/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080229.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, February 29, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 43 Headlines ALABAMA: City of Florence Faces Civil Rights Violations Lawsuit AMERICAN FAMILY: Lawyers Want New Class Rep in Insurance Suit AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Dismissal of Ariz. Securities Suit Appealed BLUE SQUARE: Faces Lawsuit Over Sale of "Super Fresh Eggs" CINRAM INTERNATIONAL: Faces AL Suit Over Alleged RICO Violations COMCAST CORP: Fast Internet Connection Ads Prompts DC Lawsuit DHB INDUSTRIES: N.Y. Court Mulls Approving Lawsuit Settlements GETTY IMAGES: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Cheap Sale to Hellman HYGIENE PRODUCTS: Manufacturers Face Ill. Price Fixing Lawsuit INDYMAC BANK: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Racial Discrimination JARDEN CORP: N.Y. Court Considers Class Certification Motion JARDEN CORP: April 9 Hearing Set for K2, Inc. Lawsuit in Calif. KFC US: Faces CA Labor Violations Suit by Managers, Supervisors NEWSDAY INC: Settles Fraud & Antitrust Suit with 40 Car Dealers SHOP-VAC CORP: Faces Calif. Suit Over Falsely Advertised Vacuums SMITH & WESSON: Faces Nev. Lawsuit Over Inflated Stock Prices SPRINT NEXTEL: Raytown Gets $500,884 in Back Taxes as Settlement SOUTHERN CO: Dismissal in Mirant IPO Suit Still Under Appeal STANDARD PACIFIC: Officers Still Face Securities Suit in Calif. TACO BELL: Discovery Underway in Calif. Labor-Related Lawsuit TACO BELL: Discovery Underway in Calif. Labor Violations Lawsuit TACO BELL: Parties in Calif. ADA Suit Discuss Possible Mediation TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Still Faces FACTA Violations Suits in Pa., Ill. TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Mass. Court Approves $50M Settlement VIRGINIA: DNA Lawsuit Against Charlottesville Police Dropped * Oklahoma Appeals Court Says Class-Action Tactic Won't Work WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces WA Suit Over ChoiceDek Decking Products New Securities Fraud Cases AMBAC FINANCIAL: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. MORGAN KEEGAN: Schiffrin Barroway Files TN Securities Fraud Suit SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Firm Files CA Securities Fraud Suit SWISS REINSURANCE: Coughlin Stoia Files NY Securities Fraud Suit Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 90,322 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UCC Cites $172M Defense, Resolution Costs ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $467M Receivable at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich, Units Still Face Exposure Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Trane Rise to 105,023 at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Still Pursuing Coverage Claim in N.J. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Inc. Has $628.2M Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.O. Smith Faces Suits with 66,072 Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers' Liabilities Rise to $19.3M at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philips Records 5,084 Pending Cases at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philips Unit Accrues EUR315M for Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Veterans Appeals Court Remands Nix's Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Affirms New Trial in Whitlock ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Units Still Face Pending Exposure Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TPC Still Has Cases Involving AcandS, Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Cites $3.73B Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Morton Still Faces Cases from La. Facility ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Energy Has $3.4M in Liabilities ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NewMarket Has $11.11M for Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Co. Cleared in 3,839 Cases in Miss. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Reserves $16.72M Net for Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Case Agreement Entered Last Nov. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Continues to Face "Premises" Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Has $29M Receivables at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Records 10,998 Open Claims at Dec. 2007 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Records 29,450 Abex Claims at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd, Units Continue to Face Injury Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Incurs $23M Costs for N.Y. Explosion ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Faces Unresolved Exposure Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Orchard has 8T Suits from Vapor Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs Ruling to Favor Pharmacia ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Starwood Accrues $1M for Abatement at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tube City Faces Claims from Old Operations ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Has 28,362 Claims at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 29T Claims Pending Against FMC at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pipefitter Sues 52 Companies in Texas Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: V.I. Contractor Indicted for CAA Violations ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minnesotan Sues 65 Companies in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eyre Widow Seeks Workmates' Help in Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial on Whisnat v. DuPont Suit Proceeding ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Coroner Links Worker's Death to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Faces 114T Open Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Favors Foster Wheeler to Danos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Eagle, OneBeacon in Thibodeaux ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Has $1.322B Claim Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Insurer Parties to Appeal A.P. Green Ruling ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Pursues Action v. Keasbey in N.Y. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Involved in Burns & Roe Coverage Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Continues to Face Cases in Tex. Courts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Action Stayed Due to Grace Bankruptcy ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Grants ASARCO, Creditors Tolling Deal ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Holy Cross Owners Sued for Exposing Workers ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oxnard School in Calif. Settles $25T Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Jury Awards $30.3M to Worker's Family ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Issues Warnings to NHS Trust on Hazards ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Firm Seeks to Override Emissions Laws ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Worker Pleads Guilty in Cleanup Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Authorities Probe Claims v. CFMEU Official ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Gets More Appeal Time in Libby Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ThunderSky Urges Gov't. to Warn of Dangers ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victorian Gov't. Defends v. Workers' Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Asbestos Cost Covered in $17M Charge ********* ALABAMA: City of Florence Faces Civil Rights Violations Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The City of Florence (Ala.) is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for Civil rights Violations, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Matthew Dendy claims that the City of Florence unconstitutionally imprisons indigent people who cannot pay traffic fines or court costs, and makes them serve out their unpaid fines at $15 a day rather than the statutory $25 a day. Mr. Dendy brings the action because of the defendants': -- failure to provide adequate counsel to indigent arrestees; -- failure to conduct a sufficient hearing to determine indigency before imposing fines and costs; -- automatically incarcerating indigent people for failure to pay fines and costs; -- imposing terms of incarceration beyond the statutory maximum; and -- other civil rights violations and conduct. Mr. Dendy seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, compensatory damages and punitive damages pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons who are, who have been, or who will be incarcerated at the Lauderdale County Detention Center in whole or in part for failure to pay fines or court costs or whose sentences include a period of incarceration derived from a failure to pay fines and court costs ordered by the Municipal Court of Florence, Alabama. Mr. Dendy wants the court to rule on: (i) whether the defendants' policy and practice of automatically converting unpaid fines and costs to days of incarceration, without any determination concerning an individual's ability to pay, is illegal; (ii) whether the defendants' policy and practice of converting fines and costs to days of incarceration at the rate of $15 per day rather than the statutory rate of $25 per day is illegal; (iii) whether the defendants' policy and practice of rounding up when converting unpaid fines and costs to days of incarceration is illegal; and (iv) whether the defendants' policy and practice of ignoring due process requirements before incarcerating individuals for failure to pay fines and costs is illegal. Specifically, the defendants failed to appoint counsel for indigent arrestees, failed to give adequate notice of the nature of the hearing, failed to make written findings concerning the reasons for revoking probation or work release and the evidence relied upon, and failed to make written findings concerning an individuals willful nonpayment of fines and costs before imposing incarceration for nonpayment. The plaintiff requests: -- that the Court adjudge and decree that the defendants have engaged in certain violations of laws; -- that the plaintiff recover such actual damages as the Court will find the plaintiff has sustained, together with double, treble, punitive, or exemplary damages as the law will permit; -- that the Court enter an injunction which prohibits the defendants from engaging in the violations of law set forth; -- that the plaintiff recover the costs of the lawsuit, including reasonable attorneys fees as provided by 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, §1988, and the common law; and -- that the plaintiff have such other and further relief as the Court will deem just and appropriate. The suit is "Matthew Dendy et al. v. City of Florence, Alabama," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Representing the plaintiffs is: Elizabeth G. Messer, Esq. Gonce, Young, Collum-Butler & Messer 109 North Court Street Florence, Alabama 35630 Phone: (256) 767-7411 Fax: (256) 767-0320 e-mail: contactus@alalawyers.com AMERICAN FAMILY: Lawyers Want New Class Rep in Insurance Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Lakin Law Firm attorneys who have kept a Madison County class action against American Family Insurance alive for four years are proposing to replace a dead class representative with a band of chiropractors, Madison County Record reports. In its sixth amended complaint filed on Feb. 1, 2008, the firm introduced chiropractors who claim that American Family improperly reduced payouts on medical bills from car crashes. None of these plaintiffs, however, live in Madison County. Jeff Millar, Esq., of Lakin Law Firm, specofocally introduced these chiropractors: * Kruse and Manley Clinic of Sioux City, Iowa, who claim that the insurer cheated them out of a dollar, paying $39 on a $40 bill; * Matthew Chenault of Greenville Rehab and Pain Clinic in Greenville, Illinois, who alleges an improper $4 reduction, from $60 to $56; * Anthony Wolf of Indianapolis and Breann Moddes of Tempe, Ariz., who allege improper $4 reductions, from $40 to $36; * Kent Marshall of Henderson, Nevada, who alleges an improper $22 reduction, from $60 to $38; and * Charles Vifquain of Lees Summit, Mo., who alleges an improper $26 reduction, from $75 to $49. They claim breach of contract but they can't begin to prove it. The Class Action Reported reported on Jan. 31, 2007, that the lawsuit was originally filed against the company by Manuel Hernandez in 2000, who also claimed that the insurer improperly reduced a payout on a medical claim resulting from an auto accident. In 2002, Circuit Judge Daniel Stack, as associate judge, certified Mr. Hernandez as representative of a class in 17 states, Madison Record recounts. As circuit judge, Judge Stack trimmed the class to 11 states in 2005. According to CAR, early in 2007, the company discovered that Mr. Hernandez has been dead since January 2004, and therefore asked the court to dismiss the case on this basis. The Lakins tried to substitute the deceased plaintiff's wife, Nora, but Judge Stack rejected her because she did not belong to the class. Mrs. Hernandez is now suing along with the chiropractors in Mr. Millar's amended complaint as her husband's personal representative. However, Mr. Millar wrote to Circuit Judge Daniel Stack that the class plaintiffs "lack copies of those individual policies and thus cannot attach them to this pleading." Madison Record relates that Mr. Millar figures the defense should supply the evidence. According to Mr. Millar, American Family carried out a scheme with software contractors Mitchell International and ADP Claims Solution Group. "AFI purchased, leased and used the Mitchell and ADP software to systematically underpay Medpay claims," he stated. "AFI uses/used Mitchell and ADP reports as a subterfuge, for their true purpose is to intentionally reduce AFI's first-party medpay claims payouts, and to increase profits." American Family rewards claims adjusters for low payments and instructs them in adversarial use of Mitchell and ADP reports, Mr. Millar added. "Thus, from the beginning of the claims process, the claims adjuster's interests conflict with the insured's." Mr. Millar urged Judge Stack to disregard arbitration clauses, arguing that arbitration would be prohibitively expensive. Mr. Millar argued that American Family designed the clause to prevent the class from effectively vindicating statutory and common law causes of action and that it is part of the insurer's fraudulent scheme. "Absent a class action," he wrote, "AFI will continue in its deceptive course of conduct and will retain its ill-gotten profits," Mr. Millar, who estimated the class in the tens of thousands, said. The class definition covers claims from 1990 to the date of final judgment, and includes Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Arizona, Nevada and Idaho, Madison Record notes. In addition to breach of contract, Mr. Millar claims consumer fraud for each class member under the law of his or her own state. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeffrey Millar, Esq. Brad Lakin, Esq. Jonathan Piper, Esq. The Lakin Law Firm, P.C. 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229 Wood River, Illinois 62095-0229 (Madison Co.) Phone: (618) 254-1127 Fax: (618) 254-0193 Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/ American Family is represented by: Anthony Martin, Esq. (amartin@spvg.com) Timothy Sansone, Esq. (tsansone@spvg.com) Sandberg, Phoenix and Von Gontard One City Centre, 15th Floor 515 North 6th Street St. Louis, MO 63101-1880 Phone: (314) 231-3332 (800) 225-5529 Fax: (314) 241-7604 AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Dismissal of Ariz. Securities Suit Appealed ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal regarding the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class action against Amkor Technology, Inc. On Jan. 23, 2006, a purported securities class action entitled, "Nathan Weiss et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc., et al.," was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Amkor and certain of its current and former officers. Subsequently, other law firms filed two similar cases, which were consolidated with the initial complaint. In August 2006 and again in November 2006, the plaintiffs amended the complaint. The plaintiffs added additional officer, director and former director defendants and alleged improprieties in certain option grants. The amended complaint further alleges that the defendants improperly recorded and accounted for the options in violation of generally accepted accounting principles and made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in its disclosures in violation of the federal securities laws, during the period from July 2001 to July 2006. The amended complaint seeks certification as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23, compensatory damages, costs, and expenses, and such other further relief as the Court deems just and proper. On Dec. 28, 2006, pursuant to a motion by the defendants, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania transferred the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. On Sept. 25, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the case with prejudice. On Oct. 23, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Nathan Weiss et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc. et al.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. (jgoldberg@faruqilaw.com) Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP P.O. Box 30132 Elkins Park, PA 19027 Phone: 215-782-8235 - and - Evan J. Smith, Esq. (esmith@brodsky-smith.com) Brodsky & Smith, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 610-667-6200 Representing the defendants are: Patrick Loftus, Esq. (loftus@duanemorris.com) Duane Morris, LLP 30 South 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396 Phone: 215-979-1367 - and - Karen T. Stefano, Esq. (kstefano@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: 650-849-3405 BLUE SQUARE: Faces Lawsuit Over Sale of "Super Fresh Eggs" ---------------------------------------------------------- Blue Square-Israel Ltd. was served with a claim and a request for approval as a class action, in which the Company is being sued together with other defendants, including companies involved in the marketing of eggs and also other food marketing chains. The Claim alleges that the defendants are marketing and displaying for purchase eggs that are classified as "Super Fresh Eggs" which are not subject to Israeli regulatory price controls, and are thus minimizing the shelf space and display of eggs that are subject to regulatory price controls. According to the claim, the defendants allegedly derive a higher profit margin from the sale of such "Super Fresh Eggs" instead of the regulated eggs. The claim alleges that the defendants coordinated their actions among each other, and that the defendants and the companies involved in the marketing of eggs are misleading consumers in violation of applicable consumer protection laws. The plaintiff's personal claim is estimated at $66.57 and if the Claim is approved as a class action, the approximate claim against all the defendants is estimated at $305 million. The Claim requests relief in the form of monetary compensation and a mandatory injunction to stop the current actions that are allegedly misleading the consumers. The Company is currently reviewing the Claim, and at this preliminary stage of the proceedings, it is unable to evaluate its likelihood of success in the proceedings, including the likelihood that the Claim will be certified as a class action. Blue Square-Israel Ltd. is a leading retailer in Israel. A pioneer of modern food retailing in the region. Blue Square currently operates 186 supermarkets under different formats, each offering varying levels of services and prices. CINRAM INTERNATIONAL: Faces AL Suit Over Alleged RICO Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cinram International, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 19 USC Section 1961 et seq., 42 USC Section 1981, and 42 USC Section 2000e, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Cinram -- based in Richmond, Ind. -- is "one of the world's largest manufacturers of pre-recorded DVD, CD-Audio and DC-ROM technology." It employs 1,100 hourly workers at its manufacturing plant in Huntsville, Ala. Blair Staffing and Tri Staffing operate out of Madison, Ala. The Job Center works out of an unknown address in Alabama, the complaint states. Named plaintiff Saul Cruz accuses Cinram of depressing labor costs by hiring undocumented aliens to work for it, and paying Tri Staffing, Blair Staffing and Logistics, and The Job Center to find and recruit the workers. Mr. Cruz further claims that the defendants harbor the illegal workers, help them get fake employment documents and help them evade law enforcement officials. The complaint states, among other things, that after Cinram knowingly and recklessly hires aliens with bogus documents and helps them evade detection, "Cinram has fired unauthorized workers for complaining about on-the-job injuries and not meeting production demands and then rehired, via the above-named staffing agencies, those same individuals weeks later with new and different fake documents. In addition to establishing that Cinram's hiring of unauthorized workers is done with full knowledge and with complete disregard of the law, this shows that Cinram's intent is to send a message to other unauthorized workers that they are to work hard and not complain about conditions, or else they will be fired." The plaintiff claims that this systematic abuse has been continuous since 2004. The plaintiff brings the action on behalf of all qualified persons who are legally authorized to be employed in the United States who were employed by Cinram or who were referred for employment by any of the staffing agency defendants at any time from Feb. 22, 2004, to the present. The plaintiff demands judgment and order relief as follows: -- certification of a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; -- judgment in an amount equal three times the actual damages sustained by the class, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1964(c); -- reasonable attorney's fees, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1964(c); -- judgment in an amount to be proven at trial that requires defendants to disgorge any unlawful profits or otherwise return the full amount of its unjust enrichment; -- trial by jury; and -- such other relief as the court deems just and proper. The suit is "Saul Cruz et al. v. Cinram International, Inc. et al, Case No. Cv-08-0342-M," filed with the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Alabama. COMCAST CORP: Fast Internet Connection Ads Prompts DC Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Comcast Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the Superior Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Dr. Sanford Sidner and all DC citizens who have subscribed to Comcast's high-speed Internet service over the course of the past three year, the CT Reports says. According to the report, the complaint accuses Comcast of false advertising stemming from the company's claims that it provides the "fastest Internet connection" and "unfettered access to all the content, services, and applications that the Internet has to offer." The plaintiffs, represented by the law firm of Gilbert Randolph, assert that Comcast's representations of its service are allegedly false owing to Comcast's "intentional blocking or impeding of subscriber access to peer-to-peer file-sharing applications." "There's a growing interest on behalf of consumers in DC that they're not getting the service that they've paid for," Gilbert Randolph attorney August Mattias, Esq., said. The complaint contends that Comcast surreptitiously impersonates the computers of users attempting to share files and sends "forged reset packets" that instruct the transmitting computers to stop sending data. Thus, the plaintiffs allege, the users of peer-to-peer applications are denied full access to the Internet despite paying for a service that Comcast promises is "unfettered" and the "fastest" possible, the report relates. The plaintiffs charge "Comcast's clandestine techniques are similar to those use by totalitarian governments to censor the use of the Internet." Pennsylvania-based Comcast Corp. -- http://www.comcast.com-- is a cable operator in the U.S. and offers a variety of consumer entertainment and communication products and services. DHB INDUSTRIES: N.Y. Court Mulls Approving Lawsuit Settlements -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has yet to grant final approval to settlements entered into in a securities class action against DHB Industries, Inc., and certain individual defendants, as well as the related shareholder derivative action, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Securities Litigation During the third and second quarters of 2005, a number of purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and directors. The actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities during various periods from Nov. 18, 2003, though Aug. 29, 2005. The complaints, which were substantially similar to one another, allege, among other things, that the Company's public disclosures were false or misleading. The suits alleged that the Company's body armor products were defective and failed to meet the standards of its customers, and that these alleged facts should have been publicly disclosed. They were ultimately consolidated into a single class action. Derivative Litigation During the same time frame, a number of derivative complaints were filed, also in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against certain officers and directors of the Company, and in certain cases the Company's former auditors. The complaints, which were substantially similar to one another, allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in fraud, misrepresentation, misappropriation of corporate information, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, and unjust enrichment. They were ultimately consolidated into a single shareholder derivative action. The Settlement On July 13, 2006, the Company signed a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the class action and the derivative action. Under the Memorandum of Understanding, the class action would be settled, subject to court approval, for $34,900 in cash and 3,184,713 shares of the Company's common stock. The derivative action also would be settled, subject to court approval, in consideration of the adoption of certain corporate governance provisions and the payment of $300 in legal fees and expenses to the lead counsel in the derivative action. As previously reported, these settlements are subject to review and approval of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Class Action Reporter, July 19, 2007). On Dec. 15, 2006, a stipulation of settlement was filed with the court (U.S. District Court, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, New York, 11722-4438). This stipulation, which was signed on behalf of the Company, the plaintiffs' representatives and individual defendants, represents the definitive documentation of the settlement. Under the settlement documents, the class consists of all Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired DHB shares on or after Nov. 18, 2003 until and including Nov. 30, 2006. In July of 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted a motion for preliminary approval of the above-described settlements of the class action and derivative shareholder lawsuits. In July of 2007, the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, granted the lead plaintiffs motion for preliminary approval of the above-described settlements of the class action and derivative action. The court held a hearing on Oct. 5, 2007, to consider and determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement. The Court took no action at the hearing, and indicated that it would issue a decision no sooner than 45 days after the hearing (or Nov. 17, 2007) in order to allow the Commercial Litigation Division of the U.S. Justice Department, which had been notified of the settlement pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, to determine if it wished to make an objection to the settlement. DHB Industries, Inc. -- http://www.dhbt.com/-- through its subsidiaries, Point Blank Body Armor, Inc., and Protective Apparel Corporation of America is in the protective body armor industry and is focused on the design, manufacture, and distribution of bullet resistant and protective body armor for military, law enforcement, and corrections in the U.S. and worldwide. GETTY IMAGES: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Cheap Sale to Hellman ------------------------------------------------------------ Getty Images Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed on Feb. 25, 2008, with the Superior Court for the State of Washington in and for the County of King as shareholders want more from the sale to Hellman & Friedman, CourtHouse News Service reports. Earlier, Getty announced the acquisition, at $2.4 billion or $34 a share, the report states. Getty, which owns an archive of 70 million still photos and 30,000 hours of film, reported $858 million in revenue in FY 2007, up 6% from the year before. According to the report, shareholders complain that Getty Images sold itself too cheaply to Hellman & Friedman, and that Getty's directors "acted quickly for their own benefit and the benefit of Hellman" but to shareholders' detriment. Named plaintiff Kaye Davenport, owner of Getty Images common stock, brings the action on behalf of all holders of Getty Images stock who are being and will be harmed by the defendants' actions. Ms. Davenport wants the court to rule on: (a) whether the proposed transaction is unfair to the class; (b) whether plaintiff and the other members of the class would be irreparably damaged were the transaction complained of consummated; (c) whether defendants have breached their fiduciary and other common law duties owed by them to plaintiff and the other members of the class; and (d) whether the class is entitled to injunctive relief or damages as a result of the wrongful conduct committed by defendants. Ms. Davenport asks the court to enter an order: -- declaring that the action is properly maintainable as a class action; -- declaring and decreeing that the Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable; -- enjoining defendants, their agents, counsel, employees and all persons acting in concert with them from consummating the proposed transaction, unless and until the company adopts and implements a fair sales process; -- directing the individual defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best interest of Getty Images' shareholders; -- rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the proposed transaction or any of the terms thereof; -- imposing a constructive trust, in favor of plaintiff, upon any benefits improperly received by defendants as a result of their wrongful conduct; -- awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees; and -- granting such other and further equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper. Representing the plaintiff are: Duncan Turner, Esq. (duncanturner@badgleymullins.com) Allysa J. white, Esq. (awhite@badgleymullins.com) Badgley-Mullins Law Group Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4750 Seattle, Washington 98104 Phone: 206-621-6566 HYGIENE PRODUCTS: Manufacturers Face Ill. Price Fixing Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Manufacturers of hygiene products are facing an antitrust class- action complaint filed with the U.S. District court for the Northern District of Illinois for conspiring to fix prices of hygiene products -- including toothpaste, toothbrushes, and shampoo, liquid hand soaps, dishwashing liquid and deodorants, CourtHouse News Service reports. The defendants named in the suit are: -- Sara Lee Corporation -- Colgate-Palmolive Company -- Henkel Chemie Verwaltungsgesellschaft MBH -- Henkel Corp. -- Unilever N.V. -- Unilever PLC -- Unilever United States, Inc. Lead plaintiff Commercial Street Express claims that the defendants have admitted collusion and anti-competitive conduct in Europe and have been fined EUR37 million in Germany alone. Commercial Street further claims that the Federal Cartel Office of Germany announced on Feb. 20 that Henkel, Sara Lee and Unilever were fined EUR37 million "for price-fixing and illegally passing on information on price talks with retailers." Commercial Street says the Federal Cartel Office said the conspiracy that had begun by early 2006 hiked by 5% the price of Pril and Palmolive dish detergents, Duschdas and Palmolive shower gels and Signal, Dentagard, and Colgate toothpaste. Commercial Street brings this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired in the United States oral, personal and home care products manufactured and distributed by one or more of the Defendants, their agents or entities under their control, at any time between Jan. 1, 2006, and the present. Commercial Street wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants engaged in a contract, combination or conspiracy to fix the prices of oral, personal and home care products; (b) whether defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 USC Section 1); (c) the existence, duration, and illegality of the contract, combination or conspiracy alleged herein; (d) whether defendants and each of them was a participant in the contract, combination or conspiracy alleged; (e) whether the prices charged for oral, personal and home care products during the Class Period were artificially inflated as a result of Defendants' contract, combination or conspiracy alleged; (f) the amount by which defendants' illegal, unfair or deceptive trade practices have inflated the price of oral, personal and home care products over the amount that would have for in a competitive market unaffected by Defendants illegal acts; (g) the effect upon and the extent of injuries sustained by Plaintiffs and members of the Class and the appropriate type and measure of damages; (h) whether defendants took affirmative steps to conceal the contract, combination or conspiracy alleged herein; and (i) whether the plaintiffs and the members of the Class are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs request: -- that the Court determine that the Sherman Act, state antitrust law, and state consumer protection and unfair competition law claims alleged herein may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- that the unlawful conduct, contract, conspiracy or combination alleged herein be adjudged and decreed to be: i. a restraint of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as alleged and injunctive relief be awarded; ii. an unlawful combination, trust, agreement, understanding, and concert of action in violation of the state antitrust laws identified; iii. violations of the state consumer protection and unfair competition laws identified; and iv. acts of unjust enrichment; -- that the plaintiffs and the Class recover damages, as provided by federal and state antitrust laws, and that a joint and several judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class be entered against the Defendants in an amount to be trebled in accordance with such laws; -- that the defendants, their 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: (1) continuing, maintaining, or renewing the conduct, contract, conspiracy or combination alleged herein, or from entering into any other conspiracy alleged, or from entering into any other contract, conspiracy or combination having a similar purpose or effect, and from adopting or following any practice, plan, program, or device having a similar purpose or effect; and (2) communicating or causing to be communicated to any other person engaged in the sale of oral, personal and home care products, information concerning bids of competitors; -- that the plaintiffs be awarded restitution, including disgorgement of profits obtained by Defendants as a result of their acts of unfair competition and acts of unjust enrichment; -- that the plaintiffs and the class be awarded pre- and post-judgment interest, and that interest be awarded at the highest legal rate from and after the date of service of the class action complaint; -- that the plaintiffs and the class recover their costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by law; and -- that plaintiffs and the class have such other, further, and different relief as the case may require and the court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. The suit is "Commercial Street Express, LLC et al v. Sara Lee Corporation et al.," filed with U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Representing the plaintiffs are: Marvin A. Miller, Esq. (mmiller@millerlawllc.com) Lori A. Fanning, Esq. (lfanning@millerlawllc.com) Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq. (mvantine@millerlawllc.com) Miller Law LLC 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 332-3400 Fax: (312) 676-2676 - and - Guri Ademi, Esq. (gademi@ademilaw.com) Shpetim Ademi, Esq. (sademi@ademilaw.com) David Syrios, Esq. (dsyrios@ademilaw.com) Corey M. Mather, Esq. (cmather@ademilaw.com) Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP 3620 E. Layton Cudahy, WI 53110 Phone: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 INDYMAC BANK: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Racial Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- Indymac Bank, F.S.B., is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that the bank racially discriminates in mortgage lending, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff David Ulloa brings the complaint for: -- violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act; and -- violations of the Fair Housing Act. The class action challenges IndyMac's racially discriminatory mortgage lending practices. IndyMac established a specific, identifiable and uniform credit pricing system, a component of which, referred to as the "Discretionary Pricing Policy," authorized an unchecked subjective surcharge of additional points and fees to an otherwise objective risk-based financing rate. These subjective, additional finance charges directly lead to minorities receiving home loans with higher interest rates and higher fees and costs than similarly situated non-minority borrowers. The plaintiff brings the action on behalf of all minorities who have entered into residential mortgage loan contracts that were originated, financed or purchased by IndyMac, and who have been subjected to racial discrimination. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) the nature and scope of IndyMac's policies and procedures concerning the assessment of yield spread premiums and other discretionary fees on mortgage loans it funds; (b) whether defendant IndyMac is a creditor under the ECOA because, in the ordinary course of business, it participates in the decision of whether or not to extend credit to consumers; (c) whether IndyMacs policies and procedures regarding yield spread premiums and other discretionary fees are a facially neutral credit pricing system that has effected racial discrimination in violation of the ECOA; (d) whether there are statistically significant disparities between the amount of the discretionary charges imposed on minorities and the amount of the discretionary charges imposed on Caucasians that are unrelated to creditworthiness; (e) whether IndyMac has any legitimate business justification for its policies and procedures; (f) whether there is a less discriminatory alternative to these policies and procedures; (g) whether the court can enter declaratory and injunctive relief; and (h) the proper measure of disgorgement or monetary relief. The plaintiff requests the following relief: -- an order determining that the action is a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- a judgment awarding plaintiff and the class costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs; -- a judgment granting extraordinary equitable and injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, including rescission, restitution, reformation, attaching, impounding, or imposing a constructive trust upon, or otherwise restricting, the proceeds of IndyMac's ill-gotten funds to ensure that plaintiff and the class have an effective remedy; -- a judgment awarding plaintiff and the class compensatory damages according to proof; -- a judgment awarding punitive damages to plaintiff and the class; -- a judgment granting declaratory and injunctive relief and all relief that flows from such injunctive and declaratory relief; and -- a judgment or other order granting such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. The suit is "David Ulloa et al v. IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., Case No. CV08-1312SVW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing the plaintiffs are: Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@bffb.com) Wendy J. Harrison, Esq. (wharrison@bffb.com) Bonnet, Fairbourn, Friedman, & Balint, P.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 1000 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Phone: (602) 274-1100 JARDEN CORP: N.Y. Court Considers Class Certification Motion ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the certification of a class in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit filed against the Jarden Corp. in relation to its plan to acquire The Holmes Group, Inc. In January and February 2006, purported class actions were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain company officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from June 29, 2005, through Jan. 12, 2006. The company announced the signing of the agreement to acquire The Holmes Group, Inc. on June 29, 2005. Joint lead plaintiffs were appointed on June 9, 2006. No class has been certified in the actions. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on Aug. 25, 2006, against the company, Jarden Consumer Solutions, and certain officers of the company. The suit is alleging, among other things, that the plaintiffs were injured by reason of certain allegedly false and misleading statements made by the company relating to the expected benefits of the THG Acquisition. The company, Jarden Consumer Solutions, and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 20, 2006. Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were held on Feb. 2, 2007. On May 31, 2007, the Court issued an opinion denying the defendants' motion to dismiss. On July 3, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying their dismissal request. The defendants answered the amended consolidated complaint on July 10, 2007. On Sept. 5, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion for reconsideration, but reaffirmed its May 31, 2007 dismissal order. On Sept. 10, 2007, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. That motion has been fully briefed and the Court held oral argument on January 11, 2008. The Court has not yet issued a decision, according to the company's Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Ernesto Darquea, et al. v. Jarden Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-00722," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Charles L. Brieant presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Christopher J. Gray, Esq. (gray@cjgraylaw.com) Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C 460 Park Avenue 21st Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 838-3221 Fax: (212) 508-3695 Laurence Paskowitz, Esq. (classattorney@aol.com) Paskowitz & Associates 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212)-685-0969 Fax: (212)-685-2306 - and - Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@csgrr.com) Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 Representing the defendants is: Stephen William Greiner Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 728-8000 Fax: (212) 728-8111 e-mail: maosdny@willkie.com JARDEN CORP: April 9 Hearing Set for K2, Inc. Lawsuit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The California Superior Court scheduled an April 9, 2008 final approval hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter, "City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System v. K2 Inc., et al.," which names Jarden Corp., as a defendant. The case was filed on May 4, 2007, by a shareholder of K2 on behalf of itself and a putative class of shareholders against K2 and the members of its Board of Directors. It is seeking to enjoin the merger transaction between K2 and a wholly owned subsidiary of Jarden Corp. on the purported grounds that the members of the Board of Directors of K2 allegedly breached fiduciary duties to the K2 shareholders in connection with the negotiation and structure of the Merger as well as the disclosures made by K2 to shareholders in its proxy. On July 30, 2007, K2 announced that it and the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System agreed to a settlement in principle of the pending litigation pursuant to which K2 made certain disclosures regarding the transaction in its proxy materials sent to shareholders and reports filed with the SEC and amended the merger agreement to reduce from $27.5 million to $24 million the termination fee that would have been payable by K2 to the Company under certain circumstances in the event that the merger agreement had been terminated. The agreement includes full releases of all the defendants as well as the Company. The settlement was approved preliminarily by the California Superior Court on Feb. 8, 2008, and a hearing on final approval is scheduled for April 9, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Jarden Corp. -- http://www.jarden.com/-- is a provider of consumer products. Jarden's three primary business segments: Outdoor Solutions, Consumer Solutions and Branded Consumables, manufacture or source, market and distribute a number of brands, including Outdoor Solutions, Abu Garcia, Adio, Berkley, Campingaz, Coleman, Fenwick, Gulp!, JT, K2, Marker, Marmot, Mitchell, Penn, Planet Earth, Rawlings, Shakespeare, Sevylor, Stearns, Stren, Trilene, Ugly Stik and Volkl; Consumer Solutions, Bionaire, Crock-Pot, FoodSaver, Health o meter, Holmes, Mr. Coffee, Oster, Patton, Rival, Seal-a-Meal, Sunbeam and VillaWare, and Branded Consumables, Ball, Bee, Bicycle, Crawford, Diamond, Dicon, First Alert, Forster, Hoyle, Java-Log, Kerr, Lehigh, Leslie-Locke, Loew-Cornell and Pine Mountain. KFC US: Faces CA Labor Violations Suit by Managers, Supervisors --------------------------------------------------------------- KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., a division of YUM! Brands, Inc., faces a putative class action in California, styled, "Baskall v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc.," according to the YUM! Brands' Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 28, 2008. The suit was filed with San Diego County Superior Court on Dec. 21, 2007. It was brought on behalf of all current and former Restaurant General Managers, Assistant Unit Managers, and Shift Supervisors who worked at KFC's California restaurants since Dec. 18, 2003. The suit alleges violations of California's wage and hour and unfair competition laws, including denial of sufficient meal and rest periods, improperly itemized pay stubs, and delays in issuing final paychecks, and seeks unspecified amounts in damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 34,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. YUM consists of six operating segments: KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Long John Silver's (LJS) and A&W All-American Food Restaurants (A&W), YUM Restaurants International (YRI or International Division) and YUM Restaurants China (China Division). NEWSDAY INC: Settles Fraud & Antitrust Suit with 40 Car Dealers --------------------------------------------------------------- More than 40 regional car dealers who sued Newsday in 2004 on fraud and antitrust charges tied to the newspaper's circulation improprieties settled the class-action case this week, a lawyer for the dealers said. Newsday spokeswoman Deidra Parrish Williams confirmed the settlement, whose terms were not disclosed. Leonard Bellavia, Esq., a Bay Shore attorney who filed the case on behalf of the dealers, said that settlement talks accelerated in recent weeks. He said he believes the movement was prompted by his firm's offer of experts to help a federal judge determine the financial impact of the Newsday circulation fraud in criminal cases against former executives. The report on the Newsday newspaper relates that a separate federal class-action suit against Newsday filed by advertisers who first brought the claims of falsified circulation, remains unresolved. While declining to discuss the settlement amount in his case, Mr. Bellavia indicated the award his clients had sought was substantial. "We felt that if the case went to trial we could recover from $50 million to $100 million" if the dealers got a favorable judgment, he said. The suit initially led to a level of acrimony after Newsday refused to accept advertisements from the dealers. Newsday later agreed to carry the ads after the dealers agreed that future ads would be exempt from damage claims. Mr. Bellavia said the newspaper's initial refusal to accept his clients' ads was a tactical error. "It was gangster-style tactics and it caused a lot of attention to be drawn" to the case, he said. "I'm sure if they had to do it again they would rethink having blacklisted us." Most of the dealers have returned to Newsday, Mr. Bellavia said, but some have not. He added that he is forming an Internet advertising co-operative for the car dealers to provide an online forum to reach buyers. SHOP-VAC CORP: Faces Calif. Suit Over Falsely Advertised Vacuums ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shop-Vac Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego for falsely advertising its vacuum cleaners as "Made in the USA," CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Richard A. Silber files the suit for: -- violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code Section 1750 et seq); -- violation of Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. (California Unfair Competition Law); and -- violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17533.7 (False "Made in the USA" claim). This is a class action case brought on behalf of all purchasers of wet/dry vacuum products manufactured, distributed, marketed and sold by Shop-Vac through a fraudulent, unlawful, deceptive and unfair course of conduct. The "Made in the USA" claim is printed on the products' packaging and typically includes prominent pictures of the USA flag. Despite true facts to the contrary, the Shop-Vac wet/dry vacuums are substantially made, manufactured or produced from component parts that are manufactured outside the United States, in violation of California law. The plaintiff brings the action on behalf of all other persons similarly situated in the State of California who purchased defendant's Shop-Vac wet/dry vacuum. The plaintiff requests for the following relief: -- damages according to proof; -- for a judgment declaring this action to be a proper class action; -- declaring that defendant violated the provisions of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.; -- pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Section 17204, Civil Code Section 1780, and pursuant to the equitable powers of the court, enjoining defendant, their subsidiaries, affiliates, and their successors, agents, servants, officers, directors, employees and all persons acting in concert with them, directly or indirectly, from engaging in conduct violative of California law; -- pursuant to Business & Professions Code Section 17204, requiring defendant to provide restitution to compensate, and to restore all persons in interest, including all class members, with all ill-gotten monies acquired by means of defendant's unfair competition; -- a declaration that defendant violated Business & Professions Code Section 17533.7; -- plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees; -- for costs of suit incurred; and -- for such other and further relief as the court finds just, equitable and proper, including, but not limited to, the remedy of disgorgement. The suit is "Richard A. silber et al. v. Shop-Vac, Corp., Case No. 37-2008-00078687-CU-BT-CTL," filed with the Superior Court of California - County of San Diego. Representing the plaintiffs are: John H. Donboli, Esq. JL Sean Slattery, Esq. Del Mar Law Group LLP 322 8th Street, Suite 101 Del Mar, CA 92014 Phone: (858) 793-6244 Fax: (858) 793-6005 SMITH & WESSON: Faces Nev. Lawsuit Over Inflated Stock Prices ------------------------------------------------------------- Smith & Wesson Corp. is facing a lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada alleging it dumped "millions of dollars" of their stock at inflated prices while concealing the company's financial condition, CourtHouse News Service reports. This is a shareholder derivative action brought by plaintiff Cary Green and shareholders of Smith & Wesson against certain current or former officers and directors of the company seeking to remedy Smith & Wesson's violations of state law, including breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and negligence that occurred from June 15, 2007 through the present, and that have caused substantial losses to the company. The plaintiff prays for relief and judgment, as follows: -- Against the Individual Defendants and in favor of the Company for the amount of damages sustained by the Company as a result of the Individual Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment; -- Extraordinary equitable and injunctive relief as permitted by law, equity and state statutory provisions sued hereunder, including attaching, impounding, imposing a constructive trust on or otherwise restricting the proceeds of the Individual Defendants' trading activities or their other assets so as to ensure that Plaintiff has an effective remedy; -- Awarding to Smith & Wesson restitution from the Individual Defendants, and each of them, and ordering disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by these Defendants; -- Awarding to Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs, and expenses; and -- Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. The suit is "Cary Green et al. v. Barry M. Monheit et al.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. Representing plaintiff are: William M. O'Mara, Esq. Brian O. O'Mara, Esq. David C. O'Mara, Esq. The O'Mara Law Firm, P.C. 311 East Liberty Street Reno, Nevada 89501 Telephone: 775/323-1321 Fax: 775/323-4082 SPRINT NEXTEL: Raytown Gets $500,884 in Back Taxes as Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Raytown will receive $500,884 in back business taxes from Sprint Nextel as part of a settlement following a class-action lawsuit against wireless carriers, The Kansas City Star. City Attorney Nancy Thompson told Kansas City Star that the amount represents 26 months of back taxes. In addition, the city would begin receiving up to $19,000 a month in business-tax payments from Sprint. Ms. Thompson further said that Raytown already has settled with AT&T Mobility for $404,260 and with Verizon Wireless for $320,872. Funds from the actual settlements will be subject to approval by a circuit judge in St. Louis County, where the class-action lawsuit was filed. The wireless carriers first contested paying the taxes on the grounds that the taxes did not apply to them because their technology was different from telephone companies that provide land-line services, Kansas City Star recounts. SOUTHERN CO: Dismissal in Mirant IPO Suit Still Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs in a securities class action filed against The Southern Co. in relation to Mirant Corp.'s initial public offering are seeking reconsideration of the court order dismissing certain claims in the case. In November 2002, Southern Co., certain former and current senior officers of Southern Co., and 12 underwriters of Mirant's initial public offering were added as defendants in a class action that several Mirant shareholders originally filed against Mirant and certain Mirant officers in May 2002. Several other similar lawsuits filed subsequently were consolidated into this litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The amended complaint is based on allegations related to alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities involving the California energy market, alleged false statements and omissions in Mirant's prospectus for its initial public offering and in subsequent public statements by Mirant, and accounting-related issues previously disclosed by Mirant. The lawsuit purports to include persons who acquired Mirant securities between Sept. 26, 2000, and Sept. 5, 2002. In July 2003, the court dismissed all claims based on Mirant's alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities involving the California energy market. The remaining claims do not allege any improper trading and marketing activity, accounting errors, or material misstatements or omissions on the part of Southern Co. but seek to impose liability on Southern Co. based on allegations that Southern Co. was a "control person" as to Mirant prior to the spin-off date. Southern Co. filed an answer to the consolidated amended class action complaint in September 2003. The plaintiffs have also filed a motion for class certification. During Mirant's Chapter 11 proceeding, the securities litigation was stayed, with the exception of limited discovery. Since Mirant's plan of reorganization has become effective, the stay has been lifted. On March 24, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration requesting that the court vacate that portion of its July 14, 2003 order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims based upon Mirant's alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities involving the California energy market. Southern Co. and the other defendants have opposed the plaintiffs' motion. The plaintiffs have also stated that they intend to request that the court grant leave for them to amend the complaint to add allegations based upon claims asserted against Southern Co. in the MC Asset Recovery litigation. Under certain circumstances, Southern Co. will be obligated under its bylaws to indemnify the four current and/or former Southern Co. officers who served as directors of Mirant at the time of its initial public offering through the date of the spin-off and who are also named as defendants in this lawsuit. The final outcome of this matter cannot now be determined, according to the company's Feb. 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "In Re Mirant Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-01467-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Richard W. Story. Representing the plaintiffs are: David Andrew Bain, Esq. (dbain@bain-law.com) Law Office of David A. Bain, LLC 1050 Promenade II 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-724-9990 Fax: 404-724-9986 - and - Nichole Tara Browning, Esq. (nba@classlaw.com) Chitwood & Harley 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E. 2300 Promenade II Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-3900 Representing the defendants are: Jessica Perry Corley, Esq. (jcorley@alston.com) Alston & Bird 1201 West Peachtree Street One Atlantic Center Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Phone: 404-881-7000 - and - Gordon Lee Garrett, Jr., Esq. (ggarrett@jonesday.com) Jones Day-Atlanta 1420 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 800 Atlanta, GA 30309-3053 Phone: 404-521-3939 STANDARD PACIFIC: Officers Still Face Securities Suit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Certain officers of Standard Pacific Corp. continue to face a purported securities fraud class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, according to the company's Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On Aug. 16, 2007, a securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Andrew H. Parnes, the company's Executive Vice President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer, by putative plaintiff Vinod Patel. The company was not named in the complaint. The complaint alleges a breach of fiduciary duties to the company's stockholders, as well as violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, during the period between Oct. 27, 2005 and Aug. 2, 2007. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company: -- issued materially false and misleading statements regarding our finances, business and prospects; -- lacked requisite internal controls over lending practices; and -- misrepresented the extent of risk in the Company's loans. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages (including interest), reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, as well as equitable, injunctive or other relief that the court may deem just and proper. The complaint has not been served. On Dec. 3, 2007, the Court appointed Pinellas Park Retirement System, Plumbers Local No. 98 Defined Benefit Pension Fund, and the City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement System as lead plaintiffs. On or about Jan. 23, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws. The Consolidated Complaint names Andrew Parnes and Stephen Scarborough, Standard Pacifics Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Board, as defendants. It does not name the Company as a defendant. In the Consolidated Complaint, the plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Standard Pacific between Oct. 27, 2005, and Aug. 2, 2007. The plaintiffs allege that the price of Standard Pacifics common stock was artificially inflated during this period because Mr. Parnes and Mr. Scarborough provided false and misleading earnings and sales guidance to the public that lacked a reasonable basis due to the adverse impact of rising interest rates, slowing housing markets and other macro-economic factors affecting Standard Pacific. The plaintiffs assert claims against Mr. Parnes and Mr. Scarborough for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and against Mr. Parnes for violation of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit is "Vinod Patel v. Andrew H Parnes., Case No. 2:07-cv- 05364-MMM-SH," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Margaret M. Morrow presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (darrenr@csgrr.com) Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 - and - Joon M. Khang, Esq. (jkhang@lhlaw.com) Lee Hong Degerman Kang & Schmadeka 660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-623-2221 Fax: 213-623-2211 Representing the defendants are: Kristopher Price Diulio, Esq. (kdiulio@gibsondunn.com) Matthew E. Lilly, Esq. (mlilly@gibsondunn.com) Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP 3161 Michelson Dr. Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Phone: 949-451-3907 and 949-451-3800 TACO BELL: Discovery Underway in Calif. Labor-Related Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is under way in a a consolidated class action in California that was filed by a Restaurant General Manager (RGM) against Taco Bell Corp., a division of YUM! Brands, Inc., according to the YUM! Brands' Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 28, 2008. On Aug. 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco Bell Corp. styled, "Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed in Orange County Superior Court. On Aug. 7, 2006, another putative class action styled, "Marina Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed in San Diego County Superior Court. Both lawsuits were filed by an RGM purporting to represent all current and former RGMs who worked at corporate-owned restaurants in California from August 2002 to the present. The lawsuits allege violations of California's wage and hour laws involving unpaid overtime and meal and rest period violations and seek unspecified amounts in damages and penalties. As of Sept. 7, 2006, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Orange County case and both cases have been consolidated in San Diego County. Discovery is underway, with pre-certification discovery cutoff set for June 2, 2008, and a July 1, 2008 deadline for plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 34,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. YUM consists of six operating segments: KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Long John Silver's (LJS) and A&W All-American Food Restaurants (A&W), YUM Restaurants International (YRI or International Division) and YUM Restaurants China (China Division). TACO BELL: Discovery Underway in Calif. Labor Violations Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is underway in a purported class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District California against Taco Bell Corp., Yum! Brands, Inc., and other related entities, and was brought on behalf of all hourly employees who have worked for the defendants within the last four years. The suit, "Sandrika Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed on Sept. 10, 2007. It alleges numerous violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime, failure to pay wages on termination, denial of meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200. The Company was dismissed from the case without prejudice on Jan. 10, 2008, and discovery is underway, according to the YUM! Brands' Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 28, 2008. The suit is "Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., et al., Case No. 1:07- cv-01314-OWW-DLB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Judge Oliver W. Wanger presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Joseph Cho, Esq. (josephcho@initiativelegal.com) Initiative Legal Group LLP 1800 Century Park East, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 556-5637 Fax: (310) 861-9051 Representing the defendants are: Heather Mactavish Freelin, Esq. (hfreelin@irell.com) Irell and Manella 840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949-760-0991 Fax: 949-760-5200 TACO BELL: Parties in Calif. ADA Suit Discuss Possible Mediation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the matter "Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp., Case No. 3:02-cv-05849," are in discussions intended to get to mediation. The purported class action remains pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It named Taco Bell Corp. as a defendant on Dec. 17, 2002. On Aug. 4, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that alleges, among other things, that the company discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 220 company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class. The plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility-related disabilities –- including parking spaces, ramps, counters, restroom facilities and seating -- do not comply with the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act. The plaintiffs have requested: -- an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing regulations; -- that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and -- monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA. The plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of the class. They contend that there may be in excess of 100,000 individuals in the class. For themselves, the four named plaintiffs have claimed aggregate minimum statutory damages of no less than $16,000, but are expected to claim greater amounts based on the number of company outlets they visited at which they claim to have suffered discrimination. On Feb. 23, 2004, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The district court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) mandatory injunctive relief class of all individuals with disabilities who use wheelchairs or electric scooters for mobility who, at any time on or after Dec. 17, 2001, were denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis of disability, the full and equal enjoyment of the California Restaurants. The class includes claims for injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages. Pursuant to the parties' agreement, on or about Aug. 31, 2004, the district court ordered that the trial of this action be bifurcated so that stage one will resolve plaintiffs' claims for equitable relief and stage two will resolve plaintiffs' claims for damages. The parties are currently proceeding with the equitable relief stage of this action. During this stage, the company filed a motion to partially decertify the class to exclude from the Rule 23(b)(2) class claims for monetary damages. The district court denied the motion. The plaintiffs filed their own motion for partial summary judgment as to liability relating to a subset of the California Restaurants. The district court denied that motion as well. On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force. On Aug. 8, 2007, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to dining room seating. In addition, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at some restaurants (but not all), and denied the motion with regard to queue lines. At a status conference on Sept. 27, 2007, the court set a trial date of Nov. 10, 2008, with respect to not more than 20 restaurants to determine the issue of liability and common issues. Discovery related to the subject of the mini-trial is underway. The parties are in discussions intended to get to mediation, according to the YUM! Brands' Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 28, 2008. The suit is "Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp., Case No. 3:02- cv-05849," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Martin J. Jenkins presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Timothy P. Fox, Esq. (tfox@foxrob.com) Fox & Robertson, P.C. 910-16th Street, Suite 610 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-595-9700 Fax: 303-595-9705 - and - Brad Seligman, Esq. (bs@impactfund.org) The Impact Fund, 125 University Ave. Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: 510-845-3473 ext. 304 Fax: 510-845-3654 Representing the defendant are: Gregory A. Eurich, Esq. (geurich@hollandhart.com) Jimmy Goh, Esq. (jgoh@hollandhart.com) Holland & Hart, LLP 555 17th Street, Suite 3200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-295-8000 - and - Gregory F. Hurley, Esq. (sautters@gtlaw.com) Greenberg Traurig, LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1700 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714-708-6564 Fax: 714 708-6501 TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Still Faces FACTA Violations Suits in Pa., Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Texas Roadhouse, Inc. continues to face two purported class actions in Pennsylvania and Illinois that generally allege violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The suits are: -- "Nicole M. Ehrheart v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Case No. CA 07-54," which was filed against the Company with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on March 26, 2007; and -- "Mario Aliano v. Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC, Texas Roadhouse, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. 07cv4108," which was filed against the Company with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 20, 2007. Ehrheart Litigation The suit alleges liability under FACTA based on the alleged practice of unlawfully including more information on the electronically printed credit or debit card receipts provided to customers than is permitted. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, including statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and a permanent injunction against the alleged unlawful practice. Statutory damages range from $100 to $1,000 for each willful violation. The Company has filed an answer to the complaint denying the material allegations of the complaint. Discovery has not yet begun. Aliano Litigation The case alleges liability under FACTA. The plaintiff seeks statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs. The company has filed an answer to the complaint denying the material allegations of the complaint. Discovery has not yet begun. The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 25, 2007. Texas Roadhouse, Inc. -- http://www.texasroadhouse.com-- is a full-service, casual dining restaurant chain. It offers an assortment of seasoned and aged steaks hand-cut daily on the premises and cooked to order over open gas-fired grills. The Company also offers its guests a selection of ribs, fish, seafood, chicken and vegetable plates, and an assortment of hamburgers, salads and sandwiches. TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Mass. Court Approves $50M Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted preliminary approval to a $50,000,000 settlement in consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. In January and February 2003, various parties filed purported class actions against: -- TKT, which was acquired by Shire, PLC, on July 27, 2005; and -- Richard Selden, TKT's former chief executive officer. The complaints generally allege securities fraud during the period from January 2001 through January 2003. Each of the complaints asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. They allege that TKT and its officers made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information concerning the status and progress for obtaining U.S. marketing approval of TKT's REPLAGAL product to treat Fabry disease during that period. On March 25, 2003, motions were filed with the court to appoint lead plaintiff, lead counsel and for consolidation of all related cases. The court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel on April 9, 2003 and, subsequently, consolidated all cases into one class action lawsuit entitled, "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities Litigation." In July 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended class action complaint against: -- TKT; -- Dr. Selden; -- Daniel Geffken, TKT's former chief financial officer; -- Walter Gilbert, Jonathan S. Leff, Rodman W. Moorhead, III, and Wayne P. Yetter, then members of TKT's board of directors; -- William R. Miller and James E. Thomas, former members of TKT's board of directors; and -- SG Cowen Securities Corp., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Pacific Growth Equities, Inc. and Leerink Swann. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint on Sept. 17, 2003, which lead plaintiffs opposed Oct. 31, 2003. On Dec. 4, 2003, the court heard oral arguments regarding the motions to dismiss and took these motions under advisement. Thereafter on May 26, 2004 the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants motions to dismiss. Defendants then filed their answers to the amended complaint on July 16, 2004. On July 23, 2004 lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which defendants opposed. Both parties have provided briefs to the court regarding class certification. In November 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On May 23, 2005, the court entered judgment on all claims alleged against SG Cowen Securities Corp., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Pacific Growth Equities, Inc., and Leerink Swann & Company. On June 5, 2006, the court entered judgment on all claims alleged against Messrs. Gilbert, Leff, Moorhead, Yetter, Miller, and Thomas. On Nov. 9, 2006, Mr. Geffken filed an Agreement for Judgment on all claims alleged against him. In October 2007, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the Class Action Shareholder Suit, subject to court approval, for $50 million. Shire will contribute $27 million toward the settlement and its insurance companies will contribute the remaining $23 million. The $27 million settlement cost has been provided for within SG&A during this quarter. In February 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted preliminary approval to the settlement, according to the company's Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 25, 2007. The suit is "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165-RWZ," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Rya W. Zobel presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert Finkel, Esq. (RFinkel@wolfpopper.com) Wolf Popper LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-759-4600 Fax: 212-486-2093 - and - Darren Check, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 Representing the defendants are: Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq. (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02115 Phone: 617-526-6145 Fax: 617-526-5000 Michael K. Fee, Esq. (MFEE@ropesgray.com) Ropes & Gray, LLP One International Place Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-951-7000 Fax: 617-951-7050 - and - Thomas J. Dougherty, Esq. (dougherty@skadden.com) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP One Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-573-4800 Fax: 617-573-4822 VIRGINIA: DNA Lawsuit Against Charlottesville Police Dropped ------------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit against the city of Charlottesville Police Chief Tim Longo and Officer James Mooney involving charges in DNA sampling have been dismissed, Charlottesvillenewsplex.com reports. According to the Daily Progress, Charlottesville resident Larry Monroe, who filed the suit claiming that city police violated his rights in their search for a serial rapist, has agreed to dismiss his case. Charlottesvillenewsplex recalls that the lawsuit claimed that Mr. Monroe's constitutional rights were violated when he was asked to voluntarily provide a DNA sample as a part of the serial rapist investigation. Daily Progress points out that Mr. Monroe initially filed a $15,000-suit in state court naming the city, Police Chief Longo and police Detective Mooney. That suit was dismissed in 2004, but was later filed in federal court on Dec. 16, 2005. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 9, 2007, Mr. Monroe and nearly 190 other men were approached by Charlottesville city police to submit to a cheek-swab DNA test in 2003 and 2004 in the search for the serial rapist. According to CAR, the suit alleges two violations of constitutional rights: (1) the policy of asking Mr. Monroe and other black men to provide their DNA for tests violates their constitutional right to equal protection because the same policy wasn't applied to all white men after unsolved sexual assaults made by white assailants; and (2) the policy constituted unreasonable seizures. Daily Progress says that the rapist, Nathan Antonio Washington, was arrested in August 2007 and sentenced just this week to more than four life terms in prison. Charlottesvillenewsplex relates that U.S. District Court Judge Norman Moon has already dismissed several of the original claims, including Mr. Monroe's attempt to pursue the case as a class action on behalf of individuals who had been asked to provide a sample. Judge Moon also dismissed the part of Mr. Monroe's suit that alleged that his right to equal protection under the law had been violated because police asked him for a DNA sample based on his race, Daily Progress says. However, Mr. Monroe, according to Charlottesvillenewsplex, retains the right to pursue an appeal to the Fourth Circuit on Judge Moon's earlier rulings. Mr. Monroe's attorney, Deborah C. Wyatt told Daily Progress that her client agreed to drop the remaining portion of the lawsuit in U.S. District Court so that his equal-protection claim could proceed to an appeal. "Instead of waiting for a trial on the remaining claim that was going to be this summer, we wanted to go ahead with the issues that are more important to our client and to us," Ms. Wyatt said. Mr. Monroe has 30 days to file his appeal, which had not been entered on Wednesday in federal appeals court in Richmond. Mr. Monroe may also be seeking a review of the class-certification issue, Ms. Wyatt said. The suit is "Monroe v. City of Charlottesville, Virginia et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00074-nkm," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia under Judge Norman K. Moon with referral to Judge B. Waugh Crigler. Representing the plaintiff are: Neal L. Walters, Esq. (nwalters@scottkroner.com) Scott & Kroner, PC P.O. BOX 2737, Charlottesville, VA 22902-2737 Phone: 434-296-2161 Fax: 434-293-2073 - and - Deborah Chasen Wyatt, Esq. (DWESQ@aol.com) Wyatt & Armstrong, 300 Court Square, Charlottesville, VA 22902-5160 Phone: 434-296-4130 Fax: 297-3083 Representing the defendants is: Richard Hustis Milnor, Esq. (rmilnor@cstone.net) Taylor Zunka Milnor & Carter, Ltd. 414 Park Street, Charlottesville VA 22902 Phone: 434-977-0191 Fax: 434-977-0198 * Oklahoma Appeals Court Says Class-Action Tactic Won't Work ------------------------------------------------------------ Filing similar class-action lawsuits in multiple venues in the hope that one will get allowed is an attorney tactic that won't work in Oklahoma, the state Court of Civil Appeals stated last week, according to The Journal Record. The appeals court cited a ruling issued by the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which precluded unnamed members of one class action from filing a new class-action lawsuit based on the same claims in a different venue. "The (federal) Court . . . recognized the filing of multiple suits suggested the plaintiffs' lawyers had adopted a strategy of filing in as many courts as necessary until a nationwide class was certified, thereby rendering insignificant all the no- certification decisions of other courts," the Court of Civil Appeals found. The appeals court applied the "issue of preclusion" to prevent unnamed members of one class from filing multiple similar lawsuits. The federal appeals court rejected the plaintiff's claim that the preclusion denied them due process. Even those unnamed class members who opt out of a class-action lawsuit still have the right to litigate individually. "A person who opts out receives the right to go it alone, not to launch a competing class action," the court found. Journal Record points out that the state appeals court dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed in LeFlore County by Paul Rees against BP America Production Co., asserting the oil and gas company had underpaid royalties. Mr. Rees sought to bring action against BP on behalf of "all similarly situated persons and entities who have received royalty payments from BP on gas substances produced from the Red Oak-Norris Field" in LeFlore County. "Watts v. Amoco Production Company (now BP)" had been filed in 2001 on behalf of royalty owners in oil and gas drilling in LeFlore and six other counties in Oklahoma, the court found. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals had found the Watts case unsuitable for class-action disposition due to the need for individualized inquiry to deduce the costs involved. The Oklahoma Supreme Court refused to take up the case. The appeals court ruled that Mr. Rees' new class-action lawsuit was precluded by the court's refusal to certify the class in Watts, though Mr. Rees is free to file an individual claim against the company. WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces WA Suit Over ChoiceDek Decking Products -------------------------------------------------------------- A consortium of law firms filed a nationwide class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle on behalf of all purchasers of Weyerhaeuser ChoiceDek(R) decking products. The plaintiffs filed their suit against: -- Weyerhaeuser Company (NYSE:WY) (ChoiceDek(r) seller); -- Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:AERT) (ChoiceDek(r) manufacturer); and -- Lowe's Companies, Inc. (NYSE:LOW) (ChoiceDek(r) retailer). ChoiceDek(R) is a composite material, primarily composed of wood fibers and recycled plastic, used in residential decking throughout the United States. The defendants have sold hundreds of millions of dollars of this product since it was first introduced into the market. The plaintiffs' legal complaint alleges that ChoiceDek(r) is defective because it develops extensive and recurring mold and mildew stains due to inherent manufacturing flaws and that Defendants fraudulently advertised the product as being "low maintenance" despite having knowledge of these problems. The plaintiffs contend that although the products are promoted as "virtually moisture proof," they are, in fact, highly susceptible to moisture in the outdoor environment. Additionally, the manufacturer of ChoiceDek(r) acknowledges that it utilizes "contaminated" recycled plastic that it fails to adequately clean, which introduces food waste into the decking boards. The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that would require the Defendants to honor the warranty that comes with the product and replace defective decks or provide consumers with refunds. Alternatively, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The law firms that filed the lawsuit are: Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: 202-408-4600 Fax: 202-408-4699 Keller Rohrback L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.623.1900 Fax: 206.623.3384 - and - Gary, Naegele & Theado, LLC (Lorain, OH). 446 Broadway Lorain, OH 44052-1797 Phone: (440) 244-4809 Fax: (440) 244-3462 Web site: http://www.gntlaw.com New Securities Fraud Cases AMBAC FINANCIAL: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Ambac Financial Group, Inc., between October 19, 2005, and January 15, 2008, inclusive against Ambac and certain of its officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company issued materially false and misleading statements about Ambac's business and financial results and materially misrepresented, inter alia, its exposure to collateralized debt obligations and subprime mortgages. It is also alleged that defendants failed to mark down the Company's CDO and other mortgage-backed security assets in a timely manner, resulting in the Company issuing materially false and misleading financial statements and results. Moreover, it is alleged that certain executives of the Company reaped millions of dollars in proceeds from the sale of Ambac shares during the Class Period at artificially inflated prices. It is also alleged that on January 16, 2008, Ambac announced its preliminary fourth quarter 2007 results which included an estimated net loss of $3.4 billion for the fourth quarter, including an approximate $1.1 billion loss that was attributed to CDOs backed by subprime mortgages. As a result, it is alleged the price of Ambac stock plummeted on January 16, 2008, to close at $12.97 per share, a 38% decline from the prior day close. Interested parties may move the court no later than March 17, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Frederic S. Fox, Esq. (ffox@kaplanfox.com) Joel B. Strauss, Esq. (jstrauss@kaplanfox.com) Donald R. Hall, Esq. (dhall@kaplanfox.com) Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com) 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: mail@kaplanfox.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. (lking@kaplanfox.com) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 94104 Phone: (415) 772-4700 Fax: (415) 772-4707 MORGAN KEEGAN: Schiffrin Barroway Files TN Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action with the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee against Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc., Morgan Keegan Asset Management, Inc., Regions Financial Corporation and related companies and officers and directors. The Complaint charges the Company, the Funds and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Morgan Keegan served as distribution agent and underwriter for the Funds' shares during the Class Period, and also served as the Transfer and Dividend Disbursing Agent. RMK Advantage Income Fund, RMK Strategic Income Fund and RMK High Income Fund are closed-end management investment companies that invest primarily in debt securities. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Funds' Registration Statements failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) the true nature and extent of the risk related to the concentrated securities within the Funds; (2) the extent to which the Funds were invested in illiquid securities; (3) that the Funds were invested in risky, new investment structures in which data was difficult to obtain; (4) that due to the Funds' illiquidity, the manager would be forced to initially sell first the liquid, lower risk assets, thereby penalizing holders of the Funds; (5) that the Funds were heavily invested in illiquid and subprime structures, such as collateralized debt obligations; (6) that the Funds were invested in assets that were being valued subjectively under "fair valuation" procedures; (7) that the Funds' Boards of Directors created a conflict of interest by not discharging their responsibilities with respect to "fair valuation" and passing said responsibilities to the Funds' investment advisor whose compensation was tied to the value of the Funds' assets; (8) that the Funds did not employ sufficient "value- investing" strategies, yet they were sold to the public as being committed to "value-oriented" investing; (9) that although the Funds were said to be independent and employ different investment strategies, they were managed in a nearly identical fashion and employed nearly identical strategies, resulting in increased risk; (10) that the Funds were heavily invested in risky, non- conforming mortgages that did not comply with FHLMC or FNMA standards; (11) that the Funds' pre-2006 results were attributable to their concentration in illiquid, subprime and untested investment structures; and (12) that adequate internal and financial controls did not exist. Each of the Funds, pursuant to an individual yet substantially similar Registration Statement and Prospectus filed with the SEC were initially offered for $15 per share. On December 6, 2004, the share price for each of the Funds was as follows: RMA at $15.82 per share, RSF at $16.60 per share and RMH at $18.20 per share. As a result of various statements and news stories issued, the value of the Funds' shares consistently declined. By February 6, 2008, each of the Funds was trading far below the closing price on December 6, 2004. On February 6, 2008, RMA declined to $4.10 per share for a cumulative loss of $11.72, or over 74% of the price on December 6, 2004. Similarly, RSF declined to $3.90 per share for a cumulative loss of $12.70, or over 76% of the price on December 6, 2004. Finally, RMH declined to $4.20 for a cumulative loss of $14, or almost 77% of the price on December 6, 2004. As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Funds' securities, the plaintiff and other class members have suffered significant losses and damages. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than April 7, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. (dcheck@sbtklaw.com) Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. (rmaniskas@sbtklaw.com) Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) 1-610-667-7706 SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Firm Files CA Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against SiRF Technology Holdings Inc. and certain officers of the company. The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the Company during the period from October 30, 2007 through February 4, 2008, inclusive. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under. SiRF, headquartered in San Jose, California, engages in the development and marketing of semiconductor and software products that are designed for location awareness utilizing global positioning system and other location technologies. The Complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants issued material misrepresentations to the public concerning the Company's business and prospects. In particular, defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) SiRF's acquisition of Centrality Communications, Inc. (Centrality) was having an adverse impact on the Company's results due to the similar products sold by Centrality which were cannibalizing SiRF's sales; (2) competitive pressures were having more of a negative impact on the Company than acknowledged by Defendants in that the Company's customers were moving to cellular-enabled products which SiRF could not adequately compete with, and (3) downward pricing pressures were accelerating and would lead to lower margins and earnings in future quarters. On February 4, 2008, after the market closed, SiRF announced disappointing financial results for 4th quarter and fiscal 2007. The news caused shares of the Company to drop to $8.91 per share, to close at $7.36 per share on February 8. This was a 54% drop from the previous day's closing price of $16.27. Interested parties may move the court no later than April 8, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP Phone: (888) 476.6529 or (888) 4.POMLAW SWISS REINSURANCE: Coughlin Stoia Files NY Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all U.S. residents or citizens who purchased Swiss Reinsurance Company (SWX:RUKN) stock during the period between May 8, 2007, and November 19, 2007. The complaint charges Swiss Re and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Swiss Re is the world's largest reinsurer with 70 offices in more than 25 countries. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's financial condition. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Swiss Re's Credit Solutions unit had written two credit default swaps that exposed the Company to great financial risk. In a credit default swap, one party guarantees that a third party borrower will not default on a debt. In this case, Swiss Re guaranteed certain mortgage-backed securities which included some subprime and collateralized debt obligations. When the existence and nature of the credit default swaps was disclosed, Swiss Re's stock price dropped from CHF97.55 to CHF87.55 (Swiss Francs) the next day. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all U.S. residents or citizens who purchased Swiss Re stock during the Class Period. For more information, contact: Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 90,322 Claims at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation recorded 90,322 unresolved asbestos- related claims at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 111,887 claims at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 19, 2008. The Company recorded 103,902 unresolved claims at Sept. 30, 2007, of which 7,696 were newly filed claims. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007) The Company is and has been involved in asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past three decades. These suits allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that the Company sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on Company premises, and the Company's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 10,157 claims filed, 31,722 claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved, 28,937 claimants with claims against both the Company and Amchem, and 61,385 individual claimants. At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 16,386 claims filed, 50,824 claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved, 38,529 claimants with claims against both the Company and Amchem, and 73,358 individual claimants. In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the Company's products. Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of hundreds or even thousands of claimants. As a result, the damages alleged are not expressly identified as to the Company, Amchem or any other particular defendant, even when specific damages are alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury. Houston-based Union Carbide Corporation is a chemicals and polymers company. Since Feb. 6, 2001, the Company has been a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UCC Cites $172M Defense, Resolution Costs -------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation, at Dec. 31, 2007, recorded US$172 million in defense and resolution costs for asbestos claims, in which US$84 million was for defense and US$88 million was for resolution. At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded US$179 million in defense and resolution costs for asbestos claims, in which US$62 million was for defense and US$117 million was for resolution. The aggregate defense costs to date as of Dec. 31, 2007 were US$565 million. The aggregate resolution costs to date as of Dec. 31, 2007 were US$1.270 billion. The average resolution payment per asbestos claimant and the rate of new claim filings has fluctuated both up and down since the beginning of 2001. The Corporation expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax impact for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was US$84 million in 2007, US$45 million in 2006 and US$75 million in 2005, and was reflected in "Cost of sales." In November 2007, the Company requested the Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation (ARPC) to review the Company's 2007 asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine the appropriateness of updating its December 2006 study. In response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through Oct. 31, 2007. In December 2007, ARPC stated that an update of its study would not provide a more likely estimate of future events than the estimate reflected in its study of the previous year and, therefore, the estimate in that study remained applicable. Based on the Company's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution activity and ARPC's response, the Company determined that no change to the accrual was required. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was US$1.1 billion. At Dec. 31, 2007, about 31 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and about 69 percent related to future claims. At Dec. 31, 2006, about 25 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and about 75 percent related to future claims. Houston-based Union Carbide Corporation is a chemicals and polymers company. Since Feb. 6, 2001, the Company has been a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $467M Receivable at Dec. --------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability was US$467 million at Dec. 31, 2007 and US$495 million at Dec. 31, 2006. At Dec. 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, all of the receivable for insurance recoveries was related to insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage. In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability, the Company had receivables for defense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers for reimbursement. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had US$271 million as receivables for defense and resolution costs, in which US$18 million was for defense and US$253 million was for resolution. At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had US$300 million as receivables for defense and resolution costs, in which US$34 million was for defense and US$266 million was for resolution. In September 2003, the Company filed a comprehensive insurance coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds. This lawsuit was filed against insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise have agreements in place with the Company regarding their asbestos- related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance policies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise. Although the lawsuit is continuing, through the end of 2007, the Company has reached settlements with several of the carriers involved in this litigation. Houston-based Union Carbide Corporation is a chemicals and polymers company. Since Feb. 6, 2001, the Company has been a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich, Units Still Face Exposure Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Goodrich Corporation and some of its subsidiaries face various actions by plaintiffs alleging damages as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers in products or at Company facilities, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 19, 2008. A number of these cases involve maritime claims, which have been and are expected to continue to be administratively dismissed by the court. In May 2002, the Company completed the tax-free spin-off of its Engineered Industrial Products (EIP) segment, which at the time of the spin-off included EnPro Industries, Inc. and Coltec Industries Inc. At that time, two subsidiaries of Coltec were defendants in a significant number of personal injury claims relating to alleged asbestos-containing products sold by those subsidiaries prior to the Company's ownership. It is possible that asbestos-related claims might be asserted against the Company on the theory that it has some responsibility for the asbestos-related liabilities of EnPro, Coltec or its subsidiaries. Also, it is possible that a claim might be asserted against the Company that Coltec's dividend of its aerospace business to the Company prior to the spin-off was made at a time when Coltec was insolvent or caused Coltec to become insolvent. A limited number of asbestos-related claims have been asserted against the Company as "successor" to Coltec or one of its subsidiaries. The agreement between EnPro and the Company that was used to effectuate the spin-off provides the Company with an indemnification from EnPro covering these liabilities. Based in Charlotte, N.C., Goodrich Corporation supplies components, systems and services to the commercial and general aviation airplane markets. The Company also supplies systems and products to the global defense and space markets. Products and services are principally sold to customers in North America, Europe and Asia. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Trane Rise to 105,023 at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Trane Inc., formerly known as American Standard Companies Inc., recorded 105,023 open asbestos-related claims pending against it at Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 20, 2008. American Standard faced 102,663 open asbestos-related claims in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with 102,223 claims in the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 16, 2007) Over the years, the Company has been named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injury claims arising primarily from its historical sales of boilers and railroad brake shoes. In these asbestos-related lawsuits, the Company is usually named as one of a large group of defendants. Many of these lawsuits involve multiple claimants, do not specifically identify the injury or disease for which damages are sought and/or do not allege a connection between any Company product and a claimed injury or disease. From receipt of the first asbestos claim more than 20 years ago through Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has resolved (by settlement or dismissal) 61,002 claims. The Company and its insurance carriers have paid settlements of about US$109 million, which represents an average payment per resolved claim of US$1,786. During 2007, 3,019 new claims were filed against the Company, 1,826 claims were dismissed, and 740 claims were settled. The Company's total accrual for asbestos-related liabilities was US$641.2 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$665.8 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The decrease of US$24.6 million in 2007 was due primarily to claims payments made by the Company during the year. Piscataway, N.J.-based Trane Inc. manufactures commercial and residential heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. The Company offers customers HVAC systems; dehumidifying and air cleaning products; service and parts support and advanced building controls. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Still Pursuing Coverage Claim in N.J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Trane Inc., formerly known as American Standard Companies Inc., continues to be in litigation against certain insurance carriers whose policies it believes provide coverage for asbestos claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 20, 2008. The insurance carriers named in this suit are challenging the Company's right to recovery. The Company filed the action in April 1999 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, against various primary and lower layer excess insurance carriers, seeking coverage for environmental claims (NJ Litigation). The NJ Litigation was later expanded to also seek coverage for asbestos related liabilities from 21 primary and lower layer excess carriers and underwriting syndicates. On Sept. 19, 2005, the court granted the Company's motion to add 16 additional insurers and 117 new insurance policies to the NJ Litigation. The court also required the parties to submit all contested matters to mediation. The Company engaged in its first mediation session with the NJ Litigation defendants on Jan. 18, 2006 and has engaged in active discussions since that time. During the mediation, the parties agreed to extensions of discovery deadlines and stays of discovery except for discovery necessary to facilitate the mediation process. The continued stay of discovery was confirmed by agreement at the most recent status conference with the court and the mediator, which took place on Nov. 26, 2007. The Company estimates and records a receivable for amounts recoverable from its insurance carriers for asbestos claims that have been settled and paid, the reimbursable portion of incurred legal expenses, and the probable reimbursements relating to its estimated liability for pending and future claims. The total asbestos receivable was US$342.9 million at Dec. 31, 2007 and US$385.8 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The receivable decreased in 2007 primarily as a result of cash payments received from insurance companies of US$55.5 million, partially offset by the recoverable portion of incurred legal expenses of US$3.5 million and favorable settlements not yet recovered of US$9.1 million. With the addition of the parties and policies, the NJ Litigation would resolve the coverage issues with respect to about 94 percent of the recorded receivable. The remaining six percent of the recorded receivable relates to policies for which the Company has not sought resolution of coverage because such policies were issued by parties whose coverage obligations are triggered at higher excess layers that are not expected to be reached in the near future. At Dec. 31, 2007, 92 percent of the insurance recovery receivable is with carriers rated A or better by AM Best. Piscataway, N.J.-based Trane Inc. manufactures commercial and residential heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. The Company offers customers HVAC systems; dehumidifying and air cleaning products; service and parts support and advanced building controls. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Inc. Has $628.2M Liability at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Trane Inc.'s long-term asbestos liability was US$628.2 million in its consolidated balance sheet as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$652.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 20, 2008. The Company was formerly known as American Standard Companies Inc. American Standard's long-term asbestos-related liability amounted to US$637 million in its consolidated balance sheet as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 16, 2007) The Company's long-term asbestos receivable was US$336.9 million in its consolidated balance sheet as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$336.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. American Standard's long-term asbestos receivable amounted to US$336 million in its consolidated balance sheet as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 16, 2007) Piscataway, N.J.-based Trane Inc. manufactures commercial and residential heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. The Company offers customers HVAC systems; dehumidifying and air cleaning products; service and parts support and advanced building controls. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.O. Smith Faces Suits with 66,072 Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- A.O. Smith Corporation and its subsidiaries, as of Dec. 31, 2007, are defendants in lawsuits involving claims by about 66,072 plaintiffs, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 20, 2008. The Company and its subsidiaries faced asbestos-related lawsuits involving claims by about 72,310 plaintiffs. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2007) The Company or its subsidiaries have been named as a co- defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos integrated into certain of the Company's or its subsidiaries' products or premises. The Company and its subsidiaries have never manufactured asbestos. The Company and its subsidiaries have made no payment in a substantial majority of the cases closed to date. The remainder of the resolved cases have settled for amounts that are not material to the Company, and the costs of defense and settlements have been supported in part by insurance. Milwaukee-based A.O. Smith Corporation manufactures water heating equipment and electric motors. The Company is comprised of two reporting segments: Water Products and Electrical Products. In 2007, the Company had net sales of about US$2.3 billion, with 61 percent attributable to its Water Products business and 39 percent attributable to its Electrical Products business. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers' Liabilities Rise to $19.3M at Dec. --------------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$19,341,000 as of Dec. 30, 2007, compared with US$18,694,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 20, 2008. The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities totaled US$18,694,000 million as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 16, 2007) The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were US$4,303,000 as of Dec. 30, 2007, compared with US$4,244,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance receivables were US$19,149,000 as of Dec. 30, 2007, compared with US$18,503,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's current asbestos-related insurance receivables were US$4,303,000 as of Dec. 30, 2007, compared with US$4,244,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006. Rogers Corporation develops and manufactures high performance, specialty-material-based products for various applications in diverse markets including: portable communications, communications infrastructure, computer and office equipment, consumer products, ground transportation, aerospace and defense. The Company is based in Rogers, Conn. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philips Records 5,084 Pending Cases at Dec. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Royal Philips Electronics N.V. faced 5,084 pending asbestos cases, representing 9,906 claimants, at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 4,370 cases, represented 9,020 claimants, at Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 19, 2008. Judicial proceedings have been brought in the United States, relating primarily to the activities of a subsidiary prior to 1981, involving allegations of personal injury from alleged asbestos exposure. The claims generally relate to asbestos used in the manufacture of unrelated companies' products in the United States and frequently involve claims for substantial compensatory and punitive damages. The subsidiary's businesses which allegedly gave rise to these alleged liabilities were completely sold in 1984 and the subsidiary's ongoing operations are not material to its parent or the Company. During 2007, 1,656 cases, representing 2,413 claimants, were served against the Company's subsidiaries (1,140 cases, representing 2,930 claimants, were served in 2006 and 2,052 cases, representing 3,283 claimants, were served in 2005). A number of other cases have been dismissed with no payment. During 2007, 942 cases, representing 1,527 claimants, were settled or dismissed (754 cases, representing 1,992 claimants, were settled in 2006 and 977 cases, representing 1,229 claimants, were settled in 2005). Based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Royal Philips Electronics N.V. makes consumer electronics, including TVs, VCRs, DVD players, and fax machines. The Company also makes light bulbs, electric shavers and other personal care appliances, picture tubes, medical systems, and silicon systems solutions. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philips Unit Accrues EUR315M for Liability --------------------------------------------------------------- Royal Philips Electronics N.V.'s subsidiary, at Dec. 31, 2007, accrued EUR315.7 million (EUR378 million at Dec. 31, 2006) for loss contingencies for asbestos product liability, which is reflected in the Company's consolidated balance sheet. The subsidiary is unnamed in the report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 19, 2008. The subsidiary was one of about 160 defendants initially named in a case filed in August 1995 in Morris County, Tex. Since the time the case was brought in 1995, the subsidiary had not been involved in any substantive activity in the case other than filing an answer to the complaint and had no information concerning the types of alleged diseases or injuries involved. Commencing in the fourth quarter of 2005 and continuing thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel in this matter filed information concerning the claimants and their alleged diseases with the Court. The claims have now been severed into five cases: two cases with an aggregate of 282 malignant disease claims; two cases with an aggregate of 223 nonmalignant disease claims with alleged impairment; and one case with 3,177 claims that have no impairment at this time. The cases with the malignant disease claims and nonmalignant disease claims with alleged impairment are currently pending in Morris County. The case containing the claims that have no impairment at this time has been transferred to Harris County, Tex. During 2007, the subsidiary incurred asbestos litigation and claim administration costs totaling EUR15 million (EUR12 million in 2006). During 2007 and the last several years, agreements were reached with certain insurance carriers resolving disputes with respect to the interpretation and available limits of the policies, amounts payable to the subsidiaries and terms under which future settlements and related defense costs are reimbursable. Pursuant to these settlements, insurers paid EUR27 million in 2007 (EUR34 million was paid in 2006) for asbestos-related defense and indemnity costs. At Dec. 31, 2007, the subsidiary's recorded receivable from insurance carriers, for which settlement agreements have been reached amounted to EUR62.7 million (EUR80 million at Dec. 31, 2006) for the reimbursement of incurred defense and indemnity costs as well as for probable recoveries of accrued projected settlement costs with respect to pending and future claims, which is reflected in the Company's consolidated balance sheet. At Dec. 31, 2007, an additional EUR10.6 million, for which a receivable has not been recorded, is payable to the subsidiary on July 5, 2008, provided asbestos legislation in a certain form is not passed by the U.S. Congress by that date. The subsidiary has not recorded a receivable from non-settling insurance carriers. The subsidiary continues to pursue its litigation against non- settling insurance carriers and to hold settlement discussions with various insurance carriers in 2008. Based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Royal Philips Electronics N.V. makes consumer electronics, including TVs, VCRs, DVD players, and fax machines. The Company also makes light bulbs, electric shavers and other personal care appliances, picture tubes, medical systems, and silicon systems solutions. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Veterans Appeals Court Remands Nix's Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims remanded for further adjudication an asbestos-related action filed by U.S. veteran Robert D. Nix against James B. Peake, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The case is styled Robert D. Nix, Appellant, v. James B. Peake, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Judge Kasold entered judgment of Case No. 06-1742 on Jan. 11, 2008. Mr. Nix appealed a Feb. 17, 2006 decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals that denied service connection for interstitial pulmonary fibrosis (asbestosis) due to asbestos exposure. Mr. Nix argued that the Board did not provide adequate reasons or bases for its decision. Mr. Peake disputed this and further contended that the Board's decision is supported by a plausible basis in the record and sought affirmance. The Board's Feb. 17, 2006, decision was remanded for further adjudication. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Affirms New Trial in Whitlock ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 3, California, affirmed the San Francisco County Superior Court's ruling, which granted a new trial to Paul and Marguerite Whitlock in an asbestos case against Foster Wheeler, LLC. The case is styled Paul Whitlock et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Foster Wheeler, LLC et al., Defendants and Appellants. Judges Horner, McGuiness, and Siggins entered judgment of Case No. A117221 on Feb. 15, 2008. The Whitlocks filed their complaint on Feb. 3, 2006, naming Foster Wheeler as defendant in their suit for damages arising from Mr. Whitlock's exposure to asbestos. In the complaint, Mr. Whitlock states he is dying from mesothelioma. Opening statements in the trial against Foster Wheeler and two other defendants were delivered on Nov. 7, 2006. Mr. Whitlock joined the U.S. Navy when he was 17 years old and after attending boot camp he reported for duty aboard the USS Kitty Hawk on Jan. 6, 1965, when it was still undergoing an overhaul at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard at Bremerton, Wash. He served as a boiler technician in Boiler Room No. 4 of the Kitty Hawk until discharged from the Navy in October 1967. In December 2005, Mr. Whitlock was diagnosed with mesothelioma. The Whitlocks rested their case on Dec. 4, 2006, on day 15 of the jury trial. Foster Wheeler, by then the sole remaining defendant, also rested without presentation of further evidence. Foster Wheeler then moved for nonsuit. The trial court denied the motion for nonsuit. The trial court instructed the jury on the morning Dec. 8, 2006, and the jury retired to deliberations armed with a verdict form containing nine questions. On Dec. 12, 2006, during the third day of deliberations, the jury answered "No" to the first question and thereby returned a verdict in favor of Foster Wheeler. Judgment on the special verdict was entered on Dec. 27, 2006. On Jan. 11, 2007, the Whitlocks filed a notice of intention to move for a new trial on grounds of juror misconduct. A hearing was held on the Whitlocks' motion for a new trial on March 7, 2007. On March 12, 2007, the trial court entered its order granting plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's order granting the Whitlocks' motion for a new trial on the basis of juror misconduct. Brydon, Hugo & Parker, Edward R. Hugo, James C. Parker, and John R. Brydon, represented Foster Wheeler, LLC. Levin, Simes, Kaiser & Gornick, William Andrew Levin, Laurel L. Simes, and Sean P. Worsey, Law Offices of Daniel U. Smith, Daniel U. Smith and Ted W. Pelletier, represented Paul and Marguerite Whitlock. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Units Still Face Pending Exposure Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certain subsidiaries of TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. continue to face asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 21, 2008. In general, these claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to have resulted from exposure to asbestos used in certain components sold by the Company's subsidiaries. The Company said it believes that most of the claimants were assembly workers at the major U.S. automobile manufacturers. The vast majority of these claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos. Livonia, Mich.-based TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. supplies automotive systems, modules and components to global automotive original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") and related aftermarkets. Of the Company's 2007 sales, about 57 percent were in Europe, 30 percent were in North America, nine percent were in Asia, and four percent were in the rest of the world. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TPC Still Has Cases Involving AcandS, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------- Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC), a wholly owned subsidiary of The Travelers Companies, Inc., is involved in three significant proceedings relating to ACandS, Inc., formerly a national distributor and installer of products containing asbestos. The proceedings are pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (In re: ACandS, Inc.) and the U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvania (ACandS, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., No. 03-MC-222 and ACandS, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., 00-CV-4633). These proceedings involve disputes as to whether and to what extent any of ACandS' potential liabilities for current or future bodily injury asbestos claims are covered by insurance policies issued by TPC. On July 6, 2007, the Company announced that it entered into a settlement to resolve fully all current and future asbestos- related coverage claims relating to ACandS, including the three proceedings. Under the settlement agreement, the Company will contribute US$449 million to a trust to be established under ACandS' plan of reorganization. On Aug. 27, 2007, the bankruptcy court overseeing ACandS' bankruptcy approved the settlement and no appeals from that approval were taken. As a result, the Company has placed US$449 million into escrow. The Company expects to seek to recover about US$84 million of the US$449 million from reinsurers. Based in St. Paul, Minn., The Travelers Companies, Inc. is a holding company principally engaged in providing commercial and personal property and casualty insurance products and services to businesses, government units, associations and individuals. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Cites $3.73B Reserves at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos reserves were US$3.734 billion at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$4.051 billion at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 21, 2008. The Company's net asbestos reserves amounted to US$3.785 billion at and for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$4.179 billion at and for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007) Net asbestos losses and expenses paid in 2007 were US$317 million, compared with US$469 million in 2006. Gross paid losses in 2007 were lower than in 2006 primarily due to installment payments made during 2006 on settlements reached in prior years. Additionally, net paid losses were lower due to increased reinsurance billings in 2007. About 20 percent in 2007 and 50 percent in 2006 of total net paid losses related to policyholders with whom the Company previously entered into settlement agreements limiting the Company's liability. The Company has 1,681 asbestos policyholders at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 1,789 policyholders at Dec. 31, 2006. Based in St. Paul, Minn., The Travelers Companies, Inc. is a holding company principally engaged in providing commercial and personal property and casualty insurance products and services to businesses, government units, associations and individuals. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Morton Still Faces Cases from La. Facility --------------------------------------------------------------- Rohm and Haas Company's subsidiary, Morton International, Inc., continues to face pending lawsuits related to employee exposure to asbestos at a manufacturing facility in Weeks Island, La., with more suits expected, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 21, 2008. The Company expects that most of these cases will be dismissed because they are barred under workers' compensation laws. Morton has also been sued in connection with asbestos-related matters in the former Friction Division of the former Thiokol Corporation, which merged with Morton in 1982. Settlement amounts to date have been minimal and many cases have closed with no payment. The Company estimates that all costs associated with future Friction Division claims, including defense costs, will be well below the Company's insurance limits. As a result of the bankruptcy of asbestos producers, plaintiffs' attorneys have focused on peripheral defendants, including the Company, which had asbestos on its premises. Historically, these premises cases have been dismissed or settled for minimal amounts because of the minimal likelihood of exposure at Company facilities. The Company has reserved amounts for premises asbestos cases that it currently believes are probable and estimable. Philadelphia-based Rohm and Haas Company is a global specialty materials company. In 2007, the Company reported sales of US$8.9 billion on a portfolio of global businesses including electronic materials, specialty materials and salt. The Company has operations in about 96 manufacturing and 35 research facilities in 27 countries with about 15,710 employees. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Energy Has $3.4M in Liabilities ------------------------------------------------------------- Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. recorded US$3.4 million in current liabilities to address asbestos and environmental matters as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$4.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company has recorded US$2.6 million in current liabilities to address A&E remediation as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 9, 2007) The Company recorded US$2.8 million in long-term liabilities to address A&E matters as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$3.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company has recorded US$3 million in long-term liabilities to address asbestos and environmental remediation as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 9, 2007) The amounts were primarily to address remediation of asbestos containing materials, management of hazardous waste material disposal, and outstanding air quality measures for certain of the Company's liquids and natural gas assets. Houston-based Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. owns and operates crude oil and liquid petroleum transportation and storage assets, and natural gas gathering, treating, processing, transportation and marketing assets in the United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NewMarket Has $11.11M for Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- NewMarket Corporation's long-term asbestos litigation reserve was US$11,113,000 at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$10,232,000 at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2008. The Company is a defendant in personal injury lawsuits involving exposure to asbestos. These cases involve exposure to asbestos in premises owned or operated, or formerly owned or operated, by Company subsidiaries. Nearly all of these cases are pending in Texas, Louisiana, or Illinois and involve multiple defendants. During 2005, the Company entered into an agreement with Travelers Indemnity Company resolving certain long-standing issues regarding the Company's coverage for certain premises asbestos claims. In addition, the Company's agreement with Travelers provides a procedure for allocating defense and indemnity costs with respect to certain future premises asbestos claims. The lawsuit the Company had previously filed against Travelers in the Southern District of Texas was dismissed. The Company also settled its outstanding receivable from Albemarle Corporation for certain premises asbestos liability obligations. The Company has provided an undiscounted liability related to premises asbestos claims of US$13 million at year-end 2007 and US$12 million at year-end 2006. The receivable for these recoveries related to premises asbestos liabilities was US$9 million at both Dec. 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006. Richmond, Va.-based NewMarket Corporation is a holding entity for two operating subsidiaries: Afton Chemical and Ethyl. Afton Chemical manufactures petroleum additives. Ethyl's main product is the antiknock additive tetraethyl lead (TEL). Though TEL has lost substantial ground in markets where unleaded gas is preferred, the Company hopes marketing agreements with Innospec will help it boost sales of the additive outside Europe and the U.S. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Co. Cleared in 3,839 Cases in Miss. --------------------------------------------------------------- Ladish Co., Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, has been dismissed from 3,839 of 3,866 asbestos claims in Mississippi, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2008. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has also been dismissed from five of six claims in Illinois. The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos cases in Mississippi, six asbestos cases in Illinois and one case in California. The Company has never manufactured or processed asbestos. The Company's exposure to asbestos involves products the Company purchased from third parties. The Company has notified its insurance carriers of these claims. The Company has not made any provision in its financial statements for the asbestos litigation. Cudahy, Wis.-based Ladish Co., Inc. engineers, produces and markets high-strength, high-technology forged and cast metal components for load-bearing and fatigue-resisting applications in the jet engine, aerospace and industrial markets. About 80 percent of the Company's 2007 billings were derived from the sale of jet engine parts, missile components, landing gear, helicopter rotors and other aerospace products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Reserves $16.72M Net for Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- The Navigators Group, Inc.'s net loss and loss adjustment expense reserves for asbestos exposures was US$16,717,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$21,381,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's gross loss and LAE reserves for asbestos exposures was US$23,194,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$37,171,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's exposure to asbestos liability principally stems from marine liability insurance written on an occurrence basis during the mid-1980s. The reserves for asbestos exposures at Dec. 31, 2007 are for: (a) One large settled claim for excess insurance policy limits exposed to a class action suit against an insured involved in the manufacturing or distribution of asbestos products being paid over several years (two other large settled claims were fully paid in 2007); (b) Other insureds not directly involved in the manufacturing or distribution of asbestos products, but that have more than incidental asbestos exposure for their purchase or use of products that contained asbestos; and (c) Attritional asbestos claims that could be expected to occur over time. Substantially all of the Company's asbestos liability reserves are included in its marine loss reserves. At Dec. 31, 2007, the ceded asbestos paid and unpaid recoverables were US$10.5 million compared to US$23.5 million at Dec. 31, 2006. During 2007, the Company increased its provision for uncollectible reinsurance for asbestos losses by US$1.6 million which was recorded in incurred losses. Included in reinsurance recoverable for paid and unpaid losses is about US$10.5 million due from reinsurers in connection with the Company's asbestos exposures of which US$6.2 million is due from Equitas, a separate United Kingdom-authorized reinsurance company established to reinsure outstanding liabilities of all Lloyd's members for all risks written in the 1992 or prior years of account. The remaining reinsurance recoverable amounts for asbestos losses are due from various domestic and international reinsurers with no one balance greater than US$600,000 due from a single reinsurer. Based in New York, The Navigators Group, Inc. is an international insurance holding company focusing on specialty products for niches within the overall property/casualty insurance market. The Company's underwriting segments consist of insurance company operations and operations at Lloyd's of London. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Case Agreement Entered Last Nov. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Navigators Group, Inc. and Equitas, on Nov. 30, 2007, entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release with respect to the Equitas Arbitration, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 21, 2008. On Nov. 22, 2006, the Company filed a demand for arbitration against Equitas, a lead reinsurer participating in excess of loss reinsurance agreements, with respect to unsatisfied loss payment recovery demands that the Company has previously presented to Equitas (Equitas Arbitration). The recovery demands are for the 2005 settlement of two class action lawsuits involving large asbestos claims (together, the "2005 Settled Claims"), which 2005 Settled Claims are being paid through 2007. Equitas has not indicated any dispute with respect to recoveries on related pro rata reinsurance agreements for such 2005 Settled Claims or with respect to excess of loss or pro rata reinsurance for a 2004 Settled Claim. The aggregate amount of excess of loss recoveries due from Equitas for ceded paid and unpaid losses on the 2005 Settled Claims is about US$2.7 million. Based in New York, The Navigators Group, Inc. is an international insurance holding company focusing on specialty products for niches within the overall property/casualty insurance market. The Company's underwriting segments consist of insurance company operations and operations at Lloyd's of London. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Continues to Face "Premises" Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Huntsman Corporation is still named as a "premises defendant" in a number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by non- employees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility. In the past, these cases typically have involved multiple plaintiffs bringing actions against multiple defendants, and the complaints have not indicated which plaintiffs were making claims against which defendants, where or how the alleged injuries occurred, or what injuries each plaintiff claimed. Where the alleged exposure occurred prior to the Company's ownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners generally have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and to indemnify the Company against, asbestos exposure claims. In the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 1,192 unresolved cases for which service has bee received that it has tendered to the prior owner, all of which have been accepted. In the same period, the Company noted 21 cases tendered and 196 cases resolved. In the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 1,367 unresolved cases for which service has bee received that it has tendered to the prior owner, all of which have been accepted. In the same period, the Company noted 998 cases tendered and 207 cases resolved. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had an accrued liability of US$16.4 million relating to these cases and a corresponding receivable of US$16.4 million relating to its indemnity protection with respect to these cases. In the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 39 unresolved cases that are not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators. In the same period, the Company noted 52 cases filed and 55 cases resolved. In the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 42 unresolved cases that are not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators. In the same period, the Company noted 19 cases filed and 11 cases resolved. The Company paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure cases that are not subject to indemnification of US$3.2 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The cases for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005 include cases filed against Rubicon LLC, which became the Company's consolidated subsidiary on Jan. 1, 2005, as follows: one case filed during the period, one case resolved during the period and six cases unresolved at the end of the period. The Company has made no accruals with respect to unasserted asbestos exposure claims as of Dec. 31, 2007. Salt Lake City-based Huntsman Corporation, a global chemical manufacturer, supplies products through four segments. Its products include MDI, amines, surfactants, and epoxy-based polymers, as well as polyurethanes. The Company's chemicals are sold in more than 100 countries to customers in the adhesives, construction products, electronics, medical, and packaging industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Has $29M Receivables at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Halliburton Company's collection of asbestos- and silica-related insurance receivables was US$29 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$167 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. In the first nine months of 2007, the Company received US$24 million in cash payments for asbestos-related claims. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007) At Dec. 31, 2004, the Company resolved all open and future asbestos- and silica-related claims in the prepackaged Chapter 11 proceedings of subsidiaries DII Industries LLC, Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, and the Company's other affected subsidiaries that had previously been named as defendants in a large number of asbestos- and silica-related lawsuits. During 2004, the Company settled insurance disputes with substantially all the insurance companies for asbestos- and silica-related claims and all other claims under the applicable insurance policies and terminated all the applicable insurance policies. Under the insurance settlements entered into as part of the resolution of its Chapter 11 proceedings, the Company has agreed to indemnify its insurers under certain historic general liability insurance policies in certain situations. The Company has concluded that the likelihood of any claims triggering the indemnity obligations is remote, and it believes any potential liability for these indemnifications will be immaterial. Further, an estimate of possible loss or range of loss related to this matter cannot be made. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had not recorded any liability associated with these indemnifications. Houston-based Halliburton Company offers services and products to customers through its two business segments for the exploration, development, and production of oil and gas. The Company serves major, national, and independent oil and gas companies throughout the world. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Records 10,998 Open Claims at Dec. 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------- CSX Corporation recorded 10,998 open asbestos claims filed against it in fiscal year 2007, compared with 11,116 claims in fiscal year 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2008. In fiscal year 2007, the Company noted 930 new claims filed, 553 claims settled, and 505 claims dismissed. In fiscal year 2006, the Company noted 1,504 new claims filed, 767 claims settled, and 260 claims dismissed. About 6,000 of the open claims at December 2007 were asbestos claims against the Company's previously owned international container shipping business. Because these claims were against multiple vessel owners, the Company's reserves reflect its portion of those claims. The Company had about US$9 million reserved for these shipping business claims at December 2007 and December 2006. The remaining open claims were asserted against its subsidiary CSX Transportation, Inc. The Company is party to a number of occupational claims by employees alleging exposure to asbestos in the workplace. The heaviest possible exposure for employees was due to work conducted in and around steam locomotive engines that were largely phased out beginning around the 1950s. However, other types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive component parts and building materials, continued until it was substantially eliminated by 1985. Additionally, the Company has retained liability for asbestos claims filed against the previously owned international container shipping business. A one percent increase or decrease in either the forecasted number of IBNR claims or the average claim values would result in about US$1 million increase or decrease in the liability recorded for unasserted asbestos claims. Reserves for asbestos related claims were US$129 million at December 2007 and US$121 million at December 2006. At Dec. 28, 2007, the Company's undiscounted liabilities for INBR claims were US$54 million, its undiscounted liabilities for asserted claims were US$75 million, and its current liability was US$15 million. At Dec. 29, 2006, the Company's undiscounted liabilities for IBNR claims were US$52 million, its undiscounted liabilities for asserted claims were US$69 million, and its current liability was US$30 million. Jacksonville, Fla.-based CSX Corporation operates as a transportation company. Surface Transportation, which includes the Company's rail and intermodal businesses, provides rail- based transportation services including traditional rail service and the transport of intermodal containers and trailers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Records 29,450 Abex Claims at Dec. -------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Industries, Inc., at Dec. 31, 2007, recorded 29,450 of Pneumo Abex Corporation's asbestos claims that are the responsibility of Federal-Mogul Corporation, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2008. From Aug. 28, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2007, a total of 143,543 Abex Claims were filed, of which 114,084 claims have been resolved. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, 2,005 claims were filed and 3,855 claims were resolved. In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products business to Federal-Mogul. These discontinued businesses (including the Abex product line obtained from Pneumo in 1994) were operated through subsidiary companies, and the stock of those subsidiaries was sold to Federal-Mogul under a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated Aug. 17, 1998 (1998 Agreement). In conjunction with the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified the Company for certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies, including liabilities related to the Abex product line and any potential liability that the Company may have to Pneumo under a 1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between the Company and Pneumo. On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition and indicated that Federal-Mogul may not honor the indemnification obligations to the Company. To the extent the Company is obligated to Pneumo for any asbestos-related claims arising from the Abex product line (Abex Claims), the Company has rights, confirmed by Pneumo, to significant insurance for such claims. Since Aug. 28, 1998, the average indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was US$2,159 before insurance. A total of US$129.5 million was spent on defense costs for the period Aug. 28, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2007. Historically, existing insurance coverage has provided 50 percent to 80 percent of the total defense and indemnity payments for Abex Claims. However, insurance recovery is currently at a lower percentage (about 30 percent) due to exhaustion of primary layers of coverage and litigation with certain excess insurers. Houston-based Cooper Industries, Ltd. makes electrical products, tools, hardware, and metal support products. The Company's electrical products include electrical and circuit protection devices, residential and industrial lighting, and electrical power and distribution products for use by utility companies. Customers in the United States provide more than 70 percent of the Company's sales. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd, Units Continue to Face Injury Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in New York State and federal courts against Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s Utilities and many other defendants, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2008. The Utilities are: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. The plaintiffs in those suits sought large amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars. However, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims. In 2006, Con Edison of New York estimated that its aggregate undiscounted potential liability for these suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15 years is US$10 million. Under its current rate agreements, Con Edison of New York is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation claims. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's accrued liability for asbestos suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits was US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers' compensation was US$116 million, and its regulatory assets for workers' compensation was US$41 million. At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's accrued liability for asbestos suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits was US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers' compensation was US$117 million, and its regulatory assets for workers' compensation was US$42 million. At Dec. 31, 2007, Con Edison of New York's accrued liability for asbestos suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits was US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers' compensation was US$111 million, and its regulatory assets for workers' compensation was US$41 million. At Dec. 31, 2006, Con Edison of New York's accrued liability for asbestos suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits was US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers' compensation was US$112 million, and its regulatory assets for workers' compensation was US$42 million. New York-based Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., distributes electricity to more than 3.2 million residential and business customers in New York City. It also delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million customers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Incurs $23M Costs for N.Y. Explosion --------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, incurred US$23 million as estimated operating costs for property damage, clean up and other response costs over the Manhattan Steam Main rupture incident. In July 2007, a Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc., steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured. It has been reported that one person died and others were injured as a result of the incident. Several buildings in the area were damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos. The response to the incident required the closing of several buildings and streets for various periods. Over 30 plaintiffs have sued the Company seeking generally unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, for personal injury, property damage and business interruption. The Company has notified its insurers of the incident and said it believes that the policies currently in force will cover most of the Company's costs, which the Company is unable to estimate, but which could be substantial, to satisfy its liability to others in connection with the incident. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded US$10 million in actual and expected insurance recoveries and invested US$17 million in capital, retirement and other costs. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company, with respect to the July 2007 pipe explosion, incurred estimated of US$19 million for property damage, cleanup and other response costs. The Company also invested US$11 million in capital, retirement and other costs. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 16, 2007) New York-based Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., distributes electricity to more than 3.2 million residential and business customers in New York City. It also delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million customers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Faces Unresolved Exposure Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Caterpillar Inc. is involved in unresolved legal actions, including asbestos-related, that arise in the normal course of business, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2008. The most prevalent of these unresolved actions involve disputes related to product design, manufacture and performance liability (including claimed asbestos and welding fumes exposure), contracts, employment issues or intellectual property rights. Peoria, Ill.-based Caterpillar Inc. makes earthmoving machinery and supplies agricultural equipment. The Company makes construction, mining, and logging machinery; diesel and natural gas engines; industrial gas turbines; and electrical power- generation systems. The Company has plants worldwide and sells its equipment globally via a network of 3,500 locations in 180 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Orchard has 8T Suits from Vapor Corp. -------------------------------------------------------------- Brunswick Corporation's subsidiary, Old Orchard Industrial Corp., faces more than 8,000 lawsuits involving claims of asbestos exposure from products manufactured by Vapor Corporation, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2008. Vapor is a former subsidiary that the Company divested in 1990. Virtually all of the asbestos suits involve numerous other defendants. The claims generally allege that the Company sold products that contained components like gaskets, which included asbestos, and seek monetary damages. Neither the Company nor Vapor is alleged to have manufactured asbestos. Several thousand claims have been dismissed with no payment and no claim has gone to jury verdict. In a few cases, claims have been filed against other Company entities, with a majority of these suits being either dismissed or settled for nominal amounts. Lake Forest, Ill.-based Brunswick Corporation manufactures and markets recreation products including boats, marine engines, fitness equipment and bowling and billiards equipment. The Company also owns and operates Brunswick bowling centers in the United States and other countries, and retail billiards stores in the United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs Ruling to Favor Pharmacia ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Iowa affirmed the Iowa District Court for Marshall County's ruling, which granted summary judgment in favor of Pharmacia Corporation, in a declaratory judgment action involving asbestos matters filed by Fisher Controls International, L.L.C. The case is styled Fisher Controls International, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pharmacia Corporation, Defendant- Appellee. Judges Huitink, Zimmer, and Miller entered judgment of Case No. 07-0003 on Feb. 13, 2008. Fisher Governor Company was incorporated in Iowa in the late 1800s or early 1900s. The company designed and manufactured industrial control valves at its principal place of business in Marshalltown, Iowa. On April 3, 1969, Fisher Governor entered into a "Plan and Agreement of Merger" with Monsanto Company. Fisher Controls Company, Inc. was incorporated by Monsanto on March 21, 1969. Fisher Governor merged with Monsanto on Aug. 12, 1969. Simultaneously with the merger, Monsanto executed a "General Instrument of Transfer" with the newly formed Fisher Controls Company, Inc., now known as Fisher Controls International, L.L.C. Following the Aug. 12, 1969 merger, Fisher Controls became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Monsanto. In 1992, Monsanto sold Fisher Controls to Emerson Electric Company. After the sale, multiple lawsuits were filed against Fisher Controls seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained from exposure to asbestos fibers contained in products manufactured by Fisher Governor before its Aug. 12, 1969 merger with Monsanto. In July 2003, Fisher Controls filed a declaratory judgment action against Monsanto, now known as Pharmacia, requesting a determination that Pharmacia is liable for those lawsuits. Fisher Controls filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asserting "under the unambiguous terms of the Aug. 12, 1969" transfer agreement and the earlier merger agreement "Monsanto Company retained responsibility for any future liabilities of the former Fisher Governor Company." Fisher Controls argued the phrase "at Aug. 12, 1969" in the transfer agreement means Monsanto "transferred only liabilities of the former Fisher Governor existing on Aug. 12, 1969." Pharmacia resisted the motion and filed a "cross motion for summary judgment," asserting Monsanto transferred all liabilities of Fisher Governor. Pharmacia argued the phrase "at Aug. 12, 1969" in the transfer agreement "does not limit what was transferred, it simply marks when the transfer occurred." The district court entered a ruling on Dec. 5, 2006, granting Pharmacia's motion for summary judgment and denying the partial summary judgment motion filed by Fisher Controls. Fisher Controls appealed. The Appeals Court concluded the district court did not err in determining that Monsanto transferred all of Fisher Governor's liabilities, not just those existing on Aug. 12, 1969, to Fisher Controls under the unambiguous language of the transfer agreement between Monsanto and Fisher Controls and in light of all the circumstances surrounding the formation of that agreement. The judgment of the district court denying Fisher Controls' motion for partial summary judgment and granting the summary judgment motion filed by Pharmacia was accordingly affirmed. O. Thomas Armstrong of von Briesen & Roper, S.C., Milwaukee, and James A. Brewer and Angelina M. Thomas of Newbrough, Johnston, Brewer, Maddux & Howell, L.L.P., Ames, represented Fisher Controls International, L.L.C. Mark McCormick of Belin, Lamson, McCormick, Zumbach, Flynn, P.C., Des Moines, Iowa, and Stephanie Scharf of Shoeman, Updike, Kaufman & Scharf, Chicago, represented Pharmacia Corporation. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Starwood Accrues $1M for Abatement at Dec. --------------------------------------------------------------- Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.'s accrual for asbestos abatement, on the Company's redevelopment of the Sheraton Bal Harbour Beach Resort, was US$1 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2007. In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded US$1 million as accrual for asbestos abatement on its Bal Harbour redevelopment. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007) During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded net restructuring and other special charges of about US$53 million primarily related to the Bal Harbour redevelopment. The Company demolished the hotel in late 2007 and plans to rebuild a St. Regis hotel along with branded residences and fractional units. Bal Harbour was closed for business on July 1, 2007, and the majority of employees were terminated. White Plains, N.Y.-based Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. is one of the world's largest hotel and leisure companies. The Company conducts its hotel and leisure business both directly and through its subsidiaries. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's hotel portfolio included owned, leased, managed and franchised hotels totaling 897 hotels with about 275,000 rooms in about 100 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tube City Faces Claims from Old Operations --------------------------------------------------------------- Tube City IMS Corporation has been named as a defendant in certain asbestos-related claims relating to lines of businesses that it discontinued over 20 years ago. The Company said it believes that it is sufficiently protected by insurance with respect to these asbestos-related claims related to these former lines of business. The Company's former landfill and waste management business, together with two non-operating subsidiaries of IU International Corporation, were spun off to the Company's stockholders in October 2002. The two former subsidiaries of IU were subject to asbestos- related personal injury claims. The Company said it believes that it has no obligations for asbestos-related claims regarding the spun-off subsidiaries. Glassport, Pa.-based Tube City IMS Corporation provides outsourced services to steel mills in North America. With over 80 years of experience, the Company has operations and services at 69 sites in North America and Europe and has a presence in China. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Has 28,362 Claims at Dec. --------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., at Dec. 31, 2007, was a co- defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by about 28,362 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 2,697 claims from those previously reported. In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified sums. Since Jan. 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 26,875 of those claims were dismissed, 10 were tried to defense verdicts, four were tried to plaintiff verdicts, one was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount, and 513 were decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment motions. At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company was was a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by about 31,059 plaintiffs, which was a net decrease of 361 claims from those previously reported. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007) Cleveland-based Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. is a manufacturer and reseller of welding and cutting products. Welding products include arc welding power sources, wire feeding systems, robotic welding packages, fume extraction equipment, consumable electrodes and fluxes. In addition, the Company has a global position in the brazing and soldering alloys market. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 29T Claims Pending Against FMC at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- About 29,000 premises and product asbestos claims were pending against FMC Corporation in several jurisdictions as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 25, 2008. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded about 32,000 premises and product asbestos claims pending against it in several jurisdictions. (Class Action Reporter, March 2, 2007) The Company has been named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury litigation. These cases (most cases involve between 25 and 200 defendants) allege personal injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos in Company premises or to asbestos-containing components installed in machinery or equipment manufactured or sold by discontinued operations. The machinery and equipment businesses the Company owned or operated did not fabricate the asbestos-containing component parts at issue in the litigation, and to this day, neither the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration nor the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of these components. Further, the asbestos-containing materials were housed inside of machinery and equipment and accessible at the time of infrequent repair and maintenance. The bulk of the claims against the Company to date have been dismissed without payment. To date, the Company has discharged about 75,000 asbestos claims against it, the overwhelming majority of which have been dismissed without any payment to the plaintiff. Settlements by the Company with claimants to date have totaled about US$17.7 million. Philadelphia-based FMC Corporation is a diversified, global chemical company. The Company operates in three business segments: Agricultural Products, Specialty Chemicals and Industrial Chemicals. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pipefitter Sues 52 Companies in Texas Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos lawsuit, on pipefitter Robert T. Booker's behalf, was filed, on Feb. 25, 2008, in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., against A.O. Smith Corporation and 51 other companies, The Southeast Texas Record reports. Provost Umphrey attorney Bryan Blevins filed the suit, failing to clarify if his client is suffering form an asbestos-induced illness or dead. In the suit, Mr. Blevins alleges that 52 companies knowingly and maliciously manufactured and distributed asbestos-containing products throughout Jefferson County. Mr. Booker worked as a pipefitter for various area refineries, which caused him to suffer from…industrial dust diseases caused by breathing the asbestos-containing products, the suit said. The suit alleges the defendants in the lawsuit were negligent for failing to adequately test their asbestos-laced products before flooding the market with dangerous goods and for failing to warn the consumer of the dangers of asbestos exposure. Some of the defendants listed in the suit include Pfizer Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, and iron supplier Zurn Industries, Inc. In addition, the petition faults Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Corp. (3M Corporation) and American Optical Corp. for producing defective masks that failed to provide respiratory protection. Mr. Booker sues for exemplary damages, plus physical pain and suffering in the past and future, mental anguish in the past and future, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, disfigurement in the past and future, physical impairment in the past and future, and past and future medical expenses. Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd Judicial District, has been assigned to Case No. E181-310. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: V.I. Contractor Indicted for CAA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Justice Department, on Feb. 26, 2008, announced that Cleve Allen George, the owner of the Virgin Islands Asbestos Removal, Co. was sentenced to 33 months in prison for multiple violations of the Clean Air Act, according to a DOJ press release dated Feb. 26, 2008. The DOJ stated that Mr. George was also sentenced for false statements related to the demolition of a low-income housing neighborhood in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Mr. George and co-defendant Dylan C. Starnes, of Atlanta, were both convicted after a two-week trial on June 30, 2005, on 15 counts involving the illegal removal of asbestos-containing material at the Donoe Housing Community (DHC) Project in 2001 and making materially false statements to federal agencies concerning air monitoring at the project. Mr. George was also sentenced on Feb. 26, 2008, to three years of supervised release and required to pay for baseline X-rays for exposed workers. Mr. Starnes, the former president of Environmental Contracting Company (ECC) and a licensed and certified asbestos contractor/supervisor, was sentenced on July 27, 2007 to 33 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Ronald J. Tenpas, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environmental and Natural Resources Division, said, "Both George and Starnes were knowledgeable of how to safely remove asbestos and chose ignore those safe methods in lieu of a bigger profit. These sentences should serve as a warning to those in the industry that profiting at the expense of the community will not pay off and disregarding these safe removal methods will have serious consequences." William Lometti, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division's New York Area Office, said, "Exposure to asbestos can cause serious or even fatal respiratory diseases. The defendant's criminal acts put the public at risk. Today's sentence shows that we take this seriously, and will prosecute others who violate environmental laws." The DHC, a low-income public residential community located on St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, was owned by the Virgin Islands Housing Authority (VIHA). Mr. George and Mr. Starnes were hired as contractors by the VIHA to remove asbestos in an old building scheduled for demolition. The evidence at trial established that the defendants, who filed a work plan indicating that they would follow all applicable regulations regarding asbestos removal, did not follow the asbestos work practice regulations, in violation of federal law. The defendants were convicted of using a power washer to strip thousands of square feet of asbestos-containing material from ceilings. The asbestos material then washed out over the ground and into sewers. This case was investigated by EPA Criminal Investigation Division agents and OSHA agents. The case is being prosecuted by the Justice Department's Stacey Mitchell, Chief of the Environmental Crimes Section, Joseph Poux, Trial Attorney with the Environmental Crimes Section, and Major Coleman, Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of the Virgin Islands. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minnesotan Sues 65 Companies in Ill. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Harvey Carlson of Minnesota, on Feb. 20, 2007, filed an asbestos suit against 65 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Mr. Carlson alleges he was exposed to asbestos from 1953 through 1999 while working as a laborer, engineer, fireman, oiler and coal passer at various locations including the state of Illinois. Mr. Carlson claims that, during the course of his employment and during home and automotive repairs, he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers emanating from certain products he was working with and around. According to the complaint, Mr. Carlson was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Aug. 2, 2007. Mr. Carlson claims the defendants knew or should have known that the asbestos fibers contained in their products had a toxic, poisonous and highly deleterious effect upon the health of people. Mr. Carlson also alleges that the defendants included asbestos in their products even when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide any or adequate instructions concerning the safe methods of working with and around asbestos. Mr. Carlson also claims that the defendants failed to require and advise employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home. Mr. Carlson also claims that he has sought, but has been unable to obtain, full disclosure of relevant documents and information from the defendants leading him to believe the defendants destroyed documents related to asbestos. Mr. Carlson claims that as a result of each defendant breaching its duty to preserve material evidence by destroying documents and information he has been prejudiced and impaired in proving claims against all potential parties. As a result of the alleged negligence, Mr. Carlson claims he was exposed to fibers containing asbestos. He developed a disease caused only by asbestos which has disabled and disfigured him, the complaint states. He seeks damages to help pay for the cost of his treatment. The complaint states that Mr. Carlson also suffers "great physical pain and mental anguish, and also will be hindered and prevented from pursuing his normal course of employment, thereby losing large sums of money." Mr. Carlson seeks at least US$400,000 in damages for negligence, willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of evidence among other allegations. Nicholas Angelides and Taylor Kerns of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Carlson. Case No. 08 L 129 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eyre Widow Seeks Workmates' Help in Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Eyre, the widow of former pipefitter Michael Eyre, who died from lung cancer following years of suspected exposure to asbestos, appeals to his former colleagues to help in her fight for compensation, The Star reports. Mr. Eyre, from Kiveton Park, U.K., died of lung cancer in October 2006 at the age of 63. He was diagnosed with cancer just six months earlier and his family believes he contracted the disease after regularly being exposed to asbestos at work in the 1960s and 1970s. Mr. Eyre, joined Sheffield-based Andrews-Weatherfoil Ltd. as a pipe fitter's mate when he was 20 years old in 1964. He progressed to become a pipe fitter for the Company, on Collegiate Crescent, Broomhall, and stayed with them for 18 years before leaving in 1982. During his career with Andrews-Weatherfoil Ltd., now called Skanska Rashleigh Weatherfoil, Mr. Eyre worked at several school sites including comprehensives in Hoyland in Barnsley, Swinton in Rotherham and Bircotes near Doncaster. He is believed to have been regularly exposed to asbestos which was used as lagging on the pipes and boilers he maintained. Mr. Eyre began legal action against his former employers following his diagnosis but, since his death, Mrs. Eyre has had to continue the case alone. Mrs. Eyre is now trying to trace former colleagues who may be able to share with her information about the conditions in which they and her husband worked. Solicitor Simone Hardy, from firm Irwin Mitchell, represents Mrs. Eyre. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial on Whisnat v. DuPont Suit Proceeding --------------------------------------------------------------- The trial on Willis Whisnat Jr.'s asbestos case against E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company has been ongoing since Feb. 21, 2008 in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports. When speaking about DuPont's asbestos policies during the 1960s, Mr. Whisnat's attorney Glen Morgan said in his opening remarks that the chemical company's "conduct was so bad that its right to exist should be taken away." Mr. Morgan, a partner in the Reaud, Morgan & Quinn law firm, represents the family of Mr. Whisnat, who died of mesothelioma. Mr. Whisnat, a pipefitter who smoked throughout his adult life, worked at DuPont's Sabine Works facility back in 1966 as an independent contractor, where he was allegedly exposed to enough asbestos fibers to contract the fatal disease. After his death, Mr. Whisnat's family joined an ongoing class- action suit against DuPont and several other oil and chemical companies, which was first filed in the Jefferson County District Court on June 4, 1998. The class members claim DuPont negligently and maliciously exposed workers to asbestos when the company knew asbestos dust ad fibers created health hazards. Mr. Whisnat's case was severed. The five other defendants named in his suit settled. Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd Judicial District, is presiding over the trial in Case No. E159-183-Q. The plaintiffs maintain that DuPont knew about the dangers of asbestos as early as 1940, but chose to conceal their findings and focus on a defense to protect the company from lawsuits rather than implement policies that would save the lives of its workers. DuPont's attorneys argue that its 1940s studies focused on people who were "heavily" exposed to asbestos on a daily basis, like miners for example, not chemical plant workers. DuPont also argues that the chemical company was a consumer not a producer of asbestos-containing products, placing product liability on the seller - and took steps to protect its employees from asbestos before OSHA implemented asbestos guidelines in 1972. In addition, DuPont contends Mr. Whisnat was an independent contractor, not a DuPont employee, and therefore Mr. Whisnat's employer, B.F. Shaw, was directly responsible for his safety. And even though he was not a DuPont employee, the company still protected Mr. Whisnat from asbestos by requiring pipe workers to wear respirators. DuPont protected its other workers by barricading asbestos-laced pipe worksites. However, the plaintiffs argue that asbestos fibers can drift beyond the barricade, which only consisted of yellow caution tape. DuPont is represented locally by the Mehaffy Weber law firm. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Coroner Links Worker's Death to Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Berkshire, U.K., coroner Peter Bedford, on Feb. 21, 2007, ruled that the death of 68-year-old builder Grainger Edney was linked to asbestos, Maidenhead Advertiser reports. Mr. Edney died of cancer on Oct. 18, 2007 after years spent working in the construction business. During his inquest at Windsor Guildhall, Mr. Bedford said that asbestos was a "'hidden danger" and that Mr. Edney's death was "very, very awful for everyone." Mr. Bedford added there would be many people walking around today oblivious to the fact they are suffering from the effects of the building material. Mr. Edney was diagnosed with mesothelioma in early 2007, and a post-mortem found evidence of a tumor on his left lung. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Faces 114T Open Claims at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, was one of many defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving about 114,000 open claims, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 21, 2008. For over 30 years, the Company has been a defendant in lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. Most of the Company's potential exposure relates to allegations by plaintiffs that it should be liable for injuries involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corporation. The Company and Corning Incorporated are each 50 percent shareholders of PC. PPG has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all claims for any injuries caused by PC products. On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania located in Pittsburgh. As a consequence of the bankruptcy filing and various motions and orders in that proceeding, the asbestos litigation against the Company (as well as against PC) has been stayed and the filing of additional asbestos suits against them has been enjoined, until 30 days after the effective date of a confirmed plan of reorganization for PC substantially in accordance with the settlement arrangement among the Company and several other parties. On May 14, 2002, the Company announced that it had agreed with several other parties, including certain of its insurance carriers, the official committee representing asbestos claimants in the PC bankruptcy, and the legal representatives of future asbestos claimants appointed in the PC bankruptcy, on the terms of a settlement arrangement relating to asbestos claims against the Company and PC (PPG Settlement Arrangement). On March 28, 2003, Corning Incorporated announced that it had separately reached its own arrangement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the settlement of certain asbestos claims that might arise from PC products or operations (Corning Settlement Arrangement). The terms of the PPG Settlement Arrangement and the Corning Settlement Arrangement have been incorporated into a bankruptcy reorganization plan for PC along with a disclosure statement describing the plan, which PC filed with the Bankruptcy Court on April 30, 2003. Amendments to the plan and disclosure statement were filed on Aug. 18, 2003 and Nov. 20, 2003. On Nov. 26, 2003, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving such disclosure statement and directing that it be sent to creditors, including asbestos claimants, for voting. The Bankruptcy Court established March 2, 2004 as the deadline for receipt of votes. On March 16, 2004, notice was received that the plan of reorganization received the required votes to approve the plan with a channeling injunction. From May 3-7, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court judge conducted a hearing regarding the fairness of the settlement, including whether the plan would be fair with respect to present and future claimants, whether such claimants would be treated in substantially the same manner, and whether the protection provided to the Company and its participating insurers would be fair in view of the assets they would convey to the asbestos settlement trust (Trust) to be established as part of the plan. The Bankruptcy Court heard oral arguments on the contested items on Nov. 17-18, 2004. After further conferences and supplemental briefings, the Court held final oral arguments on July 21, 2006 during an omnibus hearing. On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued a ruling denying confirmation of the second amended PC plan of reorganization. Several parties in interest, including PPG, filed motions for reconsideration and/or to alter or amend the Dec. 21, 2006 ruling. Final written submissions were filed on Jan. 26, 2007. Oral argument on the motions was held on March 5, 2007. Upon reconsideration, the Bankruptcy Court may adhere to its Dec. 21, 2006 decision, may alter that decision and confirm the plan or may amend the decision in a manner that may provide further guidance on how the plan could be modified and become confirmable in the Bankruptcy Court's view. During a Jan. 10, 2008 hearing before the Bankruptcy Court, certain parties in interest, including the Company, reported progress toward a third amended plan of reorganization. During a hearing on Feb. 15, 2008, the parties reported continued progress toward a third amended plan, and the Bankruptcy Court ordered that a further update be provided at an omnibus hearing later in the first quarter of 2008. 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: Appeal Court Favors Foster Wheeler to Danos ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, 4th Circuit, affirmed the ruling of the Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, which granted summary judgment to Foster Wheeler, L.L.C., in an asbestos-related action filed by Faye Thibodeaux Danos, Julie Danos Landry, Jill Danos Trosclair, and Jana Danos Anzelmo. The case is styled Golzie Danos and Thibodeaux Danos v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (f/k/a Avondale Shipyards, Inc.) and its Executive Officers, et al. Judges David S. Gorbaty, Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr. and Roland L. Belsome entered judgment of Case No. 2007-CA-1094 on Feb. 13, 2008. Judge Belsome dissented. This suit was initially filed on behalf of Golzie Danos and his wife, Faye Thibodeaux, for damages incurred by Mr. Danos in connection with his employment by Northrup Grumman Ship Systems, Inc ., f/k/a Avondale Industries, Inc., f/k/a Avondale Shipyards, Inc. (Avondale) from about 1964 to 1977. Following Mr. Danos' death, his widow and adult children filed survival and wrongful death actions. The actions alleged that Mr. Danos was exposed to asbestos-containing products developed and manufactured by Foster Wheeler, which exposure caused him to contract mesothelioma and to ultimately die from the disease. Foster Wheeler filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that it was never a manufacturer of asbestos products. Rather, it is an engineering company that designs power generation equipment such as boilers. The trial court granted summary judgment finding that there was insufficient evidence to overcome plaintiffs' burden of proof at trial that Mr. Danos was exposed to asbestos from any products manufactured by Foster Wheeler. Plaintiffs appealed that ruling. Mr. Danos was employed by Avondale from about 1964 to 1977 as an electrician's helper, electrician, terminator and foreman. Accordingly, the Appeals Court found that plaintiffs' have failed to produce factual support for their claim that Foster Wheeler caused or contributed to Mr. Danos' disease or death sufficient to satisfy their evidentiary burden of proof at trial. The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Gerolyn P. Roussel, Perry J. Roussel, Jr., Jonathan B. Clement, Lauren R. Clement, Roussel & Clement, LaPlace, La., represented Faye Thibodeaux Danos, Julie Danos Landry, Jill Danos Trosclair, Jana Danos Anzelmo. Lynn M. Luker, Lynn Luker & Associates, LLC, New Orleans, represented Foster Wheeler LLC. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Eagle, OneBeacon in Thibodeaux ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, 4th Circuit, upheld the ruling of the Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, which granted summary judgment to Eagle Asbestos & Packing Company and OneBeacon Insurance Company, in an asbestos-related action filed by Marie Z. Thibodeaux and Ken Thibodeaux. The case is styled Marie Z. Thibodeaux and Ken Thibodeaux v. Asbestos Corporation Limited, et al. Judges Joan Bernard Armstrong, Charles R. Jones, and Edwin A. Lombard entered judgment of Case No. 2007-CA-0617 on Feb. 20, 2008. Mrs. Thibodeaux has died. She and her husband, Mr. Thibodeaux, alleged that the cause of her illness and subsequent death occurred as a result of contracting mesothelioma. The Thibodeauxs filed suit on Dec. 11, 2002, alleging personal injuries as a result of their exposure to asbestos. The petition named 14 defendants, and after a number of supplemental petitions, 18 parties were named as defendants. The defendants were comprised of Mrs. Thibodeaux's employers, premises owners, and various manufacturers, producers, and suppliers of asbestos-containing products as well as the insurers of some of these parties. The Appeals Court noted that the Thibodeauxs are domiciled in East Baton Rouge Parish. In their petition for damages, the Thibodeauxs alleged that jurisdiction is proper in Orleans Parish because Mrs. Thibodeaux's exposure to asbestos containing products occurred in Orleans Parish. In their petition for damages, the Thibodeauxs alleged that Mrs. Thibodeaux contracted mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos-containing products through both her husband's and father's clothing. Two of the named defendants involved in this appeal are Eagle and its insurer OneBeacon. On March 10, 2005, Eagle and OneBeacon filed a motion for summary judgment requesting that the district court dismiss it from the case. On April 21, 2005, the Thibodeauxs filed an opposition to Eagle and OneBeacon's motion for summary judgment. The hearing for the motion for summary judgment was held on April 29, 2005. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court ordered the plaintiffs to supplement their opposition with evidence that Mrs. Thibodeaux was exposed to asbestos-containing materials manufactured, supplied, or installed by Eagle, within five days. In response, the Thibodeauxs hand-delivered correspondence to the district court, dated May 4, 2005, in which they indicated that no additional submission of evidence would be filed since all of the evidence necessary to defeat the motion for summary judgment had already been provided to the court. Subsequently, the district court granted Eagle's and OneBeacon's motion for summary judgment on May 16, 2005. In its reasons for judgment, the district court indicated that it granted Eagle's and OneBeacon's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the "plaintiff failed to offer evidence demonstrating that Marie Thibodeaux was exposed to asbestos containing materials manufactured, supplied, or installed by Eagle, Inc." This timely appeal followed. In their sole assignment of error, the Thibodeauxs alleged that the district court erred in granting Eagle's and OneBeacon's motion for summary judgment. They requested that the Appeals Court reverse the district court judgment and remand the case to the district court for a trial on the merits. The Appeals Court concluded that the district court did not err in granting Eagle's and OneBeacon's motion for summary judgment. Mickey P. Landry, Frank J. Swarr, David R. Cannella, Landry & Swarr, L.L.C., New Orleans, and John F. Dillon, John F. Dillon, PLC, Folsom, La., represented Marie Z. Thibodeaux and Ken Thibodeaux. Samuel M. Rosamond III, Adam D. deMahy, Crawford Lewis PLLC, New Orleans, represented OneBeacon Insurance Company. Susan B. Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, L.L.P., New Orleans, represented Eagle, Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Has $1.322B Claim Reserves at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- CNA Financial Corporation carried US$1.322 billion of claim and claim adjustment reserves for reported and unreported asbestos claims as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$1.452 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 26, 2008. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company carried about US$1.337 billion of claim and claim adjustment expense reserves, net of reinsurance recoverables, for reported and unreported asbestos- related claims. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 9, 2007) The Company's property and casualty insurance subsidiaries have exposure to asbestos-related claims. Estimation of asbestos- related claim and claim adjustment expense reserves involves limitations like inconsistency of court decisions, specific policy provisions, allocation of liability among insurers and insureds, and additional factors such as missing policies and proof of coverage. The Company recorded US$6 million of unfavorable asbestos- related net claim and claim adjustment expense reserve development for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$10 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005. The Company recorded no asbestos-related net claim and claim adjustment expense reserve development for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company paid asbestos-related claims, net of reinsurance recoveries, of US$136 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, US$102 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, and US$142 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005. On Feb. 2, 2007, the Company paid US$31 million to the Owens Corning Fibreboard Trust. Such payment was made under the Company's 1993 settlement with Fibreboard. Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation's insurance products primarily include commercial property and casualty coverages. Services include risk management, information services, warranty and claims administration. The Company's core business, commercial property and casualty insurance operations, is reported in two business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty Lines. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Insurer Parties to Appeal A.P. Green Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- CNA Financial Corporation states that insurer parties to an A.P. Green Industries litigation have indicated their intent to appeal a Dec. 18, 2007 ruling that granted A.P. Green's plan of reorganization. On Feb. 13, 2003, the Company announced it had resolved asbestos-related coverage litigation and claims involving A.P. Green Industries, A.P. Green Services and Bigelow – Liptak Corporation. Under the agreement, the Company is required to pay US$70 million, net of reinsurance recoveries, over a 10-year period commencing after the final approval of a bankruptcy plan of reorganization. The settlement resolves the Company's liabilities for all pending and future asbestos and silica claims involving A.P. Green Industries, Bigelow – Liptak Corporation and related subsidiaries, including alleged "non-products" exposures. The settlement received initial bankruptcy court approval on Aug. 18, 2003. The debtor's plan of reorganization includes an injunction to protect the Company from any future claims. The bankruptcy court issued an opinion on Sept. 24, 2007 recommending confirmation of that plan. The district court affirmed that ruling on Dec. 18, 2007. Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation's insurance products primarily include commercial property and casualty coverages. Services include risk management, information services, warranty and claims administration. The Company's core business, commercial property and casualty insurance operations, is reported in two business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty Lines. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Pursues Action v. Keasbey in N.Y. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- CNA Financial Corporation is engaged in insurance coverage litigation in New York State Court, filed in 2003, with a defendant class of underlying plaintiffs who have asbestos bodily injury claims against the former Robert A. Keasbey Company. The case is style Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau et al., No. 601037/03 (N.Y. County). Keasbey, a currently dissolved corporation, was a seller and installer of asbestos-containing insulation products in New York and New Jersey. Thousands of plaintiffs have filed bodily injury claims against Keasbey. However, under New York court rules, asbestos claims are not cognizable unless they meet certain minimum medical impairment standards. Since 2002, when these court rules were adopted, a small portion of claims have met medical impairment criteria under New York court rules and as to the remaining claims, Keasbey's involvement at a number of work sites is a highly contested issue. The Company issued Keasbey primary policies for 1970-1987 and excess policies for 1972-1978. The Company has paid an amount substantially equal to the policies' aggregate limits for products and completed operations claims in the confirmed CNA policies. Claimants against Keasbey allege that the Company owes coverage under sections of the policies not subject to the aggregate limits. In the litigation, the Company and the claimants seek declaratory relief as to the interpretation of various policy provisions. On May 8, 2007, the Court in the first phase of the trial held that all of the Company's primary policy products aggregates were exhausted and that past products liability claims could not be recharacterized as operations claims. The Court also found that while operations claims would not be subject to products aggregates, those claims could be made only against the policies in effect when the claimants were exposed to asbestos from Keasbey operations. These holdings limit the Company's exposure to those instances where Keasbey used asbestos in operations between 1970 and 1987. Keasbey largely ceased using asbestos in its operations in the early 1970s. The Company noticed an appeal to the Appellate Division to challenge certain aspects of the Court's ruling. Other insurer parties to the litigation also filed separate notices of appeal to the Court's ruling. The appeal was fully briefed and was argued on Dec. 6, 2007. Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation's insurance products primarily include commercial property and casualty coverages. Services include risk management, information services, warranty and claims administration. The Company's core business, commercial property and casualty insurance operations, is reported in two business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty Lines. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Involved in Burns & Roe Coverage Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- CNA Financial Corporation still is involved in insurance coverage disputes related to asbestos bodily injury claims against a bankrupt insured, Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc. These disputes are currently part of coverage litigation (stayed in view of the bankruptcy) and an adversary proceeding in In re: Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc., pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 00-41610. Burns & Roe provided engineering and related services in connection with construction projects. At the time of its bankruptcy filing, on Dec. 4, 2000, Burns & Roe asserted that it faced about 11,000 claims alleging bodily injury resulting from exposure to asbestos as a result of construction projects in which Burns & Roe was involved. The Company allegedly provided primary liability coverage to Burns & Roe from 1956-1969 and 1971-1974, along with certain project-specific policies from 1964-1970. On Dec. 5, 2005, Burns & Roe filed its Third Amended Plan of Reorganization. In September 2007, the Company entered into an agreement with Burns & Roe, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed by the Bankruptcy Court and the Future Claims Representative (Addendum), which provides that claims allegedly covered by CNA policies will be adjudicated in the tort system, with any coverage disputes related to those claims to be decided in coverage litigation. On Sept. 14, 2007, Burns & Roe moved the bankruptcy court for approval of the Addendum under Bankruptcy Rule 9019. After several extensions, the hearing on that motion is currently set for Feb. 27, 2008. If approved, Burns & Roe has agreed to include the Addendum in the proposed plan, which will be the subject of a later confirmation hearing. Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation's insurance products primarily include commercial property and casualty coverages. Services include risk management, information services, warranty and claims administration. The Company's core business, commercial property and casualty insurance operations, is reported in two business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty Lines. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Continues to Face Cases in Tex. Courts --------------------------------------------------------------- CNA Financial Corporation says that asbestos-related suits have been initiated directly against the CNA companies and numerous other insurers in Texas, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 26, 2008. About 80 lawsuits were filed in Texas beginning in 2002, against two CNA companies and numerous other insurers and non-insurer corporate defendants asserting liability for failing to warn of the dangers of asbestos (E.g. Boson v. Union Carbide Corp., (Nueces County, Tex.)). During 2003, several of the Texas suits were dismissed as time- barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. In other suits, the carriers argued that they did not owe any duty to the plaintiffs or the general public to advise the world generally or the plaintiffs particularly of the effects of asbestos and that Texas statutes precluded liability for such claims, and two Texas courts dismissed these suits. Certain of the Texas courts' rulings were appealed, but plaintiffs later dismissed their appeals. A different Texas court denied similar motions seeking dismissal at the pleading stage, allowing limited discovery to proceed. After that court denied a related challenge to jurisdiction, the insurers transferred those cases to a state multi-district litigation court in Harris County charged with handling asbestos cases, and the cases remain in that court. In February 2006, the insurers petitioned the appellate court in Houston for an order of mandamus, requiring the multi-district litigation court to dismiss the cases on jurisdictional and substantive grounds. The Texas Attorney General filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the insurers' position. After a long period of no activity, the court asked the plaintiffs to file a response to the petition for mandamus. Based on a letter from the appellate court, the insurers gave the multi-district litigation court an opportunity to reconsider the original court's action, but the court declined to do so, and the case has now been fully briefed and is back in front of the appellate court on the insurers' mandamus petition. Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation's insurance products primarily include commercial property and casualty coverages. Services include risk management, information services, warranty and claims administration. The Company's core business, commercial property and casualty insurance operations, is reported in two business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty Lines. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Action Stayed Due to Grace Bankruptcy ---------------------------------------------------------------- CNA Financial Corporation states that an asbestos-related action filed in Montana against the Company, Maryland Casualty, and the State of Montana is stayed because of W.R. Grace & Co.'s pending bankruptcy. On March 22, 2002, a direct action was filed in Montana (Pennock, et al. v. Maryland Casualty, et al. First Judicial District Court of Lewis & Clark County, Mont.) by eight individual plaintiffs (all Grace employees) and their spouses against the Company, Maryland Casualty and the State of Montana. This action alleges that the carriers failed to warn of or otherwise protect Grace employees from the dangers of asbestos at a W.R. Grace vermiculite mining facility in Libby, Mont. Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation's insurance products primarily include commercial property and casualty coverages. Services include risk management, information services, warranty and claims administration. The Company's core business, commercial property and casualty insurance operations, is reported in two business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty Lines. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Grants ASARCO, Creditors Tolling Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Bankruptcy Court approves the stipulation between ASARCO LLC and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors tolling the time by which the Asbestos Committee may commenced actions under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code through July 1, 2008. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 67; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Holy Cross Owners Sued for Exposing Workers ---------------------------------------------------------------- The owners of the Holy Cross Centre in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, are named as defendants in a class action lawsuit, in which the suit alleges that staff and residents were unknowingly exposed to asbestos, CBC News reports. According to a statement of claim filed in December 2007, several buildings that are a part of the center and renovated in 2002 contained large quantities of asbestos. The suit alleges the asbestos was not properly removed and staff and patients were not told about it. Clint Docken, the lead lawyer in the case, said, "The basis of the claim is that a number of individuals, probably hundreds, would have been exposed to asbestos and potentially are facing a health risk as a result of that exposure." The Holy Cross Centre, a privately run complex that includes assisted-living units and medical offices, is owned by three Calgary doctors under the company name Enterprise Universal Inc. Company spokesman Stephen Carter said he has not seen the statement of claim, but said the allegations are baseless. The lawsuit, which is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, has yet to be certified by a judge. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oxnard School in Calif. Settles $25T Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Oxnard School District in Ventura County, Calif., has settled a case for US$25,000 in penalties and additional costs for failing to disclose that asbestos was released into the environment when construction workers remodeled an elementary school in August 2004. The announcement was made by Ventura County District Attorney officials on Feb. 27, 2008. The District Attorney's Consumer Fraud and Environmental Protection Unit filed a lawsuit against the district and G-2000 Construction, Inc. The Unit alleged that both parties removed ceiling tiles containing "friable" asbestos while workers were retrofitting Rose Avenue School in August 2004. Federal law requires the district to compile and review asbestos materials in its facilities and maintain reports. According to District Attorney officials, the district and its project manager, Martinez Architects, Inc., used earlier reports that did not provide information the tiles contained asbestos when the district released the bid for the project. An Aug. 4, 2004 report showed the tiles did contain asbestos, but the district and Martinez Architects did not share the report with G-2000 officials until after workers removed the ceiling tiles, investigators said. Along with the district, G-2000 also was ordered to pay US$25,000 in civil penalties, investigation and attorney fees. Martinez Architects, Inc. was ordered to pay US$30,000 in penalties and additional costs, officials said. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Jury Awards $30.3M to Worker's Family --------------------------------------------------------------- Moshe Maimon, the lawyer for the family of asbestos victim Mark Buttitta, said that the family was awarded US$30.3 million from a New Jersey jury, Associated Press reports. Mr. Maimon added that the award is believed to be the largest in New Jersey for mesothelioma, which killed the 50-year-old Mr. Buttitta in 2002. Mr. Buttitta handled auto parts containing asbestos while working summers at general motors corporation warehouses in new jersey. The disease killed 50-year-old Mark Buttitta in 2002, although he had only handled auto parts containing asbestos while working summers at General Motors Corporation warehouses in New Jersey, Mr. Maimon said. However, Mr. Buttitta's father worked there and his brother also spent summers at the warehouse. On Feb. 26, 2008, the six-person Bergen County jury found against Asbestos Corp. Ltd. of Canada, which provided material for GM brakes, and BorgWarner Inc. of Michigan, which made clutches. The verdict came after four hours of deliberations following several weeks of testimony, Mr. Maimon said. He added that both companies are expected to appeal. Mr. Buttitta, an advertising executive who lived in Glen Ridge, grew up in Bloomfield, where the warehouse was located before it moved to Englewood. If upheld, the verdict would benefit his widow and three daughters. No illness has been reported by Mr. Buttitta's father, Frank Buttitta Sr., a lifelong GM worker, or brother, Frank Buttitta Jr., said Mr. Maimon, of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Issues Warnings to NHS Trust on Hazards ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Wigan, Wrightington and Leigh NHS Trust has avoided prosecution by the U.K.'s Health and Safety Executive for breaching asbestos regulations, Wigan Evening Post reports. The trust was served with three improvement and two prohibition notices in relation to asbestos at an unknown trust site. The trust is responsible for running and maintaining Wigan Infirmary, Leigh Infirmary, Wrightington Hospital, Whelley Hospital and the Thomas Linacre Centre. On Feb. 27, 2008, Trust officials refused to reveal which site the notices related to, but an HSE spokesman confirmed that they were posted in response to the trust's failure to properly carry out its management duty in relation to asbestos. All five notices were in relation to asbestos in areas that are not accessible to the public but are used by trust staff. Having addressed the concerns raised by the HSE inspection, the notices have now been signed off. Gill Harris, director of nurse and patient services, said, "In November 2007, the HSE served three improvement and two prohibition notices on Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust, all were in relation to asbestos in areas not accessible to the public. "We are pleased to report that the HSE – following this period of extensive activity to make safe areas where asbestos presented a risk to the health and safety of staff – has been satisfied by our efforts and signed off all the notices as of Jan. 31, 2008." In 2006, HSE regulations prohibiting the use, importation and supply of asbestos were brought in because asbestos is linked to serious illness including cancer and asbestosis. These regulations relate to the new use of asbestos. Any asbestos-containing materials that remain in good condition can be left in place so long as they are suitably monitored and managed to ensure they are not disturbed. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Firm Seeks to Override Emissions Laws ---------------------------------------------------------------- The North Shore Mining Company in Silver Creek, Minn., attempts to obtain court permission to override existing legislation that dictates asbestos emission levels, TransWorldNews reports. The Minnesota Appellate Court will now decide whether or not to allow the Company to emit more asbestos into the air. Existing emissions legislation dictates that asbestos levels of emission must be lower or equal to asbestos levels in the air. A court decision ruling with the Company would give it the freedom to emit as much asbestos as it desires. The current Minnesota legislation regarding asbestos emissions standards was passed in 1974. TransWorldNews reports that it is quite possible that if the Appellate Court rules in favor of the Company, employees as well as residents of neighboring Silver Creek could be at risk of harmful airborne asbestos exposure. The motion initiated by the mine has been denounced by the attorney generals of both Minnesota and Wisconsin, in addition to a bevy of environmental activists. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Worker Pleads Guilty in Cleanup Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Benny G. Gladding, the 48-year-old building and grounds Superintendent for Massena Central School District in Massena, N.Y., has pleaded guilty in the asbestos removal case at the school, Clear Channel Broadcasting reports. According to U.S. Attorney Glenn Suddaby, Mr. Gladding, of Norfolk, N.Y., entered a guilty plea to providing materially false information to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Special Agents related to illegal asbestos removal and disposal activities within Massena Central School District buildings and preparing a materially false report related to the presence of asbestos in a public school. In pleading guilty, Mr. Gladding admitted that he was interviewed on Feb. 22, 2007, by Special Agents of the EPA regarding illegal removal of asbestos within Massena School District buildings. Mr. Gladding falsely stated that he had never removed any asbestos-containing material from any school building at any time during his employment with the Massena School District, when in fact he had engaged in numerous, illegal asbestos removal actions. Mr. Gladding further admitted that on Dec. 21, 2006, he conducted a six-month periodic inspection of asbestos at the Jefferson Elementary School in Massena, and failed to accurately record significant amounts of asbestos previously on pipes had been disturbed and was on the ground within the school building. As part of the plea agreement, Mr. Gladding has agreed to resign from the Massena Central School District at the time of imposition of sentence. Mr. Gladding faces a maximum term of incarceration of five years and a fine of US$250,000 for providing materially false information, and a maximum possible term of incarceration of one year and a fine of US$100,000 for preparing a materially false report. Sentencing has been set for July 11, 2008 in Utica, N.Y. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Authorities Probe Claims v. CFMEU Official --------------------------------------------------------------- Australian authorities are checking claims that Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) organizer Shaun Reardon dumped asbestos on a table in front of two managers at a construction site, The Age reports. The incident was said to have occurred at the Sunshine North site of builders JA Dodd on Feb. 6, 2008. It is believed the probe will look at claims that Mr. Reardon dumped asbestos on a table in front of a JA Dodd foreman and another manager at the Australian Technical College building site in Sunshine North. Mr. Reardon had taken the asbestos from a quarantined area on the site, it is claimed. Mr. Reardon described the claims as "completely fabricated" and said they were an attempt by JA Dodd to deflect attention from a poor record on asbestos. A WorkSafe spokesman said, "WorkSafe is aware of a complaint similar to the circumstances described. Inquiries are under way." Building industry watchdog the Australian Building Construction Commissioner also confirmed the investigation. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Gets More Appeal Time in Libby Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co. has been granted more time to file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in the U.S. Government's asbestos case against the Company, Associated Press reports. Justice Anthony Kennedy granted an extension until April 14, 2008. The Company is expected to ask the high court to a review a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowing certain evidence to be used at trial. A 2005 indictment charged the Company and seven of its former managers with conspiring to hide health risks associated with its Libby, Mont., vermiculite mine, which closed in 1990. The Company has denied any criminal wrongdoing. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ThunderSky Urges Gov't. to Warn of Dangers --------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestosis sufferer Raven ThunderSky is demanding the Canadian Government to warn others of the dangers of asbestos, Seattle- Post Intelligencer reports. Ms. ThunderSky is from a First Nation family, in which five members died from exposure to asbestos fibers in Zonolite insulation that the government installed in their homes and on military bases. Ms. ThunderSky's efforts to sue W.R. Grace & Co., which produced the Zonolite with asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore from a Montana mine, has been thwarted, reports the Winnipeg Sun. Zonolite's use is not limited to Canada. The United States goverment says that the product is still in as many as 35 million homes and businesses, but also refuses to institute a promised "aggressive campaign" to warn of the risk they face. Ms. ThunderSky, who is originally from Poplar River, Manitoba, in 2005, sued Grace and its various affiliates, as well as the Canadian government. The Sun reported that since 1996, her sisters and both her parents have died of cancer and asbestosis. The federal Indian Affairs department built Ms. ThunderSky's family's home in the 1960s insulated with Zonolite, which has since been found to contain harmful asbestos. In her suit, Ms. ThunderSky asks that an information package go out across Canada informing people about Zonolite and how to check for the form of cancer it may cause. The Sun said that Ms. ThunderSky's lawyer recently told her Grace's bankruptcy filing may soon force her lawsuit to be lumped in with a U.S. class action suit. This would come despite the fact Ms. ThunderSky's family's deaths occurred in Canada and the Company's Canadian subsidiaries and the Canadian government are named as defendants. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victorian Gov't. Defends v. Workers' Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- The government in Victoria, Australia, is fighting dying workers' claims against their asbestos exposure, Herald and Weekly Times reports. Taxpayers are paying for the Government's attempts to dodge compensation payments. Court documents reveal the Government uses a private legal firm to defend claims, denying workers have been exposed to asbestos or blaming the claimants for their illnesses. However, in most cases, it makes big cash payouts in out-of- court settlements, and taxpayers also foot those bills. More critically ill workers are suing for the decades they were subjected to the risk of asbestos-related diseases, before the State Electricity Commission and other state authorities were privatized. Almost a third of common law asbestos claims lodged with the Supreme Court since November 2007 are against the Government. Of 65 claims, 18 named the Government and 23 named Amaca Pty. Ltd. Other accused employers include local councils, health authorities, water authorities, education providers and private industry employers. Court records show most claimants are elderly, and are seeking compensation for pain, suffering and medical expenses of AUD150,000 to AUD250,000. Compensation lawyer Stephen Plunkett, of Slater and Gordon, said despite the Government's refusal to quickly admit liability, almost all cases were settled out of court within months. Mr. Plunkett added that when the Government sold the State Electricity Commission for AUD30 billion it assumed the commission's liabilities. Mr. Plunkett said it was easier to prove injured people worked at the SEC, where they were exposed to asbestos, than to prove the asbestos product was made by James Hardie Industries N.V. Barrister Jack Rush who won AUD4 billion compensation from Hardie in the Bernie Banton asbestos case, said mesothelioma cases would peak in the next three to five years. A spokesman for the Government's insurer, Victorian Managed Insurance Authority, said it did not have a specific budget for compensation claims, but "managed our liabilities prudently." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Asbestos Cost Covered in $17M Charge ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Hardie Industries N.V.'s net operating profit including asbestos costs and the closure charge of its fiber cement plant in Blandon, Pa., was US$17.1 million, Reuters reports. This was up from a loss of US$8 million in the third quarter of 2007, when it was hit by a big charge to top up a fund for victims of asbestos-related diseases. Hardie was once Australia's largest asbestos maker, and has set up a compensation fund for workers at its plants and others who were sickened by the material. The fund could be worth up to AUD4.5 billion over 40 years. Based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, James Hardie Industries N.V., a pioneer in cellulose-reinforced fiber cement, uses the material to create products for residential and commercial construction, including siding (Hardiplank), external cladding, walls, fencing, and roofing. The company also makes fiber- reinforced concrete (FRC) pipe through its Hardie Pipe business. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Janice Mendoza, Stephanie Umacob, Freya Natasha Dy, and Peter Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2008. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *