C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, February 15, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 33 Headlines 99c ONLY: Calif. Court Approves $3.2M Settlement in Labor Cases AK STEEL: Judge to Decide Fate of $663M Agreement by Month's End AMERICAN ITALIAN: $25M Securities Suit Deal Gets Final Approval AT&T: Sued For Denying Managers Overtime Pay and Meal Breaks BELLA POULTRY: Employees Sue Firm Over Lack of Overtime Pay BROOKS AUTOMATION: Massachusetts Suit Seeks Class Certification CAREER EDUCATION: Students Sue Over Medical Assistant Program COVIDIEN LTD: Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal of Calif. Lawsuit COVIDIEN LTD: Court Dismisses Claims v. Firm in Antitrust Suit COVIDIEN LTD: No Trial Date Set for "Sharps Containers" Lawsuit CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Suit Over Mortgage Pass-Through Certs CRUISE SHIPS: Faces Suit Over Collusion to Fix Fuel Surcharges DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Continues to Face Elderly Abuse Suit in Calif. DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Expects Mid-2008 Ruling on Appeal in "Bufil" DOMEGA INT'L: Recalls Dried Plums for Undeclared Sulfites DUSKIN CO: Japan Court Orders Execs to Pay JPY5.3BB in Damages FOREST LABORATORIES: To Participate in Mediation with Plaintiffs HAWAII: Court Says Enrollment System for Homeless Must Be Fixed KIDDIE KOLLEGE: High Mercury Levels Suit Granted Certification LOWE'S HOME: Workers File Lawsuit Over Denied Overtime Pay MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces Calif. Litigation Over "Tele Aid" System OKLAHOMA: Human Services Dept. Faces Lawsuit for Child Neglect ONION CROCK: Recalls Soups Due to Undeclared Wheat and Soy RELATED GROUP: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Condo Deposit Refunds SIEGFRIED & PARZIFAL: Recalls Hoodies for Strangulation Hazard SOFT AIR: Recalls RC Helicopters Due to Fire and Burn Hazards * White House Asks Supreme Court to Dismiss Apartheid Suits New Securities Fraud Cases MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Berger & Montague Files MD Securities Suit SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Abraham Fruchter Files CA Securities Fraud Suit SUNOPTA INC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Faces 498 Claims at Dec. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Ongoing v. Rockwell Automation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exide Unit Still to Pay $300,000 for Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Death from Exposure at ICI ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japanese Gov't. Expands Tests for Buildings ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ARCA Bares New Asbestos-Handling Methods ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RailCorp Hurstville Station Set for Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tampering of Study Claimed by Indian Groups ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ironville Residents Complain v. Contractors ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Technologies Has 3,100 Suits at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Pending v. Scotts Miracle-Gro ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Reserves $50M at Dec. for Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Faces Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: STERIS Could Face Product Exposure Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Still Has $8.4M Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Records 120T Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Has $478M in Insurance Receivables ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Still Has Suits From Old Ventures ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in Sales Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Schools Ordered to Test for All Types ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Phil. Gov't. Seeks Ban on Asbestos Products ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MP Reed Blasts Denial of Payout to Victims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Commissioner Closes Maylands Hangars ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wis. County Aims to Make Amends for Release ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Weyerhaeuser Co. Lobbies for Legal Reforms ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Cites $30.8M Charge in 2007 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liberty Mutual Notes Increase in A&E Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: La. Parish Imposes Waiver for Demolitions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transkei Cradle for Disease, Professor Says ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mueller Subsidiaries Face Asbestos Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 10,442 Cases Pending v. Mallinckrodt Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cabot Records 55,000 AO Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. BJ Services Pending in Mississippi ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameron Int'l. Records 60 Claims at Nov. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum's Plan Filed in Bankruptcy Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argo Group Cites $17.6M Charge for A&E Loss ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Suit Filed on Jan. 2 in Tex. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Parties File Briefs on Admissibility ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Examiner Gives 1st Update on Tersigni Probe ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shacklocks Sees Rise in Injury Claims in UK ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Seeks Approval to Extend $250M Loan ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Collinsville Grants $250T for Lodge Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-T&N Worker's Kin Gets Payout for Injury ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cargill Inc. Workers File $3M Suit in Tenn. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Report Says Chillicothe Prison Had Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Howard County OKs Hazard Removal from Jail ********* 99c ONLY: Calif. Court Approves $3.2M Settlement in Labor Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- The Ventura County Superior Court gave preliminary approval to the proposed $3.2 million settlement of two labor-related class actions filed against 99c Only Stores. The two suits are: -- "Vargas v. 99c Only Stores," filed in the Ventura County Superior Court in California, and -- "Washington v. 99c Only Stores,” which was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in California. Vargas Litigation On June 19, 2006, plaintiff Joanna Vargas filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company seeking to represent its California retail non-exempt employees. The Vargas lawsuit alleges that 99c Only failed to provide or pay for meal or rest breaks and associated claims, non-payment of wages, and non- payment of overtime wages. The Vargas lawsuit sought compensatory, special and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, penalties, attorneys fees and injunctive relief. Washington Litigation On Oct. 31, 2006, plaintiff Chantelle Washington filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company seeking to represent its California retail non-exempt cashier employees with respect to similar claims, alleging the failure to provide or pay for meal or rest breaks and associated claims. The Washington lawsuit seeks compensatory damages and penalties in unspecified amounts, as well as equitable relief, attorney fees and interest. The Vargas and Washington actions have now been coordinated in Ventura County Superior Court. In November 2007, the Company and both Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement providing for a maximum settlement payment of $3.2 million (including attorneys' fees). On Nov. 30, 2007, the court granted preliminary approval for the settlement and authorized the parties to provide a notice to class members about the settlement, according to 99 Cents Only Stores' Feb. 11, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2007. 99 Cents Only Stores -- http://www.99only.com/-- is a deep- discount retailer of consumable general merchandise. AK STEEL: Judge to Decide Fate of $663M Agreement by Month's End ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Timothy Black of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio is set to decide by the end of February the fate of a proposed $663 million settlement of the class action, "Bailey et al. v. AK Steel Corp., Case No. 1:06- cv-00468-MRB," Mike Boyer of The Cincinnati Enquirer reports. On Feb. 12, 2008, Judge Black opened a two-day hearing into the fairness of the settlement, which would settle the 20-month-old class action filed by AK retirees who challenged the steel maker's decision to make them pay more for their health benefits. The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that in the course of the packed hearing, Judge Black closely questioned attorneys for the retirees who challenged the proposed settlement. Specifically, Judge Black asked Glenn Whitaker, Esq., who is representing the objectors to the settlement, what would happen if he rejects the proposed settlement. Mr. Whitaker told the judge that AK Steel would sweeten it, since it would relieve the company of the uncertainty of paying for the retirees' future health care, a cost estimated at more than $1 billion. When asked if the case should proceed to trial, Mr. Whitaker answered, "I believe (the plaintiffs) will win," Cincinnati Enquirer relates. 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 that AK Steel was terminating their existing healthcare insurance benefits plan and implementing a new plan more consistent with current steel industry practices (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 25, 2008). However, this new plan would require the retirees to contribute to the cost of their healthcare benefits, effective Oct. 1, 2006. On July 18, 2006, a group of nine former hourly and salaried members of the AEIF filed a purported class action with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging that AK Steel did not have a right to make changes to their healthcare benefits. The named plaintiffs in the 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 Aug. 4, 2006, the plaintiffs 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 Sept. 22, 2006, the trial court issued an order granting the motion. Almost immediately, AK Steel filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit seeking a reversal of the decision to grant the preliminary injunction. Settlement However, while the appeal was pending, AK Steel announced on Oct. 8, 2007, that it had reached a tentative settlement of the claims of the retirees. Accordingly, on Oct. 18, 2007, the pending appeal from the preliminary injunction was dismissed at the request of the parties. Under the terms of the settlement, AK Steel will transfer to a Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association trust all post employment benefit obligations owed to the plaintiffs 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. The settlement will relieve AK Steel of any further liability for any OPEB Obligations to the plaintiffs. The suit is "Bailey et al. v. AK Steel Corp., Case No. 1:06-cv- 00468-MRB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Michael R. Barrett presiding. 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 Representing the company is: Gregory Parker Rogers, Esq. Taft, Stettinius & Hollister 1800 First Star Tower 425 Walnut Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-357-9349 e-mail: Rogers@Taftlaw.com Representing the objectors is: Glenn Virgil Whitaker, Esq. Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease Atrium Two, 221 E Fourth Street, Suite 2000 Cincinnati, OH 45201-0236 Phone: 513-723-4000 e-mail: gvwhitaker@vssp.com AMERICAN ITALIAN: $25M Securities Suit Deal Gets Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ortrie D. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, on Feb. 12, granted final approval to the $25 million settlement of the federal securities class action "In re American Italian Pasta Co. Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:05-cv-00725-ODS." Shareholders have filed lawsuits against American Italian since August 2005 when the firm started reviewing its accounting practices. The suits accuse the company of improper inventory, underreporting marketing allowances paid to distributors and improperly capitalizing costs that should have been listed as expenses. American Italian then said it is withdrawing financial results for the last three years because they contained errors in accounting for product promotion and overhead costs. Seven suits were consolidated in December 2005 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 21, 2005). In March, Judge Ortrie Smith granted certification to the lawsuit designating three Iron Workers' Union locals as lead plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2007). The ironworkers' locals had used Kent T. Perry & Co. LC of Overland Park for local counsel. Judge Smith accepted Perry & Co.'s motion to make the New York law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross lead counsel. On Oct. 2007, American Italian Pasta Company (Pink Sheets: AITP) entered into a Stipulation of Settlement with lead plaintiffs in the securities class action (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2007). The settlement resolves federal securities law claims asserted in the consolidated class action pending in federal court in Kansas City, styled, "In re American Italian Pasta Company Securities Litigation (Case No. 05-CV-0725-W-ODS)." The federal securities law claims will be settled for approximately $25 million, comprised of $11 million in cash, all of which will be contributed by the Company's insurers, and $14 million in the Company's common shares. The Stipulation applies to a class consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's common shares on or after Jan. 23, 2002, and who continued to hold such shares on Aug. 9, 2005, and all persons who purchased the Company's common shares on or after Aug. 10, 2005, who continued to hold such shares as of Aug. 17, 2005. Under the settlement, the Company's common shares will be part of both the proposed fee award to plaintiff's counsel and consideration to be distributed to the class. The Company's settlement includes $14 million in common shares, with the number of shares distributed in accordance with the Stipulation. If the share price, at the time the Court authorizes distribution is less than $9.60 but equal to or greater than $6.50, the Company will be required to issue the number of shares to maintain the $14 million value as adjusted for plaintiff counsel's fee award. The settlement does not resolve derivative claims asserted in separate lawsuits against the Company and certain of its former and current officers and directors, which claims remain pending. The court's final approval confirms the settlement of the class action lawsuit for $25 million, comprised of $11 million in cash, all of which will be contributed by the Company's insurers, and $14 million in the Company's common shares to be distributed pursuant to the court's approval and the settlement agreement of the parties. While the court's final approval order remains subject to appeal, the settlement was approved without objections and no class member opted out of the settlement. The suit is "In re American Italian Pasta Co. Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:05-cv-00725-ODS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, under Judge Ortrie D. Smith. Plaintiffs' lead counsel: Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, New York 10017-5516 Phone: 212-661-1100 Fax: 212-661-8665 Web site: http://www.pomlaw.com AT&T: Sued For Denying Managers Overtime Pay and Meal Breaks ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles, California, on Feb. 13, 2008, charging AT&T with violating California labor laws by denying employees earned overtime pay and meal breaks. The lawsuit seeks payment of unpaid overtime compensation, reimbursement of business expenses, and an hour of wages for every meal break denied for over one hundred employees who have worked during the past four years in California providing customer service and selling products and services to AT&T business clients. The lawsuit, filed by plaintiffs Joseph Mahoney and Tonya Pillow, asserts that AT&T violated California law by denying account managers and service managers, and others similarly situated, overtime pay. Account managers and service managers regularly worked more than eight hours per day and forty hours per week without receiving overtime pay. Account managers also worked more than five hours without receiving an uninterrupted meal break as required under California law. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that service managers incurred necessary business expenses associated with maintaining their home offices that AT&T failed to reimburse. "AT&T pressured its account managers and other customer service managers to work overtime by overloading them with accounts to provide customer service and pressuring them to sell added products and services," explained Plaintiff's attorney Kimberly Snyder, Esq. "AT&T has no excuse for not compensating its account and service managers for the overtime they worked and the meal breaks they missed," added her co-counsel Joseph Jaramillo, Esq. Plaintiff is represented by Grace, Hollis, Lowe, Hanson & Schaeffer LLP, which is based in San Diego, and Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian of Oakland, California. The case is "Joseph Mahoney v. AT&T, Inc., et al., Case No. BC 385361," filed with the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Representing the plaintiffs are: Kimberly Snyder, Esq. Grace Hollis Lowe Hanson & Schaeffer, LLP 3555 Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 Phone: (619) 692-0800 Fax: (619) 692-0822 Web site: http://www.gracehollis.com/ e-mail: ksnyder@gracehollis.com - and - Joseph Jaramillo, Esq. Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 763-9800 Fax: (510) 835-1417 Web site: http://www.gdblegal.com/ e-mail: jjaramillo@gdblegal.com BELLA POULTRY: Employees Sue Firm Over Lack of Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Current and former employees at foie gras and poultry plants around Sullivan County have joined a class-action lawsuit alleging that they were not paid the minimum wage and were not properly compensated for overtime, Michal Lumsden writes for Times Herald-Record. According to Times Herald, more than 200 employees who worked at Stanton Corner Road's La Belle Farm Inc., or Bella Poultry Inc. -- or at any of the owners' five subsidiaries -- as duck feeders, chicken catchers, slaughterers and butchers since March 2000 had until January 2008 to opt in or out of the court- approved class. However, because only 28 have joined and 27 have specifically opted out, the plaintiffs' lawyer, Dan Werner, Esq., of Workers' Rights Law Center in Kingston, suspects that the defendants have pressured current employees to not participate. Mr. Werner filed the suit in March 2006 with the U.S. District Court in White Plains. The complaint seeks lost wages as well as twice the employees' unpaid minimum and overtime wages. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that in violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, the defendant owner-operators Nelson Saravia, Hector Abel Saravia and Cheuk Lee did not keep detailed payroll records, among other things. While many of the plaintiffs are immigrants, Mr. Werner would not comment on their legal status, Times Herald relates. State and federal wage and overtime laws protect documented and undocumented workers alike, the report notes. Yet, regardless of immigration status, agricultural workers are exempt from overtime protections. To this, Mr. Werner argues that the jobs the plaintiffs performed were more industrial in nature than agricultural. The plaintiffs are represented by: Dan Werner, Esq. Workers' Rights Law Center Of New York, Inc. 101 Hurley Ave., Suite 5 Kingston, New York 12401 Phone: (845) 331-6615 Fax: (845) 331-6617 e-mail: dwerner@wnylc.com The defendants are represented by: Monte B. Lake, Esq. Siff, Cerda and Lake LLP 1020 16th Street, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 457-7770 Fax: (202) 457-7776 e-mail: mbl@scllaw.com BROOKS AUTOMATION: Massachusetts Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the litigation captioned "James R. Shaw v. Brooks Automation, Inc. et al.," which is currently pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, filed a motion that seeks class-action status for the matter. The original complaint alleges that defendants Brooks Automation, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results, thus causing Brooks' shares to trade at artificially inflated prices (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2007. Recently, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, and allowed the lead plaintiff's motion to add a named plaintiff. In particular, the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against individual defendants, Joseph Martin, and Ellen Richstone were dismissed, and the Section 11 claims against Mr. Martin, defendants Robert Woodbury, and Edward Grady were dismissed. Also, the Section 11 claims against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP were dismissed, and therefore dismissed entirely. The motions were denied as to the remaining claims in the consolidated amended complaint. On Jan. 22, 2008, the plaintiffs in the action filed a motion for class certification, according to Brooks Automation, Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "James R. Shaw v. Brooks Automation, Inc. et al.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Rya W. Zobel presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Peter A. Pease, Esq. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo One Liberty Square, 8th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617/542-8300 Fax: 617/542-1194 e-mail: ppease@bermanesq.com - and - Daniel P. Chiplock, Esq. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP 780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-355-9500 Fax: 212-355-9592 e-mail: dchiplock@lchb.com Representing the defendants is: Randall W. Bodner, Esq. Ropes & Gray LLP One International Place Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-951-7000 x7776 Fax: 617-951-7050 e-mail: rbodner@ropesgray.com - and - Joseph P. Messina, Esq. Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, PC One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 Phone: 617-542-6000 Fax: 617-542-2241 e-mail: jpmessina@mintz.com CAREER EDUCATION: Students Sue Over Medical Assistant Program ------------------------------------------------------------- Sanford Brown College and Career Education Corp. are facing a class-action complaint filed on Feb. 11, 2008, with the Madison County Circuit Court, alleging that the defendants fraudulently induced the plaintiffs and the class to join a medical assistant program through a number of deceptive acts, Steve Gonzalez of the St. Clair Record reports. The named plaintiffs are: -- Jenna Lilley, -- Jessica Lilley, -- Candace Lindsay and -- Ashley Cunningham. The plaintiffs claim that they were aware they needed to take prerequisite courses in order to attend an accredited institution and inquired with Sanford Brown to see if the medical assistant program would fulfill the prerequisite requirements for a nursing program. "None of the four putative class representatives had any interest in taking the medical assistant program to become a medical assistant," the complaint states. "They saw the medical assistant program as a stepping-stone to becoming a registered nurse." The admissions representatives at Sanford Brown allegedly claim that: -- The tuition to attend Sanford Brown and obtain a medical assistant certificate was fixed, however students were forced to pay twice for classes they failed; -- The instructors had real-world experience and were otherwise well-qualified, however the majority of the instructors were themselves graduates of Sanford Brown, with little or no real-world experience. -- The students would be provided with the most up-to-date training aids and equipment but much of the perishable equipment provided was past its expiration date; -- The students would be placed in an actual doctor's office, however Sanford Brown was unable to place students in externships; and the students that were placed were assigned as a secretary or receptionist, not a medical assistant; and -- That there was a high demand for medical assistants, however the field is well staffed and doctors do not hire students from Sanford Brown because they are not properly trained. According to the complaint, Sanford Brown violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by engaging in conduct that creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding. The plaintiffs, who are area nursing students, claim they suffered actual damages by Sanford Brown's deceptive practices by the payment of fraudulently obtained tuition, by the payment for textbooks which were of no use, being overcharged for equipment and medical aides, being forced to purchase items from the school and exhausting federal aide available to them making it impossible to pursue a legitimate degree. "Plaintiffs and class members would not have sustained the damages but for the defendants deceptive practices in fraudulently inducing them to enroll in the medical assistant program," the complaint further states. According to the complaint, all persons who attended Sanford Brown in Collinsville and enrolled in the medical assistant program are eligible to join the class. The plaintiffs and class are seeking a judgment for: -- Compensatory, consequential, and incidental damages; -- General damages, including emotional distress in amount to be proved at trial; -- Disgorgement and restitution of all monies converted, taken or appropriated by Sanford Brown; and -- Prejudgment interest, attorney fees and costs of the suit. The plaintiffs are represented by: John Carey, Esq. David Bauman, Esq. Corey Sullivan, Esq. Carey & Danis, L.L.C. 8235 Forsyth Blvd. Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Toll Free: (800) 721-2519 Phone: (314) 725-7700 (voice) Fax: (314) 721-0905 e-mail: jcarey@careydanis.com dbauman@careydanis.com csullivan@careydanis.com COVIDIEN LTD: Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal of Calif. Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the consolidated class action "In re: Pulse Oximetry Antitrust litigation," which is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, are seeking to appeal an earlier order dismissing the suit, which names Covidien, Ltd., as defendant, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 28, 2007. Beginning on Aug. 29, 2005, 12 consumer class actions have been filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In all of the complaints, the putative class representatives, on behalf of themselves and others, seek to recover overcharges they allegedly paid for pulse oximetry products as a result of anticompetitive conduct by the Company in violation of the federal antitrust laws. The 12 complaints were subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding styled, "In re: Pulse Oximetry Antitrust litigation." By stipulation among the parties, five putative class representatives dismissed their claims against the Company, leaving seven remaining putative class representatives as plaintiffs in the consolidated proceeding. On Dec. 21, 2007, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Thus, the plaintiffs are appealing the ruling. Covidien Ltd. -- http://www.covidien.com-- is engaged in the development, manufacture and sale of healthcare products for use in clinical and home settings. The Company operates its business through five segments: Medical Devices, Pharmaceutical Products, Imaging Solutions, Medical Supplies and Retail Products. COVIDIEN LTD: Court Dismisses Claims v. Firm in Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri issued a Memorandum and Order dismissing all claims against Covidien, Ltd., in the purported class action, "Southeast Missouri Hospital v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv- 00031." On Feb. 21, 2007, Southeast Missouri Hospital filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated against the company and another manufacturer (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2007). The plaintiff alleges that the company and the other defendant conspired to exclude competitors from the market and to maintain the company's market share by engaging in conduct in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and money damages. The suit was brought on behalf of all persons or entities, including hospitals and other healthcare providers in the U.S. who directly purchased Urological Catheters produced, promoted, sold, marketed and distributed by one or more of the defendants, from Jan. 1, 2002, through the present. Named plaintiff Southeast Missouri Hospital says the companies use exclusionary compliance discounts, sole-source exclusive dealing contracts and bundled discounts and rebates to restrict and eliminate competition and charge inflated prices. As a result of defendants' unlawful conduct, plaintiff and the class allegedly paid prices for Urological Catheters that were artificially inflated, and were foreclosed from the opportunity to purchase more effective and innovatively advanced Urological Catheters. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) Whether the defendants engaged in a contract, combination or conspiracy among themselves to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of, or allocate the market for Urological Catheters; (b) Whether the defendants and their co-conspirators were participants in the contracts, combinations or conspiracies alleged herein; (c) Whether the defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in conduct that violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 4 of the Clayton Act; (d) Whether the defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in unlawful, unfair or deceptive contracts, combinations or conspiracies among themselves, express or implied, to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Urological Catheters sold in and/or distributed in the U.S.; (f) Whether the anticompetitive conduct of the defendants caused prices of Urological Catheters to be artificially inflated to non-competitive levels; (g) Whether the defendants unjustly enriched themselves as a result of their inequitable conduct at the expense of the Class members; (h) Whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to injunctive relief; (i) Whether plaintiff and other class members were injured by the conduct of defendants and, if so, the appropriate class-wide measure of damages (j) What is the scope of the relative market for Urological Catheters; and (k) Whether defendants have market power in the Urological Catheter. The plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the class, requests that: (1) the action may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that plaintiff's counsel be appointed class counsel, and that reasonable notice of this action be given to the class; (2) the acts alleged in the suit be adjudged and decreed to be unlawful restraints of trade in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act; (3) the class recover treble the damages determined to have been sustained by them, and that joint and several judgments be entered against defendants in favor of the class; (4) defendants be enjoined from entering into the unlawful agreements discussed above; (5) the class be granted the costs and expenses of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by law; and (6) the class be granted such other and further relief as may be determined to be just, equitable and proper by the court. On Jan. 22, 2008, the district court issued a Memorandum and Order dismissing all claims against the Company, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 28, 2007. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1a58 The suit is "Southeast Missouri Hospital v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00031-TCM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Judge Thomas C. Mummert, III presiding. Representing plaintiffs is: J. Michael Ponder, Esq. Cook and Barkett 715 N. Clark Street, P.O. Box 1180 Cape Girardeau, MO 63702-1180 Phone: 573-335-6651 Fax: 573-335-6182 e-mail: mike@semotriallawyers.com COVIDIEN LTD: No Trial Date Set for "Sharps Containers" Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- No trial date was set for the class action, "Natchitoches Parish Hospital Service District v. Tyco International, Ltd., et al.," which names Covidien, Ltd., as a defendant. The class action was filed against the Company on Sept. 15, 2005, with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In the complaint, the putative class representative, on behalf of itself and others, seeks to recover overcharges it alleges that it and others paid for sharps containers as a result of anticompetitive conduct by the Company in violation of federal antitrust laws. The parties are in the discovery stage. The district court held hearings on the plaintiff's motion for class certification on April 13, 2007, and on Sept. 18, 2007. No trial date has been scheduled, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 28, 2007. The suit is "Natchitoches Parish Hospital Service District v. Tyco International, Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-12024-PBS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Patti B. Saris presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Daniel Berger, Esq. Berger & Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-875-3026 Fax: 215-875-4604 e-mail: danberger@bm.net - and - Brett Cebulash, Esq. Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP 1501 Broadway, Suite 1416 New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212-398-0055 Fax: 212-764-6620 e-mail: bcebulash@garwingerstein.com Representing the defendants are: Margaret Branick-Abilla, Esq. Cooley Godward LLP 3000 El Camino Real, Five Palo Alto Square Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Phone: 650-843-5067 Fax: 650-857-0663 e-mail: mbranickabilla@cooley.com - and - Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: 213-229-7855 Fax: 213-229-7520 e-mail: CDusseault@gibsondunn.com CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Suit Over Mortgage Pass-Through Certs ---------------------------------------------------------- Credit Suisse Group said that it has received subpoenas and requests for information about subprime mortgages from regulators, the Associated Press reports. The company explained that it is facing a purported class-action lawsuit related to its role in underwriting mortgage pass- through certificates for a unit of Countrywide Financial Corp., considered to be the largest mortgage lender and home loan servicer in the U.S. According to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Credit Suisse is cooperating with the subpoenas and requests for information. Regulators asked for information about Credit Suisse's "origination, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related issues," AP cites the filing. The report relates that Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Bear Stearns Cos. and Morgan Stanley also previously have received requests for information related to subprime mortgages. CRUISE SHIPS: Faces Suit Over Collusion to Fix Fuel Surcharges -------------------------------------------------------------- Coral Gables attorney Harley Tropin, Esq., filed a complaint seeking class action status against several Miami-based cruise giants alleging the cruise companies colluded to fix unreasonably high fuel surcharges, bizjournals.com reports. The named defendants in the complaint includes: -- Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., -- Carnival Corp. and -- Norwegian Cruise Line. The suit is filed on behalf of New York resident Jason Ablelove, who was affected by the fuel price hike and on behalf of anyone who purchased tickets after Jan. 1 from one of several cruise companies named in the complaint paid an unreasonably high fuel surcharge illegally set by the companies. The suit claims that the string of nearly identical fuel hikes, within a short period of time, is proof that the cruise lines are engaging in price fixing. "Defendants agreed to act in concert with one another by imposing these fuel surcharges based on purported increased fuel costs," it says. "In doing so, defendants sought to opportunistically leverage their cartel power to charge their customers higher fuel surcharges." According to the report, the suit comes one week after the Florida attorney general's office said it was investigating whether Royal Caribbean and Carnival Corp. properly disclosed fuel surcharges. The plaintiffs are represented by: Harley Tropin, Esq. Kozyak, Tropin, Throckmorton 2525 Ponce De Leon 9Th Floor Miami, FL 33134 USA Web site: http://www.kttlaw.com Phone: (305) 372-1800 Fax: (305) 372-3508 e-mail: hst@kttlaw.com DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Continues to Face Elderly Abuse Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Financial Corp., and its We the People Forms and Services Centers USA business face a class-action complaint filed on Sept. 19, 2007, with the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda accusing it of financial elder abuse, fraud, and unauthorized practice of law. Named plaintiff Jacqueline Fitzgibbons brings the action on behalf of all persons over the age of 65 at the time of purchase, who paid for and received any document preparation service involving living trusts, wills, probate matters, quitclaim deeds and advance health care directives and powers of attorney from a franchise office of WTP-USA (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2007). Ms. Fitzgibbons wants the court to rule on: (a) whether the WTP defendants were engaged in the unauthorized and illegal practice of law without a license within the state of California; (b) whether the WTP defendants fraudulently induced plaintiffs to pay money to an illegal and wrongful business that was in violation of state law; (c) whether the WTP defendants were engaged in an illegal running and capping business for the attorney defendants, prohibited by Business and Professions Code Sections 11651 and 1652; (d) whether the attorney defendants, were in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 1-300 stating that a member shall not aid any person or entity in the unauthorized practice of law, which constitutes an unfair and wrongful Business Practice under Civil Code Sections 17200 and 17500; (e) whether the attorney defendants, were in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 1-310 prohibiting the forming of a partnership with a person who is not a lawyer when the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law, which constitutes an unfair and wrongful business practice under Civil Code Sections 17200 and 17500; (f) whether the attorney defendants were in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 1-320 stating that "neither a member nor a law firm shall directly or indirectly share legal fees with a person who is not a lawyer", which constitutes an unfair and wrongful business practice under Civil Code sections 172500 and 17500; and (g) whether the WTP defendants and the attorney deefndants were in a conspiracy to commit the illegal and wrongful acts alleged by creating a franchise system based on the unauthorized and illegal practice of law, and/or partnerships with attorneys. The action is brought as a representative action under California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et. seq. and California Business & Professions Code Sections 17500, et seq. and a class action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382. The lawsuit seeks to redress the defendants' unlawful and deceptive business practices in the preparation of living trust documents and provision of other services related to the preparation of these documents. Specifically, it seeks to redress defendants' pattern and practice of practicing law without a license and assisting the unauthorized practice of the law. This action seeks recovery of the remedies permitted by California law under the causes of action alleged. The plaintiff wants judgment against defendants, and each of them: -- for a court order certifying that the action may be maintained as a class action; -- for a court order requiring that defendants immediately cease acts that constitute unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices as alleged, and to enjoin defendants from continuing to engage in any such acts or practices in the future; -- disgorge and restitute any and all monies, including any profits obtained as a result of deceptive, unlawful and misleading acts and practices, including their misrepresentations, misleading statements and acts of concealment; -- compensate plaintiffs individually, and the general public, for any actual damages, with interest, incurred as a result of said unlawful, fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices; -- for general damages according to law and proof; -- for special damages according to law and proof; -- for costs of suit; -- for attorneys' fees pursuant to California Welfare Institutions Code Section 15657.5; -- for attorneys fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1029.8; -- for defendants to return to plaintiffs all funds acquired by means of any act or practice declared by the court to be unlawful or fraudulent, or to constitute unfair business practices; -- for statutory damages; -- for treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3345; -- for treble damages pursuant to California Code Civil Procedure Section 1029.8; -- punitive damages; -- for pre-judgment interest according to law; and -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 11, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Jacqueline Fitzgibbons et al. v. Dollar Financial Corp., et al., Case No. RG07347097," filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Alameda. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert S. Arns, Esq. Morgan C. Smith, Esq. Jonathat E. Davis, Esq. The Arns Law Firm 515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 495-7800 Fax: (415) 495-7888 e-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com mcs@arnslaw.com jed@arnslaw.com - and - Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq. Stebner and Associates 870 market Street, Suite 1212 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 362-9800 Fax: (415) 362-9801 e-mail: info@stebnerassociates.com DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Expects Mid-2008 Ruling on Appeal in "Bufil" -------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Financial Corp. expects a decision by 2008 on an appeal in a labor-related class action in California, which is alleging that the company failed to provide non-management employees with meal and rest breaks required under state law. Caren Bufil filed the suit on Sept. 11, 2006, seeking class certification of the action against the company for failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements and unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices under California law. The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and other relief. The company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Bufil case is duplicative of a similar case and should be dismissed. The plaintiff, meanwhile, filed her motion for class certification. The company's motion was granted, and Ms. Bufil's motion was denied. Ms. Bufil has appealed both rulings and her appellate brief will be filed shortly. The Company expected briefing to be completed by the end of October 2007 with a decision on the issues in early 2008, however, Ms. Bufil obtained a continuance, and is now expected to file her opening brief in the next two weeks. A decision on the merits should be reached by mid-2008, according to Dollar Financial Corp.'s Feb. 11, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2007. Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com-- Dollar Financial Corp. is an international financial services company serving under-banked consumers. DOMEGA INT'L: Recalls Dried Plums for Undeclared Sulfites --------------------------------------------------------- Domega International Ltd., Inc., of 98 Bay 35th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11214 is recalling KORICA Brand Dried Plum, because it contains undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life- threatening reactions if they consume this product. The recalled KORICA BRAND DRIED PLUM is sold in 6 oz. un-coded plastic jars and is a product of China. The product was sold in New York State. The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food inspectors and subsequent analysis by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of sulfites in KORICA BRAND DRIED PLUM which did not declare sulfites on the labels. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to illicit severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this product. Consumers who have purchased KORICA BRAND DRIED PLUM should return them to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-646-938-7345. DUSKIN CO: Japan Court Orders Execs to Pay JPY5.3BB in Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Japan's Supreme Court finalized a lower court ruling that ordered 13 former executives of Duskin Co., a major doughnut shop franchise, to pay damages totaling JPY5.34 million to the company over the use of an unauthorized food additive, Jiji Press reports. The top court turned down appeals filed separately by former Duskin executives and a Duskin shareholder against the Osaka High Court ruling, the report relates. The Duskin shareholder was demanding that the Duskin executives pay a total of about JPY10.6 billion in damages to the company in the class action lawsuit. The 13 executives include former Duskin Chairman Koji Chiba, Senior Managing Director Shuichi Shibahara and former Director Seisuke Sugano. Jiji Press recalls that the Osaka High Court ruled in January 2007 that the Duskin executives damaged public trust in the company by concealing the fact that the company's Chinese-made meat dumplings contained the unauthorized antioxidant and failing to recall them and report to the authorities. Duskin sold 3 million meat dumplings containing the unauthorized antioxidant at its "Mister Donut" shops from Dec. 2-20, 2000. Duskin concealed the wrongdoing until May 2002, the report recounts. FOREST LABORATORIES: To Participate in Mediation with Plaintiffs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Forest Laboratories, Inc., expects to participate in a court- ordered mediation with plaintiffs' representatives in February 2008 in connection to the consolidated securities fraud class action filed against the company and certain of its officers, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2007. Initially, several lawsuits were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a purported class of all purchasers of the company's securities between Aug. 15, 2002, and Aug. 31, 2004, or Sept. 1, 2004. These actions, the first of which was filed on March 11, 2005, were consolidated under the caption, "In re Forest Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation, 05-CV-2827-RMB." The consolidated complaints, which assert substantially similar claims, allege that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted to disclose material facts with respect to the company's business, prospects and operations, including the company's drugs for the treatment of depression and Alzheimer's disease, in violation of Section 19(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and attorneys fees. The company and the officer defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. Both fact and expert witness discovery have been completed in this action. Thus, the company may join in a Court-ordered mediation with plaintiffs’ representatives in February 2008. In addition, the company anticipates that the court will shortly establish a schedule for summary judgment motions and for trial. The suit is "In re Forest Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-02827-RMB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Richard M. Berman presiding. Representing plaintiffs are: Matthew Montgomery, Esq. Coughlin Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619)-231-1058 Fax: (619)-231-7423 e-mail: mattm@csgrr.com Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Esq. Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca. LLP 507 C Street, Ne Washington, DC 20002 Phone: 202-789-3960 Fax: 202-789 1813 (fax) e-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com - and - William H. Narwold, Esq. Motley Rice LLC One Corporate Center 20 Church Street, 17th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: 860-882-1676 Fax: 860-882-1682 (fax) e-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com Representing the defendants is: Gary W. Kubek, Esq. Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212 909-6000 Fax: 212 909-6836 e-mail: gwkubek@debevoise.com HAWAII: Court Says Enrollment System for Homeless Must Be Fixed --------------------------------------------------------------- As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 9, 2007, Lawyers for Equal Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii filed –- to advance a class action -- a motion for preliminary injunction with the federal court seeking an order that would immediately halt Hawaii state officials from enforcing laws and policies that would block the access of homeless children to public education in violation of federal law. According to the CAR, a legal complaint was filed October 2, 2007, on behalf of several homeless parents and their children, charging the State with a systemic failure to provide homeless children with equal access to a free and appropriate public education in violation of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The federal McKinney-Vento Act gives Hawaii about $200,000 a year in federal grants for homeless programs. The act requires schools to offer adequate transportation for homeless students, and allows children whose families are displaced by homelessness to enroll in the campus they were attending before, even if they move outside the district. In an update, the Honolulu Star Bulletin writes that U.S. District Judge Helen Gillmor, in an oral ruling on Feb. 11, sided with the three homeless families who sued the state. Honolulu Star says that, according to LEJ attorney William Durham, Esq., Judge Gillmor is expected to issue a written order instructing the Education Department to fix an enrollment system that would benefit homeless schoolchildren statewide. The decision, KGMB9 relates, affects the estimated 18,000 homeless kids in the state. However, this year only 300 of them are getting help in schools. KGMB9 notes that the plaintiffs' attorney had also articulated the schools' need to provide transportation for the homeless kids. The state gets hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal money every year to do so but the attorney had claimed that it is not being used properly. Thus, Judge Gillmor indicated that the school's transportation system is not working and wants more court hearings to decide how to fix it, KGMB9 says. No dates have been set yet. Honolulu Star points out that Hawaii public schools welcome Judge Gillmor's order to improve how they enroll, track and transport homeless children. Assistant Superintendent for the Department of Education Daniel Hamada acknowledged flaws in identifying homeless students, who numbered 900 by the end of the last school year, according to state data. Mr. Hamada told Honolulu Star that staff members contact parents who lack a home address or list a homeless or transitional shelter when registering to check if they need help. But that process, he noted, misses parents who are reluctant to admit they are homeless and use the address of a friend or relative where they might be staying. In her decision, Judge Gillmor also granted class-action status to the lawsuit, Honolulu Star adds. The plaintiffs are represented by: Willian H. Durham, Esq. Gavin K. Thornton, Esq. Lawyers for Equal Justice P.O. Box 37952 Honolulu, Hawaii 96837 Phone: (808) 779-1744 Fax: (808) 522-5909 e-mail: whd.lej@gmail.com gavin.thornton@gmail.com - and - Lois K. Perrin, Esq. Laurie A. Temple, Esq. ACLU of Hawaii Foundation P.O. Box 3410 Honolulu, Hawaii 96801 Phone: (808) 522-5905 Fax: (808) 522-5909 e-mail: lperrin@acluhawaii.org lt@acluhawaii.org KIDDIE KOLLEGE: High Mercury Levels Suit Granted Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- New Jersey Superior Court Judge James Rafferty granted class- action status a lawsuit in filed on behalf of children who attended Kiddie Kollege, reports say. Kiddie Kollege voluntarily shut down its facilities in July 2006 after testing found abnormal mercury levels inside the building, which used to be a thermometer factory (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 15, 2006). Testing found elevated mercury levels in 20 students and three employees. Prolonged exposure to mercury vapor can cause neurological and kidney damage. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of 55 children who were exposed to high levels of mercury at the now-closed Kiddie Kollege, seeks medical monitoring to determine whether they need treatment, The Philadelphia Inquirer said. The suit alleges that the building's former owners failed to reveal the building was contaminated with mercury. It seeks punitive and compensatory damages, including all past and future medical expenses. The complaint also seeks ongoing medical monitoring for all children who attended the day-care center. It also seeks certification as a class action, which if approved by a judge, would allow additional plaintiffs to join. Named defendants in the suit are: -- Jim Sullivan Inc., -- Navillus Group LLC, -- Jim Sullivan Real Estate Services Inc., -- James Sullivan III, -- James Sullivan IV, -- Accutherm Inc., -- Philip J. Giuliano, -- Kiddie Kollege Day Care and Preschool Inc., -- Stephen and Becky Baughman, and -- Julie and Matthew Lawlor. Specifically, the suit seeks to have the defendants: -- immediately remediate the site in accordance with state Department of Environmental Protection guidelines; -- institute a program for monitoring and any other "special maintenance" the court deems appropriate to reduce the plaintiff's health risks; -- pay compensatory damages for medical expenses for all injuries the contamination caused; -- pay attorneys' fees and costs; and -- pay any further damages allowed by law. Recently, Judge Rafferty has ruled that the families of children who attended the mercury-tainted day-care center in Franklin Township may pursue their claims in a class-action lawsuit. The Philadelphia Inquirer said another class-action lawsuit seeks medical monitoring for Kiddie Kollege employees as well as families of children in the day-care center. The suits, which are being combined, asked the judge to order medical-monitoring costs to be paid by: -- Philip Giuliani, who owned Accutherm Inc.; -- real estate broker Jim Sullivan Inc., which acquired the property in a tax foreclosure; -- Franklin Township; -- Gloucester County; -- the state Department of Environmental Protection; and -- others. Joel Korin, who represents Jim Sullivan Inc., said, "We don't think there's any need for additional monitoring." For more details, contact: Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq. Philip Stephen Fuoco, Esq. Law Firm of Philip Stephen Fuoco 24 Wilkins Place Haddonfield, NJ 08033-2406 Phone: (856) 354-1100 email: josefchen@msn.com pfuoco@msn.com - and - Joel B. Korin, Esq. Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP Plaza 1000, Suite 500, Main Street Voorhees, NJ 08043 LOWE'S HOME: Workers File Lawsuit Over Denied Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------- Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. is facing a lawsuit seeking class certification filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and post-judgment interest, Michelle Massey of the Southeast Texas Record reports. Named plaintiff Lowe's employee, Tammy Sue Rogers, that while employed as a warehouse worker at the Lowe's Regional Distribution Center in Mount Vernon, she was not compensated for performing "integral and essential" work-related tasks that included checking in her handheld computer, signing in, completing a safety checklist and other similar paperwork, checking out her other equipment, and driving to her work area. Ms. Rogers contends that Lowe's violated Fair Labor Standards Act by requiring her to do these activities prior to her starting her scheduled shift and after the end of her shift. "Defendant has willfully engaged in a pattern, practice, and policy of unlawful conduct by failing to pay the lawful and required regular and/or overtime rate for hours worked beyond 40 hours per week to employees in the United States in violation of FLSA statutes," the complaint argues. The plaintiff's original complaint seeks inclusion of other potential unnamed plaintiffs who have also been denied overtime pay because of "defendant's failure to properly count hours." The suit seeks class certification to include all current and former Texas Lowe's employees employed from Dec. 23, 2002, to present. Lowe's denies the plaintiffs' allegations and states it is in full compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Representing Ms. Rogers is: William S. Hommel Jr., Esq. William S. Hommel, Jr., P.C. 1402 Rice Road, Suite 200 Tyler, TX 75703 Phone: (903) 596-7100 Fax: (903) 596-7464 Web site: http://www.hommelfirm.comor http://www.hommellawfirm.com e-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces Calif. Litigation Over "Tele Aid" System ------------------------------------------------------------- Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, faces a purported class action in California accusing it of selling new vehicles equipped with safety devices that it knew would be obsolete as of the first of the year, E.B. McCoy of Legal News Line reports. The suit, captioned, "Levin v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, case no. 1:08-cv-00175-OWW-SMS," was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 1, 2008. Represented by the Law Firm of Parish and Small, the plaintiff, Sandra Levin, claims that Mercedes-Benz failed to tell buyers that the Tele Aid system would cease to function on the analogue network as of Jan. 1, 2008. Ms. Levin accuses the luxury car manufacturer of breaching various warranties, unfair competition, and of withholding from consumers that Tele Aid systems would not work at the start of the year. The suit states that Mercedes-Benz marketed "Tele Aid Systems" safety feature as an "Investment in a Peace of Mind." Tele Aid works on analogue cellular technology and links the vehicle and driver to Mercedes representatives in case of an emergency. In essence, the system allows the operator to access emergency services, and roadside assistance, and track the vehicle in case of theft. The "peace of mind" was a guarantee to luxury car buyers that personalized help would be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the suit states. Mercedes-Benz also allegedly failed to tell buyers that it would not repair or replace the defective Tele Aid Systems under warranty and buyers would have to pay to repair or replace their vehicles' Tele Aid System at a cost of $1,400, according to the complaint. The suit is "Levin v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No. 1:08-cv- 00175-OWW-SMS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Judge Oliver W. Wanger presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: William H. Parish, Esq. Parish & Small 1919 Grand Canal Blvd., Suite A-1 Stockton, CA 95207 Phone: 209-952-1992 Fax: 209-952-0250 e-mail: whparish@parishsmall.com OKLAHOMA: Human Services Dept. Faces Lawsuit for Child Neglect -------------------------------------------------------------- Children's Rights, a New York-based child advocacy organization, joined several prominent Oklahoma law firms and an international firm in filing a class action against Oklahoma's Department of Human Services, the Daily Oklahoman reports. The suit accuses DHS of repeatedly subjecting children in state custody to extreme abuse and neglect. It asks the judge to impose far-reaching reforms on the state system. "Oklahoma has long maintained one of the most dangerous and badly mismanaged child welfare systems in the nation, and thousands of children have suffered under nightmarish conditions for years as a result," said Marcia Robinson Lowry, executive director of Children's Rights. "It is disgraceful that we have to seek a federal court order to force the state to begin fixing problems that it should have addressed many years ago. But it is clear that this is the only way to protect Oklahoma's abused and neglected children -- and that is what this lawsuit is about." Children's Rights is asking the judge to declare the lawsuit a class action so the attorneys can represent all of the more than 10,000 children in state care. To contact Ms. Lowry: Marcia Robinson Lowry Children's Rights 330 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10001 ONION CROCK: Recalls Soups Due to Undeclared Wheat and Soy ---------------------------------------------------------- Onion Crock of Michigan is recalling its Old Fashion Potato and Minestrone soups to make people aware that while the product is Good and Wholesome, these soups may contain wheat or soy as ingredients not identified on the label. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to soy or wheat run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products The recalled soups were distributed to restaurants, retail stores, and fund raising companies in mid- and western Michigan. Old Fashion Potato may be packed in one pound frozen pouches (upc # 643640010772) or in four or eight pound pouches (upc codes # 643640001053) with any Best if used by dates of 7/21/09 or earlier. Minestrone packaged in one pound frozen pouches (upc # 64364001111) or in four or eight pound pouches (upc codes # 643640001138) or with any Best if Used by dates of 7/08/09 or earlier. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this missing labeling. Concerned consumers who have purchased Old Fashion Potato or Minestrone soups can bring the soups back to where they were purchased for a full refund if they have any concern with wheat or soy allergens. For concerns or questions, please contact Onion Crock of Michigan at 616-458-2922. RELATED GROUP: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Condo Deposit Refunds ----------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit against the Related Group asserts that the condo developer is improperly holding back a portion of deposits owed to buyers who have walked away from their contracts for units at 50 Biscayne tower, the Daily Business Review reports. Plaintiff Mitchell Becker pointed to a clause in his purchase contract and said that Related Group owes him nearly $25,000 after he failed to close on a 50 Biscayne condo. Three years ago, Mr. Becker put down $101,180 to reserve unit 4911, which was selling for $505,900 in the downtown Miami project. Mr. Becker, however, failed to show for the closing. According to his lawyer Jared Beck, Esq., of Beck & Lee, Mr. Becker knew that defaulting on the contract would cost him nearly $76,000. However, based on a clause in the purchase agreement, Mr. Becker expected to get back about $25,300 -- the remaining deposit. Mr. Beck contends that the contract guarantees buyers that they will get back any deposits in excess of 15% of the purchase price. Mr. Becker put down 20%. Mr. Becker and Mr. Beck spent about three months trying get the partial deposit back from Related Group. On Jan. 31, 2008, Mr. Becker filed the suit with the Miami-Dade Circuit Court against the legal entity behind the condo project, TRG Columbus Development, whose principal is the Related Group headed by Jorge Perez. Mr. Beck is urging condo buyers to take a closer look at their contracts to see if they too may be owed money. He hopes to get the lawsuit certified as a class action. He estimates that up to 250 buyers at the 528-unit project could get money back if they defaulted on their contracts since closings at 50 Biscayne began four months ago. A Related Group spokeswoman told Business Review that the developer offered Mr. Becker "a full and complete refund of all deposit amounts required by the contract." Mr. Beck, however, said that is not true. The report relates that aside from Mr. Beck, Robert Cooper, Esq., also filed a suit with the Miami-Dade Circuit Court on behalf clients seeking the refund of deposits for 17 condos at 50 Biscayne. This week, Mr. Cooper plans to add 11 more plaintiffs to the complaint filed in November 2007. Mr. Cooper asserts that his clients are entitled to 100% of their deposits because Related Group made significant changes to the design of the building, including eliminating a fitness room. Under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, developers have to notify buyers of significant changes, such as altering the size of a gym, a unit or the pool, the report notes. Buyers must be given the option of canceling contracts. However, Mr. Cooper said Related Group never gave his clients that option. Mr. Cooper's clients also claim representatives of the developer promised them a return on their investment in violation of New York law, Business Review writes. Most of his clients are originally from the former Soviet Union and live in New York. Their complaint says Related Group violated federal law by not legally recording a condominium declaration before putting units up for sale and violated Florida law by spending deposits on salaries and commissions. The lawyers for the plaintiffs are: Jared Beck, Esq. Beck & Lee Business Trial Lawyers Courthouse Plaza Building 28 West Flagler Street Suite 555 Miami, Florida 33130 Phone: (305) 789-0072 e-mail: jared@beckandlee.com - and - Robert H. Cooper, Esq. Robert H Cooper PA 2999 NE 191 Street Suite 704 Aventura, Fl. 33180 Phone: (305) 792-4343 Fax: (305) 792-0200 e-mail: Robert@rcooperpa.com SIEGFRIED & PARZIFAL: Recalls Hoodies for Strangulation Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- Siegfried & Parzifal Inc., of City of Industry, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 5,000 Karl Kani Boys' Fleece Hoody Sweatshirts. The company said the garments have a drawstring through the hood which poses a strangulation hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist by drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts. No injuries have been reported. Karl Kani boys full-zip fleece hoody sweatshirts with model numbers MB7808, MB7809, MB7810, MB7812. The model numbers were printed on the original hang tag. The words “Kani Polo” are printed on the sweatshirt neck tag. The sweatshirts were sold in various colors including, blue, gray, black, red and brown in boy's sizes small (8-10) and medium (12-14). These recalled boys' hoodies were manufactured in China and were being sold A&E Store, DD Discount, Forman Mills, The Marmaxx Groups, and Suit Mart stores nationwide from July 2007 through October 2007 for about $50. Pictures of the recalled boys' hoodies are found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08192a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08192b.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstring from the sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard and or contact Siegfried & Parzifal for a refund. For additional information, contact Siegfried & Parzifal Inc. toll-free at (866) 268-2868 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday. SOFT AIR: Recalls RC Helicopters Due to Fire and Burn Hazards ------------------------------------------------------------- Soft Air USA Inc., of Grapevine, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 30,000 remote-controlled helicopter toys. The company said the rechargeable battery contained inside the helicopter can catch fire during charging, igniting the helicopter and nearby combustible materials. This poses a burn or fire hazard to consumers. Soft Air USA has received six reports of helicopters igniting, including one minor injury. This recall involves the remote-controlled helicopter toy "Fun2Fly Microcopter" with item number 91001. The helicopter comes with a transmitter that controls and recharges the helicopter. The helicopter is made of foam and plastic and measures about 6 inches by 2 inches. The transmitter measures about 4 1/2 inches by 5 inches. "Fun2Fly" and "Microcopter" are printed on the packaging. The item number is printed above the UPC label. These recalled helicopter toys were manufactured in China and were being sold sporting goods stores and other retailers nationwide from May 2007 through December 2007 for about $30. Pictures of the recalled helicopter toys are found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08190a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08190b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08190c.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled toy helicopter and return it to the retailer where it was purchased for a full refund. For additional information, call Soft Air USA collect at (817) 210-4181 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or e-mail: Bhook@softairusa.com * White House Asks Supreme Court to Dismiss Apartheid Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- A series of lawsuits against companies that did business with the former apartheid regime of South Africa should be dismissed, the Bush administration told the Supreme Court Tuesday, according to CNN.com. The suits argue that more than four dozen U.S. and foreign companies should be ordered to pay as much as $400 billion to South African blacks and others who suffered under South Africa's official policy of oppressive separation of the races between 1948 and 1994, the report relates. CNN recounts that in October 2007, a federal court allowed a group of some 10 class-action lawsuits to proceed. The private suits were filed under the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreigners access to American courts when they allege U.S. laws or treaties were violated. The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act -- passed in 1986 over President Ronald Reagan's veto -- banned U.S. companies from establishing new trade and business with South Africa. Other nations had similar laws. The Bush administration contends that the appeals court was wrong to allow the "unprecedented and sprawling" suits to move forward. The governments of Britain, Germany, Switzerland, and post-apartheid South Africa filed supporting memos, CNN notes. Lungisile Ntsebeza, who is among the key plaintiffs, asserted in his lawsuit that companies that continued to do business in South Africa provided "resources, such as technology, money and oil to the South African government," which in turn used it "to further its policies of oppression and persecution of the African majority." The lawsuit, CNN points out, is part of a years-long global effort to hold a range of parties accountable for decades of human rights violations in South Africa. According to CNN, South Africa's current black-majority government opposes the lawsuit, saying it would hurt its ongoing efforts to foster reconciliation and improve the economic security of all its citizens. The Bush administration, in its brief, said, "Litigation such as this would also interfere with the ability of the U.S. government to employ the full range of foreign policy options when interacting with regimes the United States would like to influence . . . Such policies would be greatly undermined if the corporations that invest or operate in a foreign country are subjected to lawsuits under the ATS." The Justice Department had argued that the Alien Tort Statute allows lawsuits only against the South African government, not companies that allegedly "aided and abetted" repressive polices. CNN says that the Supreme Court is expected to decide in coming weeks whether to accept the case for review. If it does, oral arguments would be held in the fall. New Securities Fraud Cases MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Berger & Montague Files MD Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. has filed a class action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of all purchasers of Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC (NYSE: MMA) common stock between May 3, 2004 and January 29, 2008. MuniMae is a financial services company that arranges debt and equity financing for developers and owners of real estate and clean energy projects, as well as investment management services for institutional investors. The complaint alleges that MuniMae and some of its senior officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making a series of false and misleading statements about MuniMae's revenue, earnings and financial condition. Among other things, MuniMae overstated its financial results as a result of its failure to: (a) consolidate on the company's balance sheet hundreds of "variable interest entities," as required by applicable accounting rules; and (b) timely write-down the fair value of impaired assets. The complaint also alleges that MuniMae falsely reported strong performance and earnings growth when, to the contrary, the company was performing poorly and would be required to cut its dividend. The truth began to emerge after the stock market closed on January 28, 2008, when MuniMae issued a press release announcing that the company was cutting its quarterly dividend by 37%, from $0.5250 to $0.33 per share. MuniMae also revealed that it would not complete its previously announced restatement of financial results by the March 3, 2008, deadline imposed by New York Stock Exchange, and that its stock would be delisted by the Exchange. On this news, the price of MuniMae stock dropped from $17.20 per share to close at $9.19 per share on January 29, 2008, representing a 47% single-day decline. Then, on January 29, 2008, MuniMae provided additional details regarding its restatement, including the fact that the company was required to consolidate on its balance sheet approximately 200 "variable interest entities" in which it holds minority interests, and it would be writing-down the fair value of certain assets "held-for-sale" including loans, bonds, derivatives, guarantee obligations, and mortgage servicing rights. On this news, the price of MuniMae stock dropped an additional 22%, to close at $7.13 per share on January 30, 2008. Interested parties may move the court no later than March 31, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. Barbara A. Podell, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations Manager Berger & Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 1-888-891-2289 215-875-3000 e-mail: ssavett@bm.net bpodell@bm.net elechtzin@bm.net SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Abraham Fruchter Files CA Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. during the period between October 30, 2007 through February 4, 2008. The Complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial condition and future prospects. The Complaint alleges that the defendants' false and misleading statements regarding demand for its products and its acquisition of Centrality Communications, Inc. ("Centrality") in August 6, 2007 caused SiRF stock to trade at artificially inflated levels throughout the Class Period. The Complaint further alleges that, as a direct result of defendants' delayed public revelations in a February 4, 2008 press release concerning the truth about demand for SiRF's products and its actual business prospects, SiRF's stock price tumbled by more than 50% on February 5, 2008. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of SiRF's common stock during the Class Period. Interested parties may move the court no later than April 8, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. Arthur J. Chen, Esq. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, New York 10119 Phone: (212) 279-5050 e-mail: info@aftlaw.com abraham@aftlaw.com achen@aftlaw.com SUNOPTA INC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has filed a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against SunOpta Inc. (NASDAQ: STKL) (TSX: SOY) and certain of its executives that alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of SunOpta securities during the period May 8, 2007 through January 25, 2008. Previously filed complaints commenced the class period on August 8, 2007. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being, business relationships, and prospects. Specifically, it is alleged that defendants failed to disclose the following: (1) that defendants materially artificially inflated the Company's financial results, which resulted in an overstatement of the Company's profitability; (2) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. It is further alleged that on January 24, 2008, after the market closed, the Company shocked investors when it reported its anticipated financial results for 2007, disclosing for the first time that it expected to incur material write-downs and provisions in the range of $12 million to $14 million, which the Company attributed to write-downs of inventory within the SunOpta Fruit Group's berry operations, as well as difficulties in collecting for services and equipment provided to a customer of the SunOpta BioProcess Group. It is further alleged that the Company disclosed that it would likely restate financial results from previous quarters in 2007. On January 25, 2008, the Company's shares declined $3.51 per share, or approximately 37%, on heavier than usual trading volume, to close at $6.05 per share. Interested parties may move the court no later than March 28, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Frederic S. Fox, Esq. Joel B. Strauss, Esq. Donald R. Hall, Esq. Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, New York 10022 Phone: (800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980 Fax: (212) 687-7714 e-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com jstrauss@kaplanfox.com dhall@kaplanfox.com jcampisi@kaplanfox.com - and - Laurence D. King Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 94104 Phone: (415) 772-4700 Fax: (415) 772-4707 e-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Faces 498 Claims at Dec. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Shipyards Corp., as of Dec. 30, 2007, is defending against about 498 asbestos-related claims, of which about 16 are "malignant" asbestos claims and about 482 are "non-malignant" claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 6, 2008. The Company faced about 507 asbestos-related claims, of which about 16 were "malignant" and about 491 were "non-malignant." (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007) As reported in its Form 10-K for fiscal year 2007, the Company is named as a defendant in civil actions by parties alleging damages from past exposure to toxic substances, generally asbestos, at closed former facilities. The cases generally include as defendants other ship builders and repairers, ship owners, asbestos manufacturers, distributors and installers, and equipment manufacturers and arise from injuries or illnesses allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos or other toxic substances. Based on current fact patterns, certain diseases including mesothelioma, lung cancer and fully developed asbestosis are categorized by the Company as "malignant" claims. All others of a less medically serious nature are categorized as "non- malignant." As of Dec. 30, 2007, the Company has recorded a bodily injury liability reserve of US$5.5 million and a bodily injury insurance receivable of US$4 million. This compares with a previously recorded bodily injury reserve of US$5.8 million and insurance receivable of US$4.3 million at April 1, 2007. Seattle-based Todd Shipyards Corporation, through subsidiary Todd Pacific Shipyards Corporation, repairs, maintains, overhauls, and builds government-owned and commercial vessels. Services range from minor repairs to major overhauls in dry dock at the company's Seattle-area shipyard. The U.S. government, primarily through the Navy and the Coast Guard, accounts for more than 70 percent of the Company's shipyard sales. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Ongoing v. Rockwell Automation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rockwell Automation, Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to face lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components of Company products years ago, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 6, 2008. There are thousands of claimants in lawsuits that name the Company as defendants, together with hundreds of other companies. In some cases, the claims involve products from divested businesses, and the Company is indemnified for most of the costs. However, the Company has agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos claims associated with products manufactured or sold by the Company's Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by the Company that occurred on Jan. 31, 2007. The Company is responsible for half of the costs and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against Rockwell International Corporation's divested measurement and flow control business. Historically, the Company has been been dismissed from most of these claims with no payment to claimants. The Company has maintained insurance coverage that it said it believes covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured retentions, for most of these claims. The Company initiated litigation in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court on Feb. 12, 2004 to enforce the insurance policies against Nationwide Indemnity Company and Kemper Insurance, the insurance carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to the Company's former Allen-Bradley subsidiary. As a result, the insurance carriers have paid some past defense and indemnity costs and have agreed to pay the substantial majority of future defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims, subject to policy limits. If either carrier becomes insolvent or the policy limits of either carrier are exhausted, the Company's share of future defense and indemnity costs may increase. However, coverage under excess policies may be available to pay some or all of these costs. Milwaukee-based Rockwell Automation, Inc. is an industrial automation company. The Company's control systems unit makes industrial automation products like motor starters and contactors, relays, timers, signaling devices, and variable speed drives. The Company also offers factory management software applications. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exide Unit Still to Pay $300,000 for Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Exide Technologies' principal French subsidiary, Compagnie Europenne D Accumulateurs (d/b/a CEAC), in 2007 has been adjudged to indemnify a French governmental agency for about US$300,000 for asbestos claims. No payment has yet been made to the agency, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 6, 2008. From 1957 to 1982, CEAC operated a plant using crocidolite asbestos fibers in the formation of battery cases, which, once formed, encapsulated the fibers. About 1,500 employees worked in the plant over the period. Since 1982, the agency, which is responsible for worker illness claims, received 64 employee claims alleging asbestos-related illnesses. For some of those claims, CEAC is obligated to and has indemnified the agency in accordance with French law for about US$400,000 in calendar 2004. In addition, CEAC has been adjudged liable to indemnify the agency for about US$100,000 during the same period for the dependents of four such claimants. The Company has not been required to indemnify or make any payments subsequent to calendar year 2004. Alpharetta, Ga.-based Exide Technologies produces and recycles lead-acid batteries. The Company's four business segments, Transportation Americas, Transportation Europe and Rest of World (ROW), Industrial Energy Americas, and Industrial Energy Europe and ROW, provide stored electrical energy products and services for transportation and industrial applications. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Death from Exposure at ICI ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest heard that the death of Keith Price