching people facing misdemeanor charges. Recent Developments In seeking for the dismissal of the case, lawyers representing the county say that the prison has a written policy that spells out when an incoming prisoner should be subjected to a strip search, according to a report by Chris A. Courogen of The Harrisburg Patriot-News. Representing the plaintiffs are: Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq. Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, PC 1040 Riverfront Center, P.O. box 70 Amsterdam, NY 12010 Phone: 518.434.1718 E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca 507 C Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 Phone: 202-789-3960 - and - Daniel C. Levin, Esq. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: 215-592-1500 E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com Representing the defendants is: James P. DeAngelo, Esq. McNees Wallace & Nurick 100 Pine St., PO Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 Phone: 717-232-8000 E-mail: jdeangelo@mwn.com RC2 CORP: $30M T&F Suit Settlement Inadequate, Lawyers Claim ------------------------------------------------------------ Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro is urging parents to oppose a preliminarily approved proposed nationwide settlement in a case against RC2 Cosp. (Nasdaq: RCRC), the manufacturer of Thomas the Train toys, claiming the proposed settlement doesn't adequately protect the interests of parents or children. HBSS filed a proposed class action against toy manufacturer RC2 in June 2007, alleging the toys were produced using lead paint which, if ingested by children, can cause severe health problems and death. As a result, nearly 20 cases were consolidated in Federal Court in Chicago in order to protect the interests of the class of consumers whose children were exposed. In the consolidated cases, the plaintiffs have vigorously pursued discovery and defended an attempt to dismiss the case. In order to avoid the oversight of the Federal Court and participation with dozens of parents that stepped forward as class representatives, another group of attorneys filed a case in August 2007 in State Court in Illinois. Rather than litigate the case and protect the exposure claims of the children that played with the toys, the attorneys negotiated a proposed nationwide settlement that compensates the lawyers with fees up to $2.9 million. That settlement was recently preliminarily approved by the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The settlement, which is valued at over $30 million, also guarantees that RC2 Corporation – the manufacturer of the popular children’s toys – will implement a battery of safeguards to ensure that its toys are suitable for children to play with in the future (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 22, 2008). Under the settlement agreement, eligible class members can receive full cash refunds or replacement toys with an additional “bonus” toy. The settlement also provides for $100,000 to go to an appropriate not-for-profit organization. HBSS believes this settlement is not adequate and does not protect the interests of parents or children. HBSS is urging parents who have contacted HBSS regarding Thomas the Train toys to voice opposition to this settlement. Among the concerns with the settlement is that it does not provide any help in recovering the costs to administer blood tests for children who may have ingested dangerous amounts of lead from playing with the toys nor compensate parents for the exposure of a toxic substance to their children. The parties have established a website at http://www.thomastrainsettlement.comto provide additional details about the settlement. That site will be operational by no later than January 25, 2008. For more information, contact: Ivy Arai Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro Phone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: Ivy@hbsslaw.com - and - Mark Firmani Firmani + Associates Inc. Phone: (206) 443-9357 E-mail: Mark@firmani.com SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces Customer Privacy Litigation in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ Sears, Roebuck and Co. faces a purported class action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois for violating customer privacy on their site. The suit, “Christine Desantis, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.,” alleges that the lack of privacy protections at Sears’s http://wwww.managemyhome.comWeb site violated its own privacy promises to consumers, and in so doing ran afoul of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, which prohibits “unfair and deceptive practices.” According to a complaint seen by The Class Action Reporter, “in an effort to promote its website and increase sales, Sears has established a web-based system to allow customers to view their purchase history on-line at http://www.managemyhome.com.” A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?2758 The suit was filed by the KamberEdelson, LLC law firm on behalf of Christine Desantis, a New Jersey resident. It seeks class-action status, and more than $5 million in damages, including attorneys’ fees. The suit is “Christine Desantis, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.,” filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Representing the plaintiff is: Jay Edelson, Esq. Ethan Preston, Esq. KAMBEREDELSON, LLC 53 West Jackson Blvd; Suite 1530 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: 312-589-6370 Web site: http://www.kamberedelson.com/ SHIMS BARGAIN: Recalls “BabyTown” Pacifiers Due to Choking Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- Shims Bargain Inc., of Los Angeles, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 45,000 “BabyTown” Pacifiers. The company said these pacifiers fail to meet federal safety standards for pacifiers. The pacifier shield is too small and could easily enter the mouth of an infant. Also, ventilation holes are too small and not placed to allow for the insertion of a tool to remove the pacifier when lodged in the mouth of a child. Finally, the package fails to display the required warning instructing consumers not to tie a pacifier around a child?s neck, which would present a strangulation hazard. No injuries have been reported. The recalled pacifiers were sold in a 4-pack of assorted colors. “BabyTown” and model #39864 are written on the product?s packaging. These recalled pacifiers were manufactured in China and were being sold at dollar stores nationwide from March 2004 through December 2007 for $1. Picture of recalled pacifiers: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08160.jpg Consumers are advised to take these pacifiers away from children immediately and return them to the store where purchased for a full refund. For additional information, contact Shims Bargain toll-free at (866) 540-3334 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday. STUBHUB INC: Faces Litigation in Oregon Over “Online Scalping” -------------------------------------------------------------- StubHub, Inc., and its parent, eBay Inc. face a purported class action in Multnomah County Circuit Court in Portland, Oregon, alleging that both companies violated the city of Portland's anti-scalping law, Brent Hunsberger of The Newhouse News Service reports. The suit was filed by Sharon Fehrs on Jan. 9, 2008. It states that last month Ms. Fehrs tried to book four seats near the stage for Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band's March 28 show at the Rose Garden. But she could not find more than one seat available. She later found choice seats already available for sale on StubHub, an online ticket resale site. But they were going for far in excess of their $95 face value. Ms. Fehrs is asking the court to stop StubHub's practice and award damages to customers who opt into her lawsuit. For more details, contact: John F. Neupert, Esq. Miller Nash LLP 3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower, 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204-3699 Phone: (503) 224-5858 and (877) 220-5858 Fax: (503) 224-0155 E-mail: john.neupert@millernash.com Web site: http://www.millernash.com/ UNITED STATES: Deportees' Suit v. ICE to Continue, Despite Memo --------------------------------------------------------------- A federal class action against the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) over the forced sedation of deportees will continue despite an internal ICE memo issued recently that explicitly requires agents to get a court order before administering drugs “to facilitate an alien's removal,” The Associated Press reports. Immigration officials have acknowledged that 56 deportees were given psychotropic drugs during a seven-month period in 2006 and 2007 even though most had no history of mental problems. The memo by John Torres, detention and removal director of ICE, the primary investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also stated, “There are no exceptions to this policy.” Despite the policy change, Mr. Arulanantham stressed that the ACLU would go forward with the lawsuit to learn more details about how sedation was used, who was drugged, and to get a court ruling outlawing it in the future. The ACLU had sued the agency to stop the practice, alleging it could constitute torture and violates the Bill of Rights and federal laws regarding the medical treatment of detainees. The suit, entitled, "Diouf et al. v. Michael Chertoff et al., Case No. CV07-03977AHM," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California back in June 2007. It seeks class-action status. It was brought by two men, Mr. Diouf being one of them. The two claimed that they were forcibly injected with drugs to make it easier for DHS to deport them. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 15, 2007). According to the suit, “Federal officials have publicly admitted that the government has a policy of forcibly injecting immigrants with psychotropic drugs in order to render them less 'agitated' for deportation.” The named plaintiffs in the case, Mr. Diouf, and Raymond Soeoth claim they were both forcibly injected in anticipation of their deportation although both lacked any history of mental illness or exhibited behavior that indicated they would be mentally unstable during deportation. In both cases, the men were not examined by a doctor before being injected with potentially fatal anti-psychotic drugs, the suit states. “No federal statue authorizes forcible injection under these circumstances, and the Constitution clearly forbids it,” the suit states. Mr. Diouf, of Senegal, and Mr. Soeoth, of Indonesia, were allegedly injected with haloperidol and cogentin, powerful drugs often administered to psychotic people that stuns them and puts them to sleep. They also sued Division of Immigration Health Services Interim Director Neil Sampson, and several official at the San Pedro Service Processing Center (immigration prison), where they were drugged. The suit is "Diouf et al. v. Michael Chertoff et al., Case No. CV07-03977AHM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Ahilan T. Arulanantham Mark D. Rosenbaum ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1616 Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90026-5752 Phone: 213-977-9500 Fax: 213-250-3919 - and - Bradley S. Phillips Stephen M. Kristovich Fred A. Rowley, Jr. Fadia I. Raefedie Munger Tolles & Olson LLP 355 South Grand Avenue Thirty-Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Phone: 213-683-9100 Fax: 213-687-3702 Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ONCONASE in Phase III for Cancer Treatment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Par Pharmaceutical Companies Inc. states that Alfacell Corp.'s product ONCONASE (ranpirnase) is currently in Phase III clinical development for the treatment of inoperable malignant mesothelioma, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 16, 2008. On Jan. 14, 2008, Par Pharmaceutical Inc., the Company's wholly owned operating subsidiary, entered into an exclusive license agreement with Alfacell. Under the agreement, Par received the exclusive U.S. commercialization rights to Alfacell's ONCONASE for the treatment of cancer. In exchange for the U.S. commercialization rights, Par made an initial payment to Alfacell of US$5 million and will make a subsequent payment of up to US$30 million upon (and subject to) Alfacell's receipt of the Food and Drug Administration approval for the product. If the product receives FDA approval, Par will commercialize the product in the United States and pay Alfacell royalties on net sales of the product, and Alfacell will be eligible to receive additional milestone payments if net sales reach certain threshold amounts in any given calendar year. In addition, Alfacell may be eligible to receive milestone payments upon the achievement of certain development and regulatory milestones with respect to future indications for ONCONASE. Under a separate supply agreement between Alfacell and Par, Alfacell will supply commercial quantities of the product to Par. COMPANY PROFILE Par Pharmaceutical Companies Inc. 300 Tice Blvd. Woodcliff Lake, N.J. 07677 United States Tel. No.: (201)802-4000 www.parpharm.com Description: The Company develops, manufactures and markets generic drugs and innovative proprietary pharmaceuticals for specialty markets. With manufacturing in Spring Valley, N.Y., and R&D facilities in Spring Valley and in Somerset, N.J., the Company employs 750 people. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Settlement Totals $593M at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries Inc.'s asbestos settlement (under current liabilities) amounted to US$593 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$597 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 17, 2008. The Company's current settlement for asbestos settlement amounted to US$601 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$561 million as of Sept. 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 26, 2007) The Company's net asbestos settlement amounted to US$2 million for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$5 million for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's net asbestos settlement amounted to US$24 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$28 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. Pittsburgh-based PPG Industries Inc. is a global supplier of paints, coatings, chemicals, optical products, specialty materials, glass and fiber glass. The Company has more than 150 manufacturing facilities and equity affiliates and operates in more than 60 countries. Sales in 2007 were US$11.2 billion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re Records $311M Charge at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Everest Re Group Ltd. reported that it has completed a detailed study of its potential asbestos exposures, in which the study will result in a net pre-tax charge of US$311 million related to the strengthening of its asbestos reserves in the 2007-4th quarter, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 17, 2008. After recognition of such reserve actions, management currently expects after-tax operating income to range between US$55 million and US$75 million for the quarter and between US$769 million and US$789 million for the twelve months ended Dec. 31, 2007. After-tax operating income is expected to be US$0.87 to US$1.19 per fully diluted share for the quarter and US$12.09 to US$12.40 per fully diluted share for the twelve months ended Dec. 31, 2007. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, after-tax operating income1 was US$817.9 million or US$12.52 per fully diluted share. Net income for the quarter, including after-tax net realized capital losses of US$51 million or US$0.81 per fully diluted share, primarily relating to fair value accounting for the equity portfolio, is expected to be between US$4 million and US$24 million, or US$0.06 to US$0.38 per fully diluted share. Net income for the full year, including after-tax net realized capital gains of US$62 million or US$0.98 per fully diluted share, is expected to range between US$831 million and US$851 million, which would be between US$13.06 and US$13.37 per fully diluted share. Craig Eisenacher, the Company's Chief Financial Officer said, "Inasmuch as we had previously announced that we would be conducting an in depth review of our potential asbestos exposures, we believe that early disclosure of the outcome of the review in the context of our expected operating results is helpful to our investors and potential investors." Hamilton, Bermuda-based Everest Re Group Ltd. operates through various subsidiaries. Everest Reinsurance Co. provides reinsurance to property and casualty insurers in both the U.S. and international markets. Everest Reinsurance (Bermuda) Ltd. provides reinsurance and insurance to worldwide property and casualty markets and reinsurance to life insurers. Everest National Insurance Co. and Everest Security Insurance Co. provide property and casualty insurance to policyholders in the U.S. Everest Indemnity Insurance Co. offers excess and surplus lines insurance in the U.S. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mediation on ASARCO Claims Set for Jan. 24 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court-appointed mediator on ASARCO LLC's derivative asbestos liability, Judge Elizabeth Magner of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, has set Jan. 24, 2008 as the continuation of the mediation on asbestos claims. ASARCO discloses that mediation on the asbestos claims began in October 2007 and continued in November 2007 and December 2007. During those mediations, ASARCO says Judge Magner has identified the need for a global resolution of the Company's bankruptcy issues and began a dialog among ASARCO, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for Subsidiary Committee, Robert C. Pate, the Court-appointed Future Claims Representative, the U.S. Department of Justice and other parties. Asarco Inc., in a Court filing, says the asbestos parties have presented experts, expert testimonies and evidence during the asbestos mediations. Asarco Inc. discloses that ASARCO LLC's asbestos expert, Dr. Francine Rabinovitz, has estimated that ASARCO LLC's asbestos liabilities, assuming that it is fully liable for the acts of its asbestos subsidiaries, is between $242,100,000 and $446,900,000. Asarco Inc. further discloses that Dr. Charles Bates, the expert hired by the Asbestos Committee, estimated that ASARCO LLC's maximum asbestos liability is US$180 million, again assuming that ASARCO was fully liable for the acts of its subsidiaries. American Home Assurance Co. and Lexington Insurance Co. join in the response of Century Indemnity Co. to the extension of the scope of the "neutrality" clause to other insurance companies aside from Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 63; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asarco Inc. Urges Court to Appoint Examiner ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asarco Inc., the 100-percent equity holder of ASARCO LLC, asks the Court to appoint an examiner to: (a) Investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the good faith of the ongoing negotiations among the Debtors and certain other constituents with respect to the terms of the future plan of reorganization for the Debtors; (b) Determine the value of the Debtors; (c) Investigate the good faith of the settlements of claims reached among the Debtors, the asbestos claimants and the U.S. Department of Justice with respect to asbestos and environmental claims asserted against the Debtors; and (d) Investigate whether ASARCO LLC has fulfilled its fiduciary duties to its parent company, Asarco Inc. Charles A. Beckham, Jr., at Haynes and Boone LLP, in Houston, points out certain issues that he thinks creates a "disturbing picture," not only as to whether the Debtors fulfilled their fiduciary duties, settled claims in good faith, and entered into appropriate plan negotiations, but also as to whether they have fulfilled their responsibilities to the Court. Mr. Beckham alleges that Asarco LLC is hiding "crucial information regarding claims and valuation." He relates that in November 2007, ASARCO LLC's counsel has led the Court to believe that the Company did not have an estimate of claims or a valuation analysis, and yet, ASARCO LLC, in December 2007, presented claims analysis and valuation reports at the the fraudulent complaint litigation against Americas Mining Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division. Mr. Beckham says the claims analysis report was prepared by AlixPartners and the valuation report was prepared by Lehman Brothers Inc. Those reports, however, were subject to confidentiality agreements and thus, were not publicly available, he tells the Court. "The lack of candor by the Debtors' professionals is symptomatic of a 'win at all costs' approach to disenfranchising the Parent, and calls into question the good faith of the Debtors' actions," Mr. Beckham asserts. Mr. Beckham asserts that an examiner will probe into whether ASARCO LLC's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by refusing to substantively respond to the stand-alone reorganization plan, which intends to pay 100 percent to creditors, that Asarco Inc. proposed in 2007. In addition, the examiner will investigate ASARCO LLC's good faith intention in entering into settlements. Mr. Beckham discloses that ASARCO LLC has agreed to a settlement of its derivative asbestos liabilities for a multiple of its own expert's maximum liability estimate, without even contesting the issue of its liability under a corporate-veil-piercing theory for the liabilities of its subsidiaries. Mr. Beckham asserts that appointment of an examiner is mandated by Section 1104(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, on the request of a party-in-interest when a debtor's fixed, liquidated unsecured debts, other than debts for goods, services, or taxes, owing to an insider, exceed US$5 million. ASARCO LLC has stated, in its Chapter 11 Petition, that its has at least US$440 million of those debts, he notes. Asarco Inc. thus asks the Court to afford any examiner a broad mandate. The examiner should be empowered to provide an independent investigation of ASARCO LLC's conduct and should be allowed to begin an investigation as soon as possible, Mr. Beckham asserts. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 63; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Links Worker's Death to Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at the Kettering Magistrates Court heard that the death of Dennis Millward, a Northamptonshire, England native, was linked to asbestos, Evening Telegraph reports. Mr. Millward died at the age of 73 after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Mr. Millward's wife, June, told the Court that he worked for a time moving asbestos window sills at a block of flats in London. He would also cut and grind asbestos sheets without wearing any protective clothing. Mr. Millward went to the doctor after suffering from weight loss and breathlessness at the start of 2007 and died in Cransley Hospice on July 8, 2007. Coroner Anne Pember recorded a verdict of death by industrial disease and said, "He was exposed to asbestos when the dangers were not known." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Police Officer's Death Linked to Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at a court in Doncaster, South Yorkshire, England, court linked the death of retired constable Michael Jones to asbestos exposure, The Star reports. Mr. Jones may be the first South Yorkshire police officer to die from an industrial disease. However, it is a mystery how Mr. Jones, who was only aged 49 when he died, came into contact with deadly asbestos during his career of almost 30 years. The only line of inquiry for the Doncaster Coroner is a day about 20 years ago when Mr. Jones is believed to have visited a garage workshop where car brake pads were being made. At one time brake linings were made from asbestos to increase their heat resistance under heavy braking. Mr. Jones' widow, 48-year-old Julie Jones, was with her husband when he died on Jan. 11, 2008 in St John's Hospice at Balby. She told the inquest her husband had started suffering with chest pains and breathing difficulties in the summer of 2006 and went to see his GP who referred him to a hospital consultant. Mr. Jones had a biopsy taken and he was told in August 2006 that he was suffering from mesothelioma. Asked where Mr. Jones might have been exposed to the fibers, Mrs. Jones said the only place she knew of was when he was working as a traffic officer and visited a Ferodo garage where they were making brake pads. Mr. Jones spent some time in St John's Hospice last August 2007 and returned on Jan. 7, 2008. Coroner Stanley Hooper, who said a preliminary post-mortem report showed Mr. Jones had died from mesothelioma, adjourned the inquest for further medical evidence. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Legal Statement Submitted for Probe in Del. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Rickard, President of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, has submitted a statement for the record to the Delaware Special Committee on Superior Court Asbestos Litigation on the increase in asbestos claims in the Delaware court system, according to a U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform press release dated Jan. 17, 2008. The statement read: Asbestos lawsuits from non-Delaware residents, for claims occurring in other states, are being brought into Delaware at an increasing rate. We applaud the Delaware judicial system for investigating how to deal with the influx of these out-of-state lawsuits. If left unchecked, these suits could overwhelm the courts and threaten the fairness and efficiency that is the foundation of Delaware's courts. For the past seven years, Delaware has ranked number one on the Institute for Legal Reforms annual Harris Survey of the 50 state civil justice systems for its unbiased, efficient and fair court system. Maintaining the highest-ranked court system in the nation does not happen without continual work to ensure that court dockets are effectively managed and claims are fairly adjudicated on their merits, and the Delaware courts are to be commended for beginning to address the issue. The mission of the Institute for Legal Reform is to make America's legal system simpler, fairer, and faster for everyone. It seeks to promote civil justice reform through legislative, political, judicial, and educational activities at the national, state, and local levels. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation, representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Ct. Issues Split Ruling in A-Best Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, 10th District, Franklin County, entered split rulings in asbestos-related actions filed by Robert Penn, Mack D. Price, Georgia Ward, and Toledo Harrison, against various defendants including A-Best Products Co. The cases are styled: Robert Penn et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Lula Penn et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. A-Best Products Co. et al., Defendants- Appellees. Mack D. Price, Plaintiff-Appellant, Ronald A. McKnight et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. A-Best Products Co. et al., Defendants- Appellees. Georgia Ward, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Herschel Ward, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A-Best Products Co. et al., Defendants-Appellees. Toledo Harrison as the Administratrix of the Estate of Edward Harrison et al., Defendants-Appellants, Robert Peters Jr. et al., Defendants-Appellees, v. A-Best Products Co. et al., Defendants-Appellees. Judges Brown, McGrath and Tyack entered judgment of Case Nos. 07AP-404, 07AP-405, 07AP-406, 07AP-407 on Dec. 31, 2007. In these consolidated appeals Robert Penn; John R. Hubbard; Marilyn Roth, individually, and as executor of the estate of James H. Roth, deceased; William A. Siegel; Mack Price; Herschel Ward; Robert L. Williams; and Edward Harrison appealed from judgments of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, in which the court denied appellants' motions to prove a prima facie case and appellants' motion for trial setting. Appellants were employed by various defendant-appellee companies and were exposed to asbestos during the course of their employment. In 2001 and 2002, the current appellants, along with numerous other appellants, filed separate actions against defendants-appellees. The appellants in the actions claimed they had been diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases caused by their employment with appellees. Appellants filed motions to prove a prima facie case and motions to set trial date in June 2006 through September 2005. On April 16, 2007, the trial court denied appellants' motions, finding that those plaintiffs' claims based upon wrongful death, asbestosis, and lung cancer had failed to demonstrate a prima facie case and those plaintiffs' claims for colon and laryngeal cancers had not accrued because they were not diagnosed by a "competent medical authority." Appellants have appealed the judgments of the trial court. Owens Illinois Inc. has filed an appellee's brief with the Appeals Court. H.B. Fuller Co., Industrial Holdings Corp., Union Carbide Corp., Amchem Products Inc., Certainteed Corp., Foseco Inc., and Caborundum Company Inc., have also filed an appellees' brief. Accordingly, appellants' first and third assignments of error were overruled, appellants' second and fourth assignments of error were sustained, and appellants' fifth assignment of error were moot. The judgments of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas were affirmed in part and reversed in part, and these matters were remanded to that court for further proceedings in accordance with law. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Corp. Gets $125M from Trust ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Federal-Mogul Personal Injury Asbestos Trust, on Jan. 11, 2007, repaid its obligations to Federal-Mogul Corp. under the Loan, Security and Pledge Agreement (US$125 Million Loan Agreement) by paying US$125 million in cash to the Company, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 17, 2008. On Dec. 27, 2007, the Company, in accordance with the 4th Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of Federal-Mogul Corp. and its U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries that commenced chapter 11 cases, entered into the USS$125 Million Loan Agreement with the Asbestos Trust, in connection with the Asbestos Trust issuing and delivering a US$125 million note to the Company ("US$125 Million Note"). The US$125 Million Note was non-interest-bearing and matured 10 business days after the Effective Date, which maturity date was Jan. 11, 2008. As a result of the Jan. 11, 2008 maturity, the Company has released its security interest in the 6,958,333 shares of Class B Common Stock of the Company that had been pledged by the Asbestos Trust as security for the Asbestos Trust's obligations under the US$125 Million Note. In accordance with the terms of the Plan, US$40 million, representing 32 percent of the cash repayment made by the Asbestos Trust, has been put into escrow pending the resolution of certain Relevant Claims. Southfield, Mich.-based Federal-Mogul Corp. makes components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. Products include chassis and engine parts, pistons, and sealing systems sold under brand names like Federal-Mogul, Glyco, and Signal-Stat. The Company also distributes auto parts to aftermarket customers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Remand Motion in Scott Case Pending in Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, will remand an asbestos-related negligence case filed by Albert L. Scott and spouse Laverne Scott to the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, in which the case is filed against Duquesne Light Co. The case is styled Albert L. Scott and Laverne Scott, his wife, Plaintiff(s), v. Duquesne Light Co., Defendant(s). District Judge Arthur J. Schwab entered judgment of Case No. 07cv1690 on Dec. 28, 2007. The Scotts alleged that Mr. Scott was exposed to asbestos- containing products during his employment from 1941 through 1985 with Duquesne Light. The complaint in this action was originally filed by the Scotts in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Pa. However, Duquesne Light filed a notice of removal to the District Court alleging that because Mr. Scott testified in another case that he worked for the Shippingport Power Station, a station which was "sponsored" or "operated" by the federal government and is not a party to this action, that Duquesne Light is entitled to a government contractor defense to this action. Duquesne Light sought removal of this action. Pending before the District Court is the Scotts' motion to remand and Duquesne's response. Peter T. Paladino Jr., Jason T. Shipp, Goldberg, Persky, Jennings & White, Pittsburgh, represented Albert L. Scott and Laverne Scott. Nicholas J. Zidik, Swartz Campbell, Pittsburgh, represented Duquesne Light Co. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Prison Inmates File Action v. State of Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thirty-three current and former inmates at the Chillicothe Correctional Institute have filed an asbestos-related federal lawsuit against the State of Ohio, 10 Investigates reports. The inmates allege that their health was put at risk while they served prison time. In the suit, they claim prison officials knew for years about an asbestos problem inside the Chillicothe Correctional Institution, but failed to act. Gerald Smith, who served 18 months at the prison, is one of the plaintiffs listed on the suit. He said he was exposed to the asbestos and continues to suffer from the effects. According to Mr. Smith, he routinely encountered the asbestos while working as a plumber inside the prison. He said, "If we have a rupture in the pipe, this means the steam is blowing through the asbestos, blowing all the asbestos in the air." Mr. Smith, along with other inmates, said that they collected samples of the alleged asbestos from areas inside the prison, including floors. Laboratory tests ordered by the inmates' lawyers showed that the samples tested positive for asbestos. The attorney for Mr. Smith and the other plaintiffs told 10 Investigates that money was not motivation for the suit. The amount of the lawsuit has not yet been determined. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Corp. Claimants File Amended Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Congoleum Corp., on Jan. 18, 2008, said that an amended reorganization plan was filed by the future claimants' representative in its Chapter 11 proceedings, RTT News reports. The Company said it believes the plan would receive the support of the official bondholders' committee and the official asbestos claimants' committee. A hearing to consider the adequacy of the disclosure statement describing the plan is scheduled for Feb. 14, 2008. If the plan is approved by the court and accepted by the requisite creditor constituencies, it would permit the Company to exit Chapter 11 free of liability for existing or future asbestos claims. As per the amended plan, a trust would be created that assumes the liability for the Company's current and future asbestos claims. That trust would receive the proceeds of various settlements the Company has reached with a number of insurance carriers, and would be assigned the Company's rights under its remaining policies covering asbestos product liability. Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corp. makes flooring products for residential and commercial use. Products include resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it-yourself vinyl tile, and commercial flooring. American Biltrite Inc. owns about 66 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Protesters to Head to London on Jan. 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Representatives of trade unions, health groups, and law firms specializing in industrial disease litigation, on Jan. 29, 2008, will head to London to lobby the Government to overturn the House of Lords' October 2007 ruling on asbestos-related pleural plaques, The Star reports. The campaigners are preparing to descend on the Houses of Parliament to protest at the judgment which will deny thousands of workers suffering an asbestos-related condition the right to claim compensation. The Law Lords ruled that pleural plaques, a scarring of the lungs which can be a forerunner of deadly asbestosis and mesothelioma, is not a disease in itself, and therefore sufferers could not get compensation. However, the campaigners believe the judgment ignores the anxiety and fear caused by the condition. Michael Clapham, MP for Barnsley West and Penistone, is at the forefront of a growing parliamentary campaign calling on the Government to introduce legislation to overturn the controversial legal decision. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Plumber's Widow Gets GBP100,000 Payout ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daphne Reay, the widow of plumber Keith Reay, has received more than GBP100,000 in asbestos compensation in an out-of-court settlement after a five-year legal battle with insurers, HVR reports. Mr. Reay, of Stocksfield, Northumberland, England, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in November 2002. He died nine months later at the age of 52. Mr. Reay was employed as an apprentice plumber by builders J.H. Newman & Sons (Hexham) Ltd. for 17 years, between leaving school in 1967 and 1984. As a plumber and heating engineer, he was exposed to asbestos during the course of his work for J.H. Newman. <