/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080328.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 28, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 62 Headlines ALLCO FINANCE: IMF to Fund Shareholders' Suit vs. Fund Managers ALLIED CAPITAL: D.C. Court Considers Dismissal Motion v. "Ross" AMBAC FINANCIAL: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Court Denies Certification in "Good" Case AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in "Gallus" Case APPLE INC: Settles "Millions of Colors" Lawsuit Out-of-Court ASTORIA FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court Says TILA Claims are Time-Barred AWB LTD: Court Dismisses Wheat Farmers' Lawsuit BANKERS LIFE: Sued in WA Over Fraud on Long-Term Care Contracts BLUESKY BRANDS: Laid Off Fulfillment Workers Commence Lawsuit CARMAKERS: UCanImport Pledges Support in C.A. Violation Suit CASH AMERICA: Ga. Court Denies Motion in Payday Loans Litigation CASH AMERICA: Files Arbitration Motion in Pa. Consumer Lawsuit CENTRO PROPERTIES: IMF to Fund Investors' Non-Disclosure Lawsuit CLUB MED: Settles Male Gender Discrimination Lawsuit ELI LILLY: March 2008 Hearing Set for Motion in N.Y. Litigation GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Lawsuits Over "Dex-Cool" Engine Coolant HOME DEPOT USA: Faces MO Suit Over 10% Rental Cost Overcharges IMAGITAS INC: Faces Consolidated DPPA Violations Suit in Fla. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT: Sued Over Retiree Insurance Payment INNOVEX INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation MBIA INC: No Hearing Set on Appeal of Dismissed of N.Y. Lawsuit MICHIGAN: Chippewa County to Sue Over 911 Surcharge NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Faces Lawsuit in Ohio Over Rental Car Policy PACIFIC CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Calif. Lawsuit REGIONS FINANCIAL: Faces Ala. Suit Over Alleged Overinvestment SU WHOLESALE: Recalls Toys Violating Lead Paint Standard U.S. RAILROADS: Sued by Archer Daniels for Fixed Fuel Surcharges URGENT GEAR: Kids' Hoodies Recalled Due to Strangulation Hazard WACHOVIA CORP: Faces Wages Payment Failure Lawsuit in Alabama WESTERN REFINING: Units Still Face "Hot Fuel" Lawsuit in Kansas New Securities Fraud Cases NEUROMETRIX INC: Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing in MA SUPERIOR OFFSHORE: Coughlin Stoia Files LA Securities Fraud Suit WELLPOINT INC: Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing in In. Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors McCanns in Foster Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Has $339.3M Losses, LAE at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chubb Faces Lawsuits in Calif., Ohio, Tex. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chubb Cites $793M Net Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pepco Still Faces 180 Md. Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PolyOne's Reserves Total $200T at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. FirstEnergy ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pennsylvania REIT Has $100,000 for Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Third-Party Actions Pending v. Liggett ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Continues to Face Exposure Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Actions Still Ongoing v. Pride Units ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parker Drilling Still Faces Suits in Miss. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Denies Wrights' Remand Motion ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $3.864B at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Reserves $422.8M at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Cases Asserted v. American Fin'l. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Still Faces Hickey Case in N.J. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air, Units Still Face Grace Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Has $158.4M Interest at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Records $700,000 for Legal Fees ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PartnerRe Has $87.7M A&E Reserves at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Quigley to Solicit Amended Plan ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 106,000 Claims Pending v. American Optical ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OneBeacon Records 491 Open Claims at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 14T Claims Remain v. Owens-Illinois at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 38 Injury Suits Pending v. Noble at Jan. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety Faces Product Liability Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Junks Century Indemnity's Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety Lawsuit v. Century in Discovery ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Manitowoc Company ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Court Upholds Ruling to Favor St. Paul ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Has $257M Gross Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Worldwide Sees $1Mil Costs at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits in 30 States Pending v. IDEX, 5 Units ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26,383 Claims Pending v. Harsco at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GATX Units Face 1,331 Lawsuits at Feb. 15 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Faces 1,275 Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Still Faces Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Still Has Indemnification Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eastman Chemical Still Faces Exposure Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: District Court OKs Richoux's Remand Motion ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest's A&E Losses Total $827.4M at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enstar Provides $677.6M for Claims at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Suits Pending v. Fluor Corporation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Pending v. Phelps Dodge ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 299 Suits Pending v. Bucyrus Int'l. at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BlueLinx May Incur Costs Over GP Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBL & Associates Records $2.6M for Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Five Reinstated Actions Pending v. Chiquita ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cincinnati Fin'l. Has $123M for A&E at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 75 Suits Pending v. Ameren Corp. at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maritime Suits Ongoing v. Cleveland-Cliffs ASBEST0S LITIGATION: Cleveland-Cliffs Action Settled on Dec. 21 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. Celanese Drop to 626 at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Cites 38 Cases Set for Trial in 2008 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Faces 18,789 Claims at Feb. 1 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brandon Drying Faces 8,741 Claims at Feb. 1 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mount Vernon Cases Ongoing v. Albany Int'l. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Petroleum Still Faces Injury Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster's Losses, ALAE Total $442.8M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Still Faces Kelly-Moore Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Gross Reserves Total $2.924B at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong World Faces Workers Injury Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berkley Has $41.59M Net Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairchild Continues to Face Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNH Global N.V. Party to Asbestos Matters ASBESTOS LITIGATION: K-Sea Affiliate to Settle Exposure Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Plaintiffs in Crane Co. Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Va. Court Issues Split Ruling in TIG Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Urges Court to Junk Allegheny Request ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Opposes Speights Appeal for Extension ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace's Estimation Trial to End in May 2008 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Claimants Seek to Add More Evidence ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup in New York State Bldg. to Cost $7M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Pipe Lagger's Death to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Worker's Widow Seeks GBP150T in Payout ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Six Actions Filed in Ill. Court on March 13 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Four Suits Filed in Ill. Court on March 14 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Five Suits Filed in Ill. Court on March 17 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Five Suits Filed in Ill. Court on March 18 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Insurers to Pay $500M Damages ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Jury Awards $25.2M in Consolidated Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Court Rules v. John Crane in Newinski ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Rules on Figgins' Death ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Jury Favors DuPont in Whisnant Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Death of Lecturer Baffles Coroner's Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Inquiry at Wis. Apartments Ongoing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colo. Builders Win $6.4M in Cleanup Damages ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Overturns Harenda Case Ruling ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie State Gov't. to Close Legal Loophole ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Seven Cases Filed in Ill. Court on March 3 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kings College Fined for Workers' Exposure ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Reconsideration in Harris Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Northumberland MP Raises Asbestos Awareness ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Electrician's Death Linked to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Royal Navy Worker's Death Linked to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 9 Suits v. Dana Removed to Federal Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Victim to Sue Richard Dunston Insurers ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota to Pay for Claim Made After Death ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Gov't. to Examine Law Lords' Decision ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Welsh Art Teacher's Death Linked to Hazard ********* ALLCO FINANCE: IMF to Fund Shareholders' Suit vs. Fund Managers --------------------------------------------------------------- Listed litigation funder IMF (Australia) will fund shareholder class actions against four Australian fund managers that hit trouble after the global credit crisis emerged last year, Melbourne Herald Sun reports. These four fund managers are: 1. Allco Finance Group 2. MFS 3. Centro Properties 4. Centro Retail Herald Sun says that the claims against each of the companies relate to alleged breaches of their continuous disclosure obligations between August 2007 and January-February 2008. The report relates that during this six-month period, shares in the four finance companies slid dramatically as they struggled with heavy debt loads and complex financial structures. The four companies have all embarked on rescue plans, selling off some of their assets and funds to pay down crippling levels of debt. John Walker, IMF Australia managing director, told Financial Times that legal action had not yet commenced against the four groups as it required "sufficient claim value to make it commercially viable," adding that each case would require close to AU$10 million in funding. IMF "underwrites the litigation in return for a share of the recovery, if any," Mr. Walker said. IMF said it would announce the claim value in its quarterly case investment reports as they are published, Herald Sun notes. Law firm Maurice Blackman will pursue the class actions against the two Centro property funds. ALLIED CAPITAL: D.C. Court Considers Dismissal Motion v. "Ross" --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal of an amended securities fraud class action filed against Allied Capital Corp., entitled "Ross v. Walton, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-0402- EGS." On Feb. 26, 2007, Dana Ross filed a class action complaint in which she alleges that the company and certain members of its management violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint, "Dana Ross v. Walton, et al., CV 00402," claims that, between March 1, 2006, and Jan. 10, 2007, Allied Capital either failed to disclose or misrepresented information concerning the loan origination practices of Business Loan Express, LLC, an Allied Capital portfolio company. The court had appointed new lead counsel and approved new lead plaintiffs later. On July 30, 2007, the plaintiffs served an amended complaint. The plaintiffs claim that, between Nov. 7, 2005, and Jan. 22, 2007, Allied Capital either failed to disclose or misrepresented information about its portfolio company, Business Loan Express, LLC. The are seeking unspecified compensatory and other damages, as well as other relief. On Sept. 13, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The motion is pending, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Ross v. Walton, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00402- EGS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Representing the plaintiffs is: Steven Richard Freeman, Esq. (srf@fwglaw.com) Freeman, Wolfe & Greenbaum, P.A. 409 Washington Avenue, Suite 300 Towson, MD 21204 Phone: (410) 321-8400 Fax: 410-321-8407 AMBAC FINANCIAL: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ambac Financial Group Inc. is facing several purported securities fraud class actions filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Initially, a suit was filed on Jan. 16, 2008, entitled, "Reimer v. Ambac Financial Group." It was brought on behalf of buyers of Ambac's shares from Oct. 19, 2005 to Nov. 26, 2007. The complaint charges Ambac, and certain of its officers, and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results related to its insurance coverage on collateralized debt obligations contracts. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: -- that the Company lacked requisite internal controls to ensure that the Company's underwriting standards and its internal rating system for its CDO contracts were adequate, and, as a result, the Company's projections and reported results issued during the Class Period were based upon defective assumptions and/or manipulated facts; -- that the Company's financial statements were materially misstated due to its failure to properly account for its mark-to-market losses; -- that, given the deterioration and the increased volatility in the mortgage market, the Company would be forced to tighten its underwriting standards related to its asset-backed securities, which would have a direct material negative impact on its premium production going forward; -- that the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated losses and defaults related to its CDO contracts containing subprime loans, including even highly rated CDOs, than it had previously disclosed; -- that the Company had far greater exposure to a potential ratings downgrade from one of the credit ratings agencies than it had previously disclosed; and -- that defendants' Class Period statements about the Company's selective underwriting practices during the 2005 through 2007 timeframe related to its CDOs backed by subprime assets were patently false; as the Company's underwriting standards were at best aggressive and at a minimum were completely inadequate. Three other suits were later filed, making substantially the same allegations as the Reimer action. Those suits are: -- "Babic v. Ambac Financial Group Inc. et al." (filed on or about Feb. 7, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 08 CV 1273); -- "Parker v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et al." (filed on or about Feb. 22, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 08 CV 1825); and -- "Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et al." (filed on or about Feb. 26, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 08 CV 1918). The first identified suit is "Reimer v. Ambac Financial Group, Case No. 1:08-cv-00411-NRB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@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 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Court Denies Certification in "Good" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The district court denied a motion that sought for the certification of a class in a lawsuit against Ameriprise Financial, Inc., which suit alleges that the company miscalculated advisors' fees, according to Ameriprise's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The lawsuit, "Good, et al. v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. et al. Case No. 00-cv-01027," was filed in March 2006 with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. It has been brought as a putative class action and the plaintiffs purport to represent all of the company's advisors who sold shares of Real Estate Investment Trusts and tax credit limited partnerships between March 22, 2000, and March 2006. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and restitutionary damages as well as injunctive relief, saying the company incorrectly calculated commissions owed advisors for the sale of these products. In September 2007, the company moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on Jan. 18, 2008. The court requested supplemental briefs addressing whether it continues to have subject-matter jurisdiction over the two individual plaintiffs' claims. The suit is "Good, et al. v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. et al. Case No. 00-cv-01027," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge Donovan W. Frank presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Bryan L. Crawford, Esq. (bcrawford@heinsmills.com) Samuel D. Heins, Esq. (sheins@heinsmills.com) Stacey L. Mills, Esq. (smills@heinsmills.com) Brian L. Williams, Esq. (bwilliams@heinsmills.com) Heins Mills & Olson, PLC 80 S. 8th St., Ste. 3550 Mpls, MN 55402 Phone: 612-338-4605 Fax: 612-338-4692 Representing the defendant is: Edward B. Magarian, Esq. (magarian.edward@dorsey.com) Dorsey & Whitney, LLP 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498 Phone: 612-340-7873 Fax: 612-340-2807 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in "Gallus" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the purported class action "John E. Gallus et al. v. American Express Financial Corp. and American Express Financial Advisors Inc.," which was originally filed in June 2004 against American Express -- now known as Ameriprise Financial, Inc. -- are appealing a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granting the defendant's summary judgment motion. The plaintiffs allege that they are investors in several of the Company's mutual funds and they purport to bring the action derivatively on behalf of those funds under the Investment Company Act of 1940. They also allege that fees paid to the defendants by the funds for investment advisory and administrative services are excessive. The plaintiffs seek remedies including restitution and rescission of investment advisory and distribution agreements. They later would voluntarily agree to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. In response to the company's motion to dismiss the complaint, the court dismissed one of the plaintiffs' four claims and granted the plaintiffs limited discovery. In April 2007, the company moved for summary judgment on all claims. This motion was granted by the court, while all claims were dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs are appealing the ruling. The company reported no further development in the matter in its Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. -- http://www.ameriprise.com/-- is engaged in providing financial planning, products and services that are designed to offer solutions for its clients' asset accumulation, income and protection needs. APPLE INC: Settles "Millions of Colors" Lawsuit Out-of-Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Apple Inc. decided to settle a class action lawsuit initiated by two photographers who accuse the company of false advertising and misleading costumers, Portal IT reports. The report says, however, that the terms of the settlement were not disclosed. The lawsuit was filed by Fred Greaves and Dave Gatley in May 2007, Portal IT recounts. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 22, 2007, the class action suit was filed with the San Diego County Superior Court, and accuses the company of falsely advertising its MacBook and MacBook Pro screen displays. According to CAR, the suit accuses Apple of improperly playing up the capabilities of the displays for the MacBook Pros and MacBooks launched in the first part of last year. For example, it notes that Apple advertised the MacBooks as capable of displaying "millions of colors" when they can only do that using a technique called "dithering." Dithering, the CAR report had explained, is a procedure used in computer displays in order to trick the human eye into seeing a color by painting nearby pixels with different shades of a color to produce the desired shade. Also, the suit points to complaints lodged by MacBook users on various Apple discussion boards about the "grainy" or "shiny" quality of their displays, CAR stated. Portal IT says that the plaintiffs' main argument was that Apple's little scheme interfered with their work, as color accuracy becomes the VIP when taking the photos from the digital realm to old-fashion print. The two plaintiffs stated that the notebook displays were not reliable for post-production purposes even at the highest resolutions. ASTORIA FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court Says TILA Claims are Time-Barred -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has determined that all named plaintiffs' "Truth in Lending" claims in a lawsuit against Astoria Financial Corp. over mortgage loan preparation fees are time-barred. In 2004, David McAnaney and Carolyn McAnaney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated filed the suit against Astoria Financial Corp., and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suit is claiming that the company's charging of attorney document preparation fees, recording fees, and facsimile fees for mortgage loans violate state laws. The action, commenced as a punitive class action, alleges that in connection with the satisfaction of certain mortgage loans made by Astoria Federal, The Long Island Savings Bank, FSB, which was acquired by Astoria Federal in 1998, and their related entities, customers were charged attorney document preparation fees, recording fees and facsimile fees allegedly in violation of: -- the federal Truth in Lending Act, -- the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), -- the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCA), and -- the New York State Deceptive Practices Act The suit also alleges unjust enrichment and common law fraud. Astoria Federal previously moved to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was granted in part and denied in part, dismissing claims based on violations of RESPA and FDCA. The Court further determined that class certification would be considered prior to considering summary judgment. On Sept. 19, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. Astoria Federal has denied the claims set forth in the complaint. Both the company and the plaintiffs have filed motions for summary judgment. The District Court, on Sept. 12, 2007, granted the company's motion for summary judgment on the basis that all named plaintiffs' Truth in Lending claims are time barred. All other aspects of the plaintiffs' and the defendant's motions for summary judgment were dismissed without prejudice. The Court found the named plaintiffs to be inadequate class representatives and provided plaintiffs' counsel an opportunity to submit a motion for the substitution or intervention of new named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion with the District Court for partial reconsideration of its decision. The District Court, by order dated Jan. 25, 2008, granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial reconsideration and again determined that all named plaintiffs' Truth in Lending claims are time barred. The District Court has given plaintiffs' counsel until Feb. 29, 2008, to move for substitution or intervention of new named plaintiffs, according to Astoria's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "McAnaney et al. v. Astoria Financial Corp. et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01101-JFB-WDW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Joseph F. Bianco. Representing the plaintiffs are: G. Oliver Koppell, Esq. (okoppell@koppellaw.com) 99 Park Avenue, Suite 800 New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-368-0400 Fax: 212-973-9494 - and - Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. (joseph@whalen-tusa.com) Whalen & Tusa, P.C. 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-786-7377 Fax: 212-658-9685 Representing the defendants are: Alfred W.J. Marks, Esq. (awjmarks@dbh.com) Day, Berry & Howard, LLP 875 Third Avenue, 28th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-829-3634 Fax: 212-829-3601 AWB LTD: Court Dismisses Wheat Farmers' Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------- The Class Action Reporter reported on Sept. 20, 2007, that AWB Ltd. has asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss a class action that was brought by a group of U.S. wheat growers. In an update, Bloomberg News relates that Judge Gerard Lynch dismissed the lawsuit on March 25, 2008. The suit was filed in April 2007 by U.S. law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll on behalf of American wheat farmers with the federal district court in New York. The lead plaintiff is John Boyd of Baskerville, Virginia. Four Kansan farmers, and one from Montana -- Veryl Switzer, Gillan Alexander, Rod Bradshaw, Wilburt Howard and Pat Dailey -- are also part of the action. The complaint was lodged on behalf of farmers who produced hard red winter wheat, of the type grown across the great plains, including Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota and Montana. The lawsuit stemmed from probes of the United Nations' Oil-for- Food program, which found that former AWB employees paid kickbacks to the Iraqi regime in exchange for sales. The antitrust suit claimed AWB depressed world wheat prices by winning a monopoly in Iraq through its allegedly illegal payments. The suit sought up to $100 million in damages from AWB Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary, AWB (USA) Ltd. It alleged Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violations. It had asserted that AWB "paid bribes to the Iraqi government" to "exploit a monopoly on wheat sold into Iraq." The U.S. farmers claimed that they were "stuck with an oversupply of wheat" between 1999 and 2003 because Iraq dealt only with AWB Ltd., which was paying kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's regime. According to Bloomberg, AWB, which is considered to be Australia's largest wheat exporter, rose to its highest in more than two months in Sydney after winning dismissal of the lawsuit. According to the March 27 Bloomberg report, the Melbourne-based AWB rose as much as 17 cents, or 6.7%, to AU$2.72 and traded at AU$2.70 at 10:25 a.m. Sydney time on the Australian Stock Exchange, its highest since Jan. 17. BANKERS LIFE: Sued in WA Over Fraud on Long-Term Care Contracts --------------------------------------------------------------- Bankers Life and Casualty Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed on March 19, 2007, with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging it breached contract and took millions of dollars in bad faith for long-term convalescent care policies, while concealing the inevitability of rate hikes, CourtHouse News Service reports. The plaintiffs, who are elderly policyholders, find themselves forced to "let their LTC policy lapse when they need coverage the most," and this has gone on since 1988, they say. This class action is brought on behalf of all persons who, beginning in 1988, purchased long- or short-term convalescent care insurance polices from Bankers in the State of Washington, and who have been damaged: (1) by Bankers' misleading and deceptive non-disclosure, concealment and misrepresentation of material facts at the time of purchase and concerning the long- term stability of the premium rates for its LTC policies which were designed to and did conceal the inherent unreliability and heightened volatility of the assumptions not typical of other lines of insurance underlying Bankers' LTC premiums and the resulting certainty, or at least, heightened likelihood, that such premiums would need to be increased; and (2) by Bankers' raising premiums for in-force LTC policies once the negative effects of its unreliable and volatile pricing assumptions became imminent in breach of Bankers' contractual promise in its LTC policies that premiums would only be raised if there was an unforeseen change in federal or state law or regulation that changed Bankers' risk under the LTC policies. LTC policies are designed to cover expenses incurred by people when they are unable to take care of themselves due to an injury, chronic illness, advanced age, or cognitive impairment. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether Bankers disclosed to consumers that the assumed persistency rates used for pricing its LTC policies were not based on actual experience; (b) whether Bankers disclosed to consumers that the anticipated interest rates assumed in pricing its LTC policies was in appropriate based on reasonable economic projections; (c) whether Bankers disclosed to consumers that it failed to properly underwrite new risks; (d) whether Bankers disclosed to consumers that it failed to maintain adequate reserves to cover future anticipated claims; (e) whether Bankers failed to disclose that its closing blocks of LTC policies would inevitably lead to rounds of premium increase; (f) whether Bankers' inherently unreliable, volatile and flawed pricing assumptions set forth in the complaint made future premium increases for its LTC policies inevitable, or at least significantly heightened the risk thereof which it never disclosed to consumers; (g) whether Bankers increased its premiums for plaintiffs' and class members' LTC policies in absence of a change in federal or state law that changed the risk Bankers assumed; (h) whether Bankers' actions described in the complaint violate Washington's Consumer Protection Act, RCW Section 19.86.020; (i) whether Bankers breached its contracts with plaintiffs and the class; (j) the appropriate measure of damages, restitution and other remedies. The plaintiffs ask the court for: -- an order certifying the suit as a class action, and appointing the plaintiffs as class representatives and the plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel; -- compensatory damages; -- costs of litigation; -- all remedies available, pursuant to Washington's Consumer Protection Act, RCW Section 19.86 et seq., including actual damages, treble damages, attorneys' costs, fees and expenses; -- restitution in such amount that plaintiffs and all class members paid for Bankers' services, or the profits and fees Bankers obtained for them; -- an order enjoining Bankers from raising its premiums on its LTC policies barring a truly unforeseen change in law that actually changes the nature of the risk Bankers assumed when it issued said policies; and -- such other and further relief as may be deemed necessary or appropriate. The suit is "Susan W. Taylor et al. v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., Case No. C 08-0447," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Representing the plaintiffs is: Michael E. Withey, Esq. (mike@witheylaw.com) Law Offices of Michael Withey PLLC 601 Union Street Two Union Square #4200 Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone: (206) 405-1800 BLUESKY BRANDS: Laid Off Fulfillment Workers Commence Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Attorney Paul Taylor, Esq., filed a class action suit on March 25, 2008, on behalf of the workers laid off from AB&C Group's Martinsburg facility in Jefferson County Circuit Court, Multichannel Merchant reports. AB&C is BlueSky Brands' third-party fulfillment arm. According to Multichannel Merchant, it's been nearly two weeks since BlueSky closed its doors, although the catalog holding company has yet to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, or respond to any media requests. The report relates that a similar lawsuit had been filed last week with the Berkeley County Circuit Court. Multichannel Merchant notes that AB&C's two distribution centers employed about 400 people. According to a former supervisor in AB&C's Orange, VA, call center, employees in both states are pursing legal action against Bluesky Brands for violations to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act Guide to Advance Notice of Closings and Layoffs. The WARN Act requires employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs. The report explains that, owned by Chicago-based private equity firm Reliant Equity Investors, BlueSky Brands included Paragon Gifts, Bits and Pieces, Bits and Pieces U.K., National Wildlife Direct, and Winterthur catalogs. Like the fulfillment center workers, the catalog employees are still trying to deal with the abrupt loss of their jobs and benefits. Ileane Strong, a former buyer for National Wildlife Direct, told Multichannel Merchant that she was laid off from the cataloger on March 7 and showed a document saying that March 31 would be the last day of her health insurance coverage. However, Ms. Strong said the insurance company told her the policy had been canceled on March 15, which was the day after BlueSky Brands shut down. Because Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act documents say Ms. Strong is insured through March 31, she cannot get interim insurance until the (canceled) policy expires. CARMAKERS: UCanImport Pledges Support in C.A. Violation Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Auto industry newsletter UCanImport Publications announced that it is supporting the British Columbia-based law firm, Dinning Hunter Lambert & Jackson, which has filed a lawsuit in British Columbia against various auto manufacturers for practices in contravention of Canada's Competition Act. UCanImport has agreed to act as a conduit for this lawsuit by hosting related information and registration documentation on its Web site: http://www.UCanImport.com The lawsuit, filed on February 26 2008, at Victoria, British Columbia, alleges that certain automakers: * BMW Canada Inc. * Hyundai Auto Canada Corp. * Hyundai Canada Inc. * Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. * Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada Inc. * Subaru Canada Inc. * Toyota Canada Inc. * Volvo Cars of Canada * Volvo Group Canada Inc. have, contrary to the federally-regulated Competition Act, implemented unlawful policies designed to curtail imports from the United States into Canada. These policies include: -- preventing U.S. dealerships from selling new vehicles to Canadians, -- implementing new mandatory documentation requirements with exploitive fees for distribution, voiding OEM warranties, dictating unnecessary modifications and charging exploitive labor rates for modifications and inspections, as well as forcing Canadians to wait up to 90-days for the service and inspections deemed mandatory prior to vehicle registration. In addition, some manufacturers have refused to provide the mandatory documentation to Canadians, effectively blocking their vehicle certification in Canada. For more information, visit: http://www.ucanimport.com/lawsuit.aspx Media Contact: David Davies Tel: (250) 382-4332 e-mail: ddavies@harbourwerks.com CASH AMERICA: Ga. Court Denies Motion in Payday Loans Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cash America International, Inc., is appealing the denial of its motion to stay and compel arbitration by the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia in connection with a purported class action over payday loans, according to Cash America's Feb. 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007 On Aug. 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed the purported class action against Georgia Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc., Daniel R. Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders" of Cash America. The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the most significant of which is that Cash America has been making illegal payday loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Community State Bank for some time made loans to Georgia residents through Cash America's Georgia operating locations. The lawsuit claims that Community State Bank is not the true lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers and that its involvement in the process is "a mere subterfuge." Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America is the "de facto" lender and is illegally operating in Georgia. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages. A previous decision by the trial judge to strike Cash America's affirmative defenses based on arbitration (without ruling on Cash America's previously filed motion to compel arbitration) was upheld by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and on Sept. 24, 2007, the Georgia Supreme Court declined to review the decision. The case has been returned to the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia, where Cash America filed a motion requesting that the trial court rule on Cash America's pending motion to compel arbitration and stay the State Court proceedings. The Court denied the motion to stay and ruled that the motion to compel arbitration was rendered moot after the discovery sanction was handed down by the Court. Cash America is currently in the process of appealing these latest orders from the Court. Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com- - provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing services and other specialty financial services to individuals. It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn lending operations. CASH AMERICA: Files Arbitration Motion in Pa. Consumer Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Cash America International, Inc., along with other defendants in a purported class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with regard to certain loans to Pennsylvania consumers, are seeking to compel individual arbitration of the plaintiff's claims in the matter. The federal class action complaint was filed on Oct. 23, 2007, by Ryan Bonner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against: -- Cash America International, Inc., -- Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC, -- Cash America Net of Pennsylvania, LLC, and -- Cash America of PA, LLC, d/b/a CashNetUSA.com The suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The suit is alleging, among other things, that the company and three of its subsidiaries located outside Pennsylvania made certain loans to Pennsylvania consumers in violation of Pennsylvania law, including its usury, fair credit extension, and unfair trade practices and consumer protection laws. The complaint also alleges that the arbitration clause in the relevant loans is unenforceable and seeks a declaratory judgment that the loan agreements issued to Pennsylvania residents are void and unenforceable under Pennsylvania law or, in the alternative, that the arbitration clause in those loan agreements is void and unenforceable. The plaintiff also seeks an injunction barring the company and the three named subsidiaries from offering, arranging, making or collecting allegedly illegal loans in Pennsylvania, as well as an award of monetary damages (including treble damages), penalties, costs, and attorneys' fees. The defendants have filed a motion to compel arbitration seeking to compel individual arbitration of the plaintiff's claims and they are presently awaiting plaintiff's response to this motion, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007 The suit is "Bonner v. Cash America International, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-04444-NS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Norma L. Shapiro presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. (jmeltzer@sbtklaw.com) Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, L.L.P. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 CENTRO PROPERTIES: IMF to Fund Investors' Non-Disclosure Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law firm Maurice Blackburn will be financially backed by IMF (Australia) to pursue class action suits on behalf of investors who bought shares in Centro Properties Group, MFS and Allco Finance Group, Inside Retailing reports. According to press reports, investors who bought shares within the six-month period to February 2008 will be eligible to join the class action suit, which will focus on the beleaguered companies' non-disclosure of material information about their debt and liquidity. Inside Retailing notes that Maurice Blackburn will argue that the three fund managers breached the Corporations Act by engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct and failing to inform the market as they were required to do. Financial Times points out that Listed companies in Australia and elsewhere with opaque leveraged structures have been hit hard by nervous stock market investors since soon after the credit crisis took hold in the second half of last year. Their problems have been compounded if they relied heavily on short- term borrowings after the era of cheap debt finance abruptly ended. Shares in the four groups targeted by IMF Australia have fallen heavily in recent months, with some down by close to 90% from their trading highs. All four are grappling with their debt positions and some have embarked on asset sales to improve their balance sheets. The Australian Securities Exchange monitors companies' compliance with their continuous disclosure obligations as laid down by the listing rules, Financial Times further explains. If the ASX believes there is a breach, it is referred to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which decides whether or not to prosecute. The ASX recently announced new disciplinary and appeal processes for participants in both the cash and futures market, including an increase in the maximum penalty for the most serious market abuses, such as market manipulation, from AU$250,000 to AU$1 million. This follows calls for Australian regulators to improve transparency around short selling, stock lending and director margin loans. There have also been concerns about hedge funds planting false rumors in the market. CLUB MED: Settles Male Gender Discrimination Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- California men have won in a class action lawsuit against French resort chain Club Mediterranee S.A. claiming male discrimination, Union-Tribune reports. Union-Tribune recounts that in 2003, San Diego resident Alfred Rava challenged Club Med's "Ladies Fly Free" travel promotion in a class-action lawsuit filed with the Orange County Superior Court. The promo offered women -- but not their male companions -- free or discounted travel to Club Med's Cancun resort or its Turks and Caicos resort southeast of the Bahamas. "It sends a strong message to businesses in California," Mr. Rava's attorney, Erik Jenkins, Esq., says of the case. He adds that gender discrimination has taken a back seat to discrimination based on race, national origin and sexual orientation. "It has taken society a long time to catch on that females should not be used as sexual bait to draw men into a business." According to the report, Club Med, while not admitting guilt, has agreed to pay $400,000 in attorney and court fees. Plus it will pay $1,149 in cash and $1,200 in Club Med vouchers to more than 50 male claimants who had bought airline tickets during Club Med's five-week promotion. A Florida Club Med spokeswoman told Union-Tribune that there was no intentional wrongdoing. She said that the promotions have stopped, and the chain now focuses more on family travel. Discount offers still are made, but they focus on couples by using ambiguous wording such as: "Half off for the better half" -- referring to either sex. ELI LILLY: March 2008 Hearing Set for Motion in N.Y. Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- A March 2008 hearing is slated on a motion for summary judgment filed by Eli Lilly and Co. in a consolidated securities fraud litigation pending against it, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suits, which were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the company and various current and former directors, officers and employees, are: -- "Smith et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company et al.," filed on March 28, 2007, and -- "Valentine v. Eli Lilly and Company et al.," filed on April 5, 2007. The suits have been consolidated under the caption, "In re Eli Lilly and Company Securities Litigation." In August 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, seeking certification of a putative class of purchasers of the company's stock from Aug. 1, 2002, through Dec. 22, 2006. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Zyprexa in violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and the costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. In October 2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. That motion has been converted in part to a motion for summary judgment, and a hearing on the motion is scheduled in March 2008. Eli Lilly and Co. -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers, develops, manufactures and sells products in one business segment, pharmaceutical products. GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Lawsuits Over "Dex-Cool" Engine Coolant --------------------------------------------------------------- Girard Gibbs LLP announced that a nationwide class action settlement involving General Motors' Dex-Cool engine coolant was granted preliminary approval last week by Judge Robert Freedman of the Alameda County, California Superior Court. The lawsuits were filed on behalf of owners of General Motors vehicles, which were factory-filled with "Dex-Cool" coolant. The lawsuits alleged that Dex-Cool coolant caused damage to certain vehicles' engines, and that in certain other vehicles, Dex-Cool formed a rusty sludge, which clogged the vehicles' cooling systems, causing them to overheat. According to the complaints, Dex-Cool failed to protect the vehicle engines and cooling systems as was represented by the manufacturer. GM asserted that Dex-Cool protected engines for a longer period than traditional coolants, caused less wear on certain engine parts than traditional coolants, and provided environmental benefits. GM also argued that the alleged problems with the vehicles' engines or cooling systems were caused by the owners' failure to follow the manufacturer's maintenance instructions for their vehicles and other outside factors. Under the proposed settlement, current and former owners and lessees of certain 1995-2004 model year GM vehicles with 3.1- liter, 3.4-liter, 3.8-liter or 4.3-liter engines will be eligible to receive reimbursement for Dex-Cool related engine repairs that occurred within 7 years or 150,000 miles (whichever is earlier) of original vehicle purchase; these repairs include intake manifold gasket replacements, cooling system flushes, and heater core repairs. Vehicle owners or lessees who paid for a qualifying repair will be entitled to cash reimbursement from GM of up to $400 per repair made within the first five years of the vehicle's life, up to $100 per repair made in the sixth year, and up to $50 per repair made in the seventh year. Those who paid for multiple covered repairs may be eligible to receive multiple cash reimbursements. In addition, those vehicle owners or lessees who had more expensive repairs as a result of internal coolant leaks, will be entitled to cash reimbursement from GM of up to $800. "The settlement is the result of a lot of hard work over a 5- year period in what was a vigorously contested series of class action lawsuits," said Eric Gibbs of San Francisco-based Girard Gibbs LLP, co-lead counsel for plaintiffs. "In the end, we believe the settlement is good for the class members, and we think it was appropriate for GM to ultimately agree to provide compensation to its customers," said Jack Brady, co-lead plaintiffs' counsel and shareholder at Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri. Dex-Cool Settlement on the net: http://www.dexcoolsettlement.com General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing of cars, trucks and parts. The Company develops, manufactures and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific. HOME DEPOT USA: Faces MO Suit Over 10% Rental Cost Overcharges ------------------------------------------------------------- Home Depot USA, Inc. -- d/b/a/ The Home Depot -- is facing a class-action complaint filed on Mar. 20, 2008, with the Circuit Court in St. Louis County, Missouri, alleging that the company's computers automatically add 10% to the cost of rental tools for a deceptive and worthless "damage waiver," CourtHouse News Service reports. The plaintiffs say the store does not tell customers that the waiver is optional, and it's worthless anyway, because it provides no coverage not already provided under the tool rental contract. The plaintiffs bring this statutory fraud action pursuant to the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Mo. Ann. Stat. Section 407.020 on behalf of all Home Depot customers who were charged a "Damage Waiver" in connection with a tool or equipment rental from a Home Depot retail store in Missouri during the relevant period. The plaintiffs ask the court: -- for an order certifying the class, and appointing plaintiff as the class representative and plaintiff's lawyer as class counsel; -- for an order finding that Home Depot constitutes unfair and deceptive practices; -- for an order awarding damages and restitution, plus interest thereon, to plaintiff and the class; -- for an order awarding punitive damages to plaintiff and the class; -- for an order awarding to plaintiff and the class the costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including, reasonable attorney's fees; and -- for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. The suit is "Janet Chochorowski et al. v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Case No. 08SL-CC01183," filed with the Circuit Court in St. Louis County, Missouri Representing the plaintiffs is: Gerald R. Walters, Esq. Paul A. Marks, Esq. The Lakin Law Firm, PC 300 Evans Avenue P.O. Box 229 Wood River, Illinois 62095-1127 Phone: (618) 254-1127 IMAGITAS INC: Faces Consolidated DPPA Violations Suit in Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------- Imagitas, Inc., a unit of Pitney Bowes, Inc., a multi-district litigation in Florida, which is generally alleging that the company violated the Drivers Privacy Protection Act, according to Pitney Bowes' Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Initially, Imagitas was named as a defendant in 10 purported class actions filed in six different states. These litigations have been consolidated into a single federal multi-district litigation in the U.S. District for the Middle District of Florida, "In re Imagitas, Inc., Drivers' Privacy Protection Act Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1828," (Consolidated, May 28, 2007). Each of these lawsuits alleges that the Imagitas DriverSource program violates the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act. Under the DriverSource program, Imagitas enters into contracts with state governments to mail out automobile registration renewal materials along with third party advertisements, without revealing the personal information of any state resident to any advertiser. The DriverSource program assists the state in performing its function of delivering these mailings and funding the costs of them. During the second quarter of 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multi- District Litigation consolidated the ten purported class actions before a single judge in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking both statutory damages under the DPPA and an injunction against the continuation of the program. Pitney Bowes, Inc. -- http://www.pb.com/-- is a provider of mail processing equipment and integrated mail solutions. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT: Sued Over Retiree Insurance Payment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Urbia, a 34-year Chisholm teacher, and his wife, Sharon, have sued Independent School District No. 695, alleging that the district breached its contractual obligations regarding its payment of retiree group health and hospitalization insurance set forth in the collective bargaining agreement in effect when Mr. Urbia retired, Duluth News Tribune reports. Duluth lawyer Tom Andrew, Esq., filed the lawsuit last week with the St. Louis County District Court in Hibbing as a proposed class action. Mr. Andrew said the proposed class contains about 100 Chisholm teachers and spouses. Duluth Tribune recalls that Mr. Urbia was employed by Chisholm schools as a teacher and coach from 1966 until he retired at age 57 in June 2000. He continues to coach the Chisholm High School girls and boys cross country teams. Ms. Sharon is a plaintiff as a dependent spouse. The plaintiffs say that the action is being brought to enforce the Chisholm school district's contractual obligations to them that were set forth in the collective bargaining agreement between the school district and the teachers' union, Chisholm Local 1276. The plaintiffs allege that the school district violated its contractual obligations starting on July 1, 2003, by reducing its contribution towards premiums for Mr. Urbia's single coverage and its contribution towards his wife's family coverage to the levels set forth in a July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2005 collective bargaining agreement, instead of the contribution levels in effect at the time Mr. Urbia retired. The lawsuit seeks enforcement of the contractual promises the plaintiffs relied upon. According to the suit, since July 1, 2003, in order to avoid cancellation of their retiree health insurance benefits, about 100 retirees have had to pay the school district monthly payments in varying amounts, dependent upon whether they elected single or dependency coverage and whether or not they or their dependents were eligible for Part A or B of Medicare in excess of amounts they would have to pay if the school district honored its contract. "One of the most important decisions that each worker must some day make is whether they should or should not retire," Mr. Andrew told Duluth Tribune. "An important factor in making this decision is whether the worker can afford to retire. The cost the worker must pay for health insurance and the medical expenses that will not be covered by health insurance, including deductibles and co-pays, after the worker retires are important issues each worker must review to decide whether they can afford to retire." Chisholm schools Superintendent James Varichak declined to comment on the Urbias' lawsuit, the report relates. Mr. Varichak said the matter had been turned over to the school district's insurance company and its legal counsel. The school district has until April 1 to answer the complaint, 20 days from the date it was served. INNOVEX INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Innovex (North America) Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California accusing the company of refusing to pay overtime, and other Labor Law violations, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Jerri Pazdernik brings the action on behalf of present and former Sales Representatives employed in the United States by Innovex for unpaid minimum wages, overtime, and damages. Mr. Pazdernik alleges that the wage violations at issue arose out of a policy and practice of defendant applicable to other, similarly situated workers. The plaintiff ask the court: -- to certify the action as a FLSA representative action on behalf of "all Sales Representatives employed by defendant in the United States during the claim period;" -- to grant judgment in favor of plaintiff and all similarly situated workers, awarding them their unpaid regular wages and overtime, and an equal amount of liquidated damages; -- to award the plaintiffs their costs of court and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act; -- for compensatory damages, including lost wages, commissions, bonuses, and other losses, during the period commencing on the date that is within four years prior to the filing of the complaint according to proof; -- for general damages, according to proof; -- for an award of interest, including prejudgment interest at the legal rate; -- for statutory damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees and cost of suit; and -- for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. The suit is "Jerri Pazdernik et al. v. Innovex (North America) Inc., Case NO: SACV08-0265 AHS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District Court of California. Representing the plaintiffs is: Stephen B. Morris, Esq. Mark C. Hinkley, Esq. Morris and Associates 444 West C Street, Suite 300 San Diego, California 92101 Phone: (619) 239-1300 Fax: (619) 234-5666 e-mail: morris@sandiegolegal.com MBIA INC: No Hearing Set on Appeal of Dismissed of N.Y. Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing has yet to be set on a motion appealing the dismissal of the purported class action, "In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Case Background Initially, several class actions were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against MBIA Inc. and certain of its officers and directors (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 20, 2005). The suits were: -- "Anthony Capone v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV 3514) (filed April 4, 2005); -- "Thomas Cassady v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV 3730; S.D.N.Y.) (filed April 7, 2005); -- "Todd Simon v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV 3636; S.D.N.Y.) (filed April 8, 2005); -- "Mariss Partners, LLP v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV 3709; S.D.N.Y) (filed April 11, 2005); and -- "Alan D. Sadowsky and Barbara S. Katvin v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV 4150; S.D.N.Y.) (filed April 26, 2005). The suits named as defendants Joseph W. Brown, the company's chairman and former chief executive officer; Gary C. Dunton, the company's chief executive officer; Nicholas Ferreri, the company's chief financial officer; Neil G. Budnick, a vice president of the company and the company's former chief financial officer; and Douglas C. Hamilton, the company's controller. The plaintiffs in these cases assert 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. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek to act as representatives for a putative class consisting of purchasers of the company's stock during the period from Aug. 5, 2003, to March 30, 2005. Although the individual lawsuits vary, the allegations include, among other things, violations of the federal securities laws arising out of the company's allegedly false and misleading statements about its financial condition and the defendant's failure "to disclose or indicate" these alleged facts: -- that the company, during the class period, over-leveraged itself, deeply under-reserved against possible credit defaults, and overly exposed to guaranteeing risky structured financings; -- that MBIA accelerated its recognition of current income by classifying many of its upfront guarantee fees as advisory fees taken at closing, rather than accounted for over the life of the bonds insured; -- that MBIA improperly booked a $70 million payment received from Converium Re (then called Zurich Reinsurance North America) in 1998, which at the time was depicted as a loss-reducing reinsurance recovery for MBIA, but was, in substance, a loan; -- that as result, MBIA financial statements were materially overstated by $60 million; -- that MBIA artificially inflated premium income and portfolio credit quality by insuring bonds in the secondary market that were attracting prices lower than their stale credit ratings would dictate; -- that MBIA's low loss ratios resulted from the company's practice to defer recognizing problems rather than providing layers of excess collateral, other underwriting protection, and its self-proclaimed prowess at restructuring; -- that MBIA set forth an illegal scheme of covering the loss, from the failed Allegheny Health, Education and Research Foundation bond issuance, with a retroactive reinsurance policy, giving it a reinsurance recovery of $170 million to cover the present value of the future AHERF interest and principal payments, which resulted in MBIA showing a better than 40% jump in pretax income that year -- $565 million over what the income figure would have been without resort to the reinsurance; -- that MBIA was dumping on Channel Reinsurance Ltd., a Bermuda reinsurer where MBIA owns a 17.4% interest, performing but troubled policies from its existing portfolio, with the provision that it could make up any quality problems later so that MBIA could buy time by getting potential workout loans off its balance sheet in order to make its financial results appear better; and -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company. The plaintiffs allege that, as a result of these misleading statements or omissions, the company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices. These lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages in connection with purchases by members of the putative class of the company's stock at such allegedly inflated prices during the class period. On July 25, 2005, the presiding judge issued an order consolidating these five cases into one action under the caption, "In re MBIA Securities Litigation, Case No. 05 CV 3514," and named as lead plaintiffs in the case: -- the Southwest Carpenters Pension Trust, and -- the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System. The defendants, including the company, filed motions to dismiss this lawsuit on various grounds. On Feb. 13, 2007, the Court granted those motions, and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety, on the grounds that these claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Court did not reach the other grounds for dismissal argued by the Company and the other defendants. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on March 14, 2007. They have appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The plaintiffs argue that the dismissal should be reversed on several grounds. The appeal has been fully briefed. No date for arguing the appeal has been set, according to the company's Feb. 29, 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 MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-03514-LLS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Louis L. Stanton. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@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 plaintiffs are: Steven Klugman, Esq. (sklugman@debevoise.com) Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212 909-6000 Fax: 212 909-6836 - and - Steven Robert Peikin, Esq. (peikins@sullcrom.com) Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 558-7228 Fax: (212) 558-3588 MICHIGAN: Chippewa County to Sue Over 911 Surcharge --------------------------------------------------- Joining more than a dozen other counties, the Chippewa County Board of Commissioners unanimously agreed at Monday's special meeting to bring a class action lawsuit disputing the recent decision of the Michigan Public Services Commission, according to Sault Ste. Marie Evening News. The report recounts that the county board had approved a $1.50 monthly surcharge on every phone line, which would have generated $525,071 for the county -- providing enough funds to cover 911 expenses. While the county earned a recommendation from the Emergency 911 Service Committee for this package, the final decision by the MPSC set the rate at 99 cents, which will only generate $415,865. "That's not enough," said Office of Emergency Services Director Tim McKee, predicting another deficit for Chippewa County Central Dispatch if the county is forced to assess the smaller surcharge. "I'm projecting right now we will be somewhere between $40,000 and $60,000 short on our budget." Mr. McKee said there were three avenues of appeal. The county could request a new hearing but, without bringing any new information to the table, it is unlikely that this would be a successful tactic. Dispute resolution, it appears, would also be a dead end. Left with only one alternative, Mr. McKee expressed the belief that the class action lawsuit with other affected counties provided the best option. "I can't tell you what the chances are of winning this appeal," He said, lobbying for board action. "I have never been down this road." Mr. McKee also provided some reassurance to the county commissioners. "There's no need to take drastic action," he said. "We have a fund balance to take from -- but you are only going to be able to do that so many times." Commissioner Dick Timmer asked what it would cost for Chippewa County to join in the lawsuit. While Mr. McKee was unable to put an exact price tag on the county's share at this juncture, it appears as though Chippewa County's share would not exceed $2,000, Sault Ste. Marie Evening News says. The exact figure will be influenced by the number of other counties that sign on during the 30-day appeal period with each additional county further reducing the costs. The commission unanimously agreed to pursue the appeal through a class action lawsuit, authorizing up to $2,000 from the general fund toward this effort. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Faces Lawsuit in Ohio Over Rental Car Policy --------------------------------------------------------------- Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging that it cheats policyholders by terminating their rental car benefits as soon as they receive a settlement offer, regardless of whether they accept the offer, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Michael Peddicord brings the action on behalf of all other individuals who paid for insurance services issued by Nationwide Mutual at any time since the 15 years preceding the filing of this action, and continuing while this action is pending. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether the elements of breach of contract are substantially similar between defendants and plaintiffs; (b) whether the insurance contract is substantially similar, if not identical, between defendants and all plaintiffs; (c) whether the declarations issued to all plaintiffs by defendants are substantially similar, if not identical; (d) whether the Endorsements issued to all plaintiffs by defendants are substantially similar, if not identical; (e) whether defendants and each of them made the same or substantially similar promises and warranties to all plaintiffs; (f) whether defendants and each of them breached the promises, representations and warranties about rental car benefits to all plaintiffs; and (g) whether defendants were unjustly enriched by the wrongs complained of, and if so, the measure of those damages and the nature and extent of other relief that should be afforded. The plaintiff asks the court: -- for certification of the proposed class and notice thereto to be paid by defendant; -- to adjudge and decree that defendants have engaged in the conduct alleged; -- for restitution and disgorgement on certain causes of action; -- for an injunction ordering defendants to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent practices alleged; -- for compensatory and general damages according to proof on certain causes of action; -- for special damages according to proof on certain causes of action; -- for both pre and post-judgment interest at the maximum allowable rate on any amounts awarded; -- for costs of the proceedings; and -- for reasonable attorneys fees as allowed by statute. The suit is "Michael Peddicord et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., et al., Case No 1:08 CV 605," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Representing the plaintiffs are: Alberto Nestico, Esq. (Nestico@KNRLegal.com) Gary W. Kisling, Esq. (Kisling@KNRLegal.com) Robert W. Redick, Esq. (Redick@KNRLegal.com) Thomas M. Vasvari, Esq. (Vasvari@KNRLegal.com) Kisling, Nestico & Redick LLC 3200 W. Market St, Suite 300 Akron, Ohio 44333 Phone: (330) 869-9007 Fax: (330) 869-9008 PACIFIC CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Calif. Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a purported class action against Pacific Capital Bancorp are appealing the dismissal of their case to the California Supreme Court, according to Pacific Capital's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Initially, a purported class action was filed by Canieva Hood and Congress of California Seniors against: * Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, * Pacific Capital Bank, N.A., and * Jackson-Hewitt, Inc. The suit was brought on behalf of persons who entered into a refund anticipation loan application and agreement with the company from whose tax refund the company deducted a debt owed by the applicant to another RAL lender. It was filed on March 18, 2003, with the Superior Court in San Francisco, California as "Canieva Hood and Congress of California Seniors v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, Pacific Capital Bank, N.A., and Jackson-Hewitt, Inc." The company is a party to a separate cross-collection agreement with each of the other RAL lenders by which it agrees to collect sums due to those other lenders on delinquent RALs by deducting those sums from tax refunds due to its RAL customers and remitting those funds to the RAL lender to whom the debt is owed. This cross-collection procedure is disclosed in the RAL Agreement with the RAL customer and is specifically authorized and agreed to by the customer. The plaintiff does not contest the validity of the debt, but contends that the cross-collection is illegal and requests damages on behalf of the class, injunctive relief against the company, restitution of sums collected, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The venue for this suit was changed to Santa Barbara. The company filed an answer to the complaint and a cross complaint for indemnification against the other RAL lenders. On May 4, 2005, a superior court judge in Santa Barbara granted a motion filed by the Company and the other RAL lenders, which resulted in the entry of a judgment in favor of the Company dismissing the suit. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal. A hearing before the Court of Appeal was held on June 14, 2006, and the matter was taken under submission. On Sept. 29, 2006, the Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, issued an opinion, which held that the claims in the Complaint that the Company had violated certain California consumer protection laws were not preempted by Federal law and regulations. The Company and the Cross-Defendants have filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to reverse the Court of Appeal's opinion. This petition was denied, and the plaintiff then filed an amended complaint in the superior court. The Company filed a demurrer to the cause of action in the amended complaint based on the California Legal Remedies Act. The superior court granted the demurrer/dismissal without leave to amend. The plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate seeking to reverse the superior court's decision was denied by the Court of Appeal. The plaintiff has filed an appeal to the California Supreme Court. Their other causes of action remain pending. Pacific Capital Bancorp -- http://www.pcbancorp.com/-- is a bank holding company and has one subsidiary Pacific Capital Bank, N.A. (PCBNA). REGIONS FINANCIAL: Faces Ala. Suit Over Alleged Overinvestment -------------------------------------------------------------- Regions Financial Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed March 12 with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama alleging that Regions Financial overinvested employees' retirement money in its own stock despite knowing of its exposure to the sub-prime real estate meltdown, CourtHouse News Service reports. This is a class action brought pursuant to Sections 409, 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 USC Section 1109, 1132. Named plaintiff Barbara Williams brings this action as a class action Pursuant to Rules 23(a)(b)(1), and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the plans, at any time between Nov. 4, 2006, and the present and whose plan accounts included investments in Regions Financial common stock, the RMK Select High Income Bond Fund and the RMK Selected Intermediate Fund. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants each owed a fiduciary duty to the plans, plaintiff and members of the class; (b) whether defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the plans, plaintiffs and members of the class by failing to act prudently and solely in the interests of the plans and the plans' participants and beneficiaries; (c) whether defendants violated ERISA; and (d) whether the plans and members of the class have sustained damages and, if so, what is the proper measure of relief. The plaintiff asks the court for: -- a declaration that the defendants, and each of them, have breached their ERISA fiduciary duties to the participants of the respective plans; -- a declaration that the defendants, collectively and separately, are not entitled to the protection of ERISA Section 404(c)(1)(B), 29 USC Section (c)(1)(B); -- an order compelling the defendants to make good to the respective plans all losses to the plans resulting from defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties, including losses to the plans resulting from imprudent investment of the plans' assets, and to restore to the plans all profits the defendants made through use of the plans' assets, and to restore to the plans all profits which the participants would have made if the defendants had fulfilled their fiduciary obligations; -- imposition of a Constructive Trust on any amounts by which any defendant was unjustly enriched at the expense of the plans as the result of breaches of fiduciary duty; -- actual damages in the amount of any losses the plans suffered, to be allocated among the participants' individual accounts in proportion to the accounts' losses; -- an order that defendants allocate the plans' recoveries to the accounts of all participants who had any portion of their account balances invested in the common stock of Regions maintained by the plans in proportion to the accounts' losses attributable to the decline in the stock price of Regions; -- an order that defendants allocate the plans' recoveries to the accounts of all participants who had any portion of their account balances invested in shares of the Funds maintained by the plans in proportion to the accounts' losses attributable to the decline in the value of the Funds; -- an order awarding costs pursuant to 29 USC Section 1132(g) and the common fund doctrine; and -- an order for equitable restitution and other appropriate equitable monetary relief against the defendants. The suit is "Barbara Williams et al v. Regions Financial Corporation et al.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Representing the plaintiffs is: Craig P. Niedenthal, Esq. (craign@nlflegal.com) Niedenthal Law Firm, PC 2015 Stonegate Trail, Suite 101 Birmingham, AL 35242 SU WHOLESALE: Recalls Toys Violating Lead Paint Standard -------------------------------------------------------- S.U. Wholesale Inc., of Vernon, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 5,000 X Force Commander Toy Airplanes and Super Famous Toy Cars and Motorcycles. The company said the recalled toys contain excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No injuries have been reported. The "X Force Commander" is a set of six plastic jet airplanes. Item number 5689 is printed on the front of the packaging. The airplanes are painted green, red, blue, silver, black and yellow. The "Super Famous" is a set of a plastic toy car and a motorcycle. The car is yellow or red and the motorcycle is gray. These recalled toys were manufactured in China and were being sold at Dollar Stores nationwide from September 2006 through November 2007 for about $1. Pictures of recalled toys are found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08219a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08219b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08219c.jpg Consumers should immediately take these toys away from children and return to them to the store where purchased for a refund. For additional information, contact S.U. Wholesale toll-free at (877) 580-8883 between 10:00 a.m. And 6:00 p.m. PT Monday through Friday. U.S. RAILROADS: Sued by Archer Daniels for Fixed Fuel Surcharges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Archer Daniels Midland Co., a major food processor, has filed a lawsuit against five major U.S. railroads, alleging they schemed to fix fuel surcharges, Reuters reports. ADM has paid more than $250 million in fuel surcharges since 2003 and is seeking treble damages, according to the lawsuit filed on March 25 2008, with the Minnesota District Court. ADM moves millions of tonnes of corn, soybeans and other agricultural products using rail lines each year. The suit was filed against: 1. CSX Transportation Inc. -- a subsidiary of CSX Corp., 2. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., 3. Union Pacific Corp., 4. Norfolk Southern Corp, and 5. Kansas City Southern . CSX spokesman Garrick Francis told Reuters that it believed its fuel surcharges have always complied with all laws and regulations. Burlington Northern Santa Fe also denied the allegations. "The allegations in this case do not have any merit and we intend to vigorously defend," Burlington Northern Santa Fe spokesman Pat Hiatte expressed to Reuters. "We also expect this case will be consolidated with previously filed lawsuits before Federal Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, D.C." Reuters relates that in 2007, Dust Pro Inc., a Phoenix, Arizona- based maker of soil stabilizers, filed a suit seeking class- action status against the same five railroads alleging price fixing. U.S. rail shippers have been angry over fuel surcharges levied by railroads to move their goods, the report points out. In 2007, the Surface Transportation Board, a U.S. government regulator, said the railroads must change the way they levy fuel surcharges. Surcharges are intended to help U.S. railroads recoup the rising cost of fuel. URGENT GEAR: Kids' Hoodies Recalled Due to Strangulation Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- Urgent Gear Inc., of Los Angeles, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 700 Micros Boys' Hooded Jackets. The company said the garments have a drawstring through the hood, which can pose a strangulation hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist by drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves Micros boys' 100% cotton jackets. The hooded sweatshirts have a drawstring through the hood. They were sold in black with a peace sign patch and a "MCC Micros" patch on the chest, silver with a silver stitched design on the front, and gray with skulls on the front. Style numbers BZAT 718 (Black) / BZAT 722 (Silver) / BZAT 724 (Dark Gray) are printed on a label sewn into the jacket's inner side seam. These recalled hoodies were manufactured in China and were being sold exclusively at Nordstrom stores nationwide from November 2007 through December 2007 for about $50. Pictures of the recalled hoodies are found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08217a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08217b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08217c.jpg Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings to eliminate the hazard or return the sweatshirts to Nordstrom or to Urgent Gear for a full refund. For additional information, contact Urgent Gear collect at (213) 741-9926 ext. 247 between 8:00 a.m. And 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.urgentgear.com WACHOVIA CORP: Faces Wages Payment Failure Lawsuit in Alabama ------------------------------------------------------------- The nation's fourth largest bank, Wachovia Corporation, stands accused of failing to pay call center employees for preparatory at the start of their shift according to an announcement by Campbell Law of Birmingham, Alabama. Wachovia's call centers are located in Rancho Cordova (Ca.), Salem (Or.), Allentown (Pa.), Birmingham (Al.), Charlotte (N.C.), Columbia (S.C.), Jacksonville (Fl.), Miami (Fl.), Richmond (Va.) and Roanoke (Va.). Carrie Williams sued Wachovia on March 21, 2008 in Birmingham, Alabama. Ms. Williams is asking Senior U.S. District Court Judge William M. Acker, Jr. to permit all other current and former call center employees to participate in the case. Call center employees are not paid for powering up and logging into numerous computer programs that the employees must be able to access to fully serve customers who call the centers. Employees cannot "clock-in" until all computers are up and running properly. Employees at all of the Wachovia locations are urged to join the case. Other large employers settled similar complaints brought by the U.S. Department of Labor including T-Mobile, Convergys Corporation, and Enron. "Call center managers seem to have a problem realizing that time spent on these preparatory activities must be recorded and employees paid for it," according to Tom Campbell, a Birmingham Alabama labor lawyer representing the employees. Mr. Campbell says, "Friends who are bank managers would not dare to refuse to pay their tellers for time spent counting their cash drawers before the bank opens to serve customers. Likewise, there is no moral or legal reason to refuse to pay employees who service the same customers over the phone for the work done before they are available to provide direct customer support." Millions of dollars in back pay and statutory penalties may be at stake in the litigation. The suit is "Carrie Williams et al. v. Wachovia Corp., Case No: 07-CV-500," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Judge William M. Acker, Jr., presiding. For more information, contact: Thomas F. Campbell, Esq. (tcampbell@campbelllitigation.com) Campbell Law A Professional Corporation Complex and Class Litigation 100 Concourse Parkway, Suite 115 Birmingham, Al. 35244 Direct: 205-397-0307 Fax: 205-278-6654 Web site: http://www.campbelllitigation.com WESTERN REFINING: Units Still Face "Hot Fuel" Lawsuit in Kansas --------------------------------------------------------------- Subsidiaries of Western Refining, Inc., continues to face a consolidated class action entitled, "In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840," which is pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. Initially, on March 2007, a class action lawsuit was filed in New Mexico naming numerous retail suppliers of motor fuel as defendants, including subsidiaries of the Company. Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that, by consciously selling gasoline at a temperature greater than 60 Fahrenheit, the defendants are depriving consumers of the full amount of energy that should be delivered when gasoline is delivered at a cooler temperature. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and also seek to require the defendants to install temperature-adjustment devices at the pumps. Similar class action lawsuits have been filed in several other jurisdictions. On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the actions and unsigned them under the title, "In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840," to Judge Kathryn Vratil of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007). The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Western Refining, Inc. -- http://www.westernrefining.com/-- is an independent crude oil refiner and marketer of refined products based in El Paso, Texas, and operates in the Southwest region of the U.S., including Arizona, New Mexico and West Texas. New Securities Fraud Cases NEUROMETRIX INC: Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing in MA -------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed with the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against NeuroMetrix, Inc. and various individuals on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock who purchased stock between October 27, 2005, and March 6, 2007. Specifically, the shareholder class action lawsuit alleges that the Company violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 when it issued certain false and misleading statements about sales and risks associated with certain of its medical products. For more information, contact: Corey D. Holzer, Esq. (cholzer@holzerlaw.com) Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com) Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com) Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC 1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107 Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) SUPERIOR OFFSHORE: Coughlin Stoia Files LA Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of Superior Offshore International, Inc. common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's April 20, 2007 Initial Public Offering. The complaint charges Superior Offshore and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Superior Offshore provides subsea construction and commercial diving services to the crude oil and natural gas exploration and production and gathering and transmission industries on the outer continental shelf of the Gulf of Mexico. The complaint alleges that on April 20, 2007, defendants conducted the IPO pursuant to a false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Specifically, defendants failed to conduct an adequate due diligence investigation into the Company prior to the Offering. They also failed to reveal, at the time of the Offering, that the Company's core business was not performing according to plan, that its core market in the Gulf of Mexico was in decline, and that defendants would be forced to immediately transform and reorganize the Company and enter into new, untested markets. As a result, at the time of the Offering, the Company's business had already been and would continue to be adversely affected. On August 14, 2007, defendants revealed that the Company's problems, which existed at the time of the Offering, would result in extremely disappointing results for the foreseeable near term and would force defendants to reorganize the Company. As a result, Superior Offshore's stock price dropped from $13.46 to as low as $10.79 in two days. Then on November 14, 2007, Superior Offshore's stock price again declined precipitously when defendants revealed that the Company was operating below its recently revised forecasts and that its core business was operating even worse than previously disclosed. On this news, Superior Offshore's stock price dropped from $9.74 to as low as $6.56 per share in two days. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Superior Offshore common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's April 20, 2007 IPO. 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 WELLPOINT INC: Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing in In. ------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against WellPoint, Inc., and various individuals on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock who purchased stock between January 23, 2008, and March 10, 2008. The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 when it issued false and misleading statements to the public concerning medical costs and medical enrollment levels. The lawsuit also alleges the Company misrepresented its future earnings potential. For more information, contact: Corey D. Holzer, Esq. (cholzer@holzerlaw.com) Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com) Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com) Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC 1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107 Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors McCanns in Foster Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 8, reversed the ruling of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, to favor Terry McCann and Lucille McCann in an asbestos-related action filed against Foster Wheeler. The case is styled Terry McCann et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Foster Wheeler, Defendant and Respondent. Judges Cooper, Rubin, and Flier entered judgment of Case No. B189898 on Feb. 28, 2008. In the 1950s, Mr. McCann was employed by a construction company at an oil refinery in Oklahoma. While working at the refinery, he was exposed to asbestos during the installation of a boiler designed and manufactured by Foster Wheeler, a New York company. The McCanns moved to California in 1975. In April 2005, Mr. McCann was diagnosed with mesothelioma allegedly caused by his exposure to asbestos while working at the refinery in Oklahoma. The McCanns filed a personal injury action against Foster Wheeler and others. Foster Wheeler moved for summary judgment on the ground that Oklahoma's statute of repose applied and barred the lawsuit. Foster Wheeler claimed the boiler was an improvement to real property and required specific engineering and designing to fit the needs of the customer. The McCanns' opposition to the summary judgment motion argued that California's borrowing statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 361, precluded application of Oklahoma's statute of repose. The McCanns asserted that California's governmental interests, as expressed in section 361, would be significantly impaired by the application of the Oklahoma statute. The trial court denied Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of material fact. The court determined that Oklahoma law applied, but found a triable issue of fact as to whether Foster Wheeler was a designer of an improvement to real property and was thereby protected by the statute of repose. After summary judgment was denied, Foster Wheeler sought a hearing to determine the applicability of the Oklahoma statute of repose. Foster Wheeler asked the court to decide "the narrow factual question" as to whether Foster Wheeler acted as the designer of an improvement to real property under the terms of the statute. The McCanns joined in the request for a hearing, but asked the court to preclude Foster Wheeler from presenting the statute of repose defense to the jury. The McCanns asserted that Foster Wheeler could not establish one of the fundamental elements of the defense and was therefore not entitled to present the defense to the jury. After conducting a hearing and considering the evidence presented, the trial court found that Foster Wheeler was a designer and that the boiler was an improvement to real property. Based on these findings, the court concluded Oklahoma's statute of repose applied as a matter of law. Judgment was entered in favor of Foster Wheeler, and this appeal followed. The judgment was reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Waters & Kraus, Paul C. Cook and Michael B. Gurien, represented Terry McCann and Lucille McCann. Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold and Frederick D. Baker; Gordon & Rees and James G. Scadden, represented Foster Wheeler. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Has $339.3M Losses, LAE at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.'s asbestos-related gross unpaid losses and loss adjustment expense totaled US$339.3 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$308.7 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's asbestos-related gross unpaid losses and LAE totaled US$269,959,000 in the nine and three months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$279,969,000 in the nine and three months ended Sept. 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007) The Company's asbestos-related net unpaid losses and LAE was US$222.4 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$189 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's asbestos-related net unpaid losses and LAE totaled US$170,270,000 in the nine and three months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$168,003,000 in the nine and three months ended Sept. 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007) Net losses and LAE incurred for asbestos claims increased US$63 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$27.1 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's survival ratio for A&E-related liabilities as of Dec. 31, 2007 is 11 years. The Company's underlying survival ratio for asbestos-related liabilities is 11 years. The A&E liability survival ratio represents the asbestos and environmental reserves, net of reinsurance, on Dec. 31, 2007, divided by the average paid asbestos and environmental claims for the last three years of US$22.8 million, which is net of reinsurance. The number of asbestos claims, with case reserves, as of Dec. 31, 2007 was 1,554, amounting to US$216.8 million in gross case losses and LAE reserves. The largest 10 reported claims accounted for 14.9 percent of the gross case reserves, with an average reserve of US$3.2 million. The number of asbestos claims, with case reserves, as of Dec. 31, 2006 was 1,553, amounting to US$228.5 million in gross case losses and LAE reserves. The largest 10 reported claims accounted for 15.2 percent of the gross case reserves, with an average reserve of US$3.5 million. The Company has exposure to asbestos, environmental pollution and other latent injury damage claims on policies written prior to the mid 1980s. Included in the Company's reserves are amounts related to asbestos-related illnesses and environmental impairment, which, net of related reinsurance recoverables, totaled US$256.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2007 and US$215.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. Stamford, Conn.-based Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. is an underwriter of reinsurance, providing property and casualty products. We offer both treaty and facultative reinsurance to property and casualty insurers and reinsurers. We also write insurance business, primarily focused on liability lines, in the United States and London. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chubb Faces Lawsuits in Calif., Ohio, Tex. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Chubb Corporation and its subsidiaries, particularly Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company, are subject to asbestos-related litigation in Texas, Ohio, and California courts. Beginning in December 2002, Chubb Indemnity was named in a series of actions commenced by various plaintiffs against Chubb Indemnity and other non-affiliated insurers in the District Courts in Nueces, Travis and Bexar Counties in Texas. The plaintiffs generally allege that Chubb Indemnity and the other defendants breached duties to asbestos product end-users and conspired to conceal risks associated with asbestos exposure. The plaintiffs seek to impose liability on insurers directly. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and punitive damages. Under the asbestos reform bill passed by the Texas legislature in May 2005, these actions were transferred to the Texas state asbestos Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 1, 2005. Chubb Indemnity is defending all of these actions and has been successful in getting a number of them dismissed through summary judgment, special exceptions, or voluntary withdrawal by the plaintiff. Beginning in June 2003, Chubb Indemnity was also named in a number of similar cases in Cuyahoga, Mahoning, and Trumbull Counties in Ohio. The allegations and the damages sought in the Ohio actions are substantially similar to those in the Texas actions. In May 2005, the Ohio Court of Appeals sustained the trial court's dismissal of a group of nine cases for failure to state a claim. Following the appellate court's decision, Chubb Indemnity and other non-affiliated insurers were dismissed from the remaining cases filed in Ohio, except for a single case which had been removed to federal court and transferred to the federal asbestos Multidistrict Litigation. There has been no activity in that case since its removal. In December 2007, certain of the Company's subsidiaries were named in an action filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Calif., that contains allegations similar to those made in the Texas and Ohio actions. Based in Warren, N.J., The Chubb Corporation offers comprehensive homeowners insurance for yacht owners. The Company also offers property/casualty insurance to companies. The Company's specialty commercial insurance includes the executive risk business that offers professional liability policies to executives. Other specialty commercial insurance includes policies written for marine, surety, and financial institutions. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chubb Cites $793M Net Reserves at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Chubb Corporation's net loss reserves related to asbestos claims totaled US$793 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$789 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's gross loss reserves related to asbestos claims were US$838 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$841 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's actuaries and claim personnel perform periodic analyses of its asbestos related exposures. The analyses during 2005 noted an increase in the Company's estimate of the ultimate liabilities for two of its asbestos defendants. The analyses during 2006 noted positive developments, including several settlements, related to certain of its traditional asbestos defendants. At the same time, the analyses indicated that the Company's exposure to loss from claims against its peripheral defendants was somewhat higher than previously expected. The analyses during 2007 noted an increase in the Company's estimate of the ultimate liabilities related to certain of its traditional asbestos defendants. Based on these analyses, the Company increased its net asbestos loss reserves by US$35 million in 2005, US$18 million in 2006 and US$75 million in 2007. Based in Warren, N.J., The Chubb Corporation offers comprehensive homeowners insurance for yacht owners. The Company also offers property/casualty insurance to companies. The Company's specialty commercial insurance includes the executive risk business that offers professional liability policies to executives. Other specialty commercial insurance includes policies written for marine, surety, and financial institutions. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pepco Still Faces 180 Md. Suits at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Pepco Holdings, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, was a defendant in about 180 asbestos-related cases in the State Courts of Maryland, of which about 90 cases were filed after Dec. 19, 2000. These 90 cases were tendered to Mirant Corporation for defense and indemnification under the terms of the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement between the Company and Mirant under which the Company sold its generation assets to Mirant in 2000. During 1993, the Company was served with Amended Complaints filed in the state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Md. in separate ongoing, consolidated proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury Asbestos Case." The Company and other corporate entities were brought into these cases on a theory of premises liability. Under this theory, the plaintiffs argued that the Company was negligent in not providing a safe work environment for employees or its contractors, who allegedly were exposed to asbestos while working on Company property. Initially, a total of about 448 individual plaintiffs added the Company to their complaints. While the pleadings are not entirely clear, it appears that each plaintiff sought US$2 million in compensatory damages and US$4 million in punitive damages from each defendant. Since the initial filings in 1993, additional individual suits have been filed against the Company, and significant numbers of cases have been dismissed. As a result of two motions to dismiss, numerous hearings and meetings and one motion for summary judgment, the Company has had about 400 of these cases successfully dismissed with prejudice, either voluntarily by the plaintiff or by the court. The aggregate amount of monetary damages sought in the remaining suits (excluding those tendered to Mirant) is about US$360 million. Washington, D.C.-based Pepco Holdings, Inc. distributes electricity to about 1.9 million customers and natural gas to more than 120,000 customers in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C., through its utility subsidiaries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PolyOne's Reserves Total $200T at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- PolyOne Corporation has reserves totaling US$200,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007 for asbestos-related claims that are probable and estimable. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had reserves totaling US$500,000 for asbestos-related claims that are probable and estimable. (Class Action Reporter, March 30, 2007) The Company has been named in various lawsuits involving multiple claimants and defendants for alleged asbestos exposure in the past by workers and contractors and their families at plants owned by the Company or its predecessors, or on board ships owned or operated by the Company or its predecessors. No other matters were disclosed in the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. Avon Lake, Ohio-based PolyOne Corporation provides specialized polymer materials, services and solutions with operations in thermoplastic compounds, specialty polymer formulations, color and additive systems, thermoplastic resin distribution and specialty polyvinyl chloride (PVC) vinyl resins, with equity investments in manufacturers of caustic soda and chlorine, and PVC compound products and in a formulator of polyurethane compounds. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. FirstEnergy ---------------------------------------------------------------- FirstEnergy Corp. continues to be named as a defendant in pending asbestos litigation involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. In addition, asbestos and other regulated substances are, and may continue to be, present at Company facilities where suitable alternative materials are not available. The Company said it believes that any remaining asbestos at its facilities is contained. The continued presence of asbestos and other regulated substances at these facilities, however, could result in additional actions being brought against the Company. Akron, Ohio-based FirstEnergy Corp.'s utilities provide electricity to 4.5 million customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. The Company's domestic power plants have a total generating capacity of more than 14,000 MW, most generated by coal-fired plants. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pennsylvania REIT Has $100,000 for Cleanup --------------------------------------------------------------- Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust has reserved $100,000 for environmental cleanup matters, including asbestos, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. The Company is aware of certain environmental matters at some of their properties, including ground water contamination and the presence of asbestos containing materials. The Company has, in the past, performed remediation of such environmental matters, and is not aware of any significant remaining potential liability relating to these environmental matters. The Company may be required in the future to perform testing relating to these matters. The Company has insurance coverage for certain environmental claims up to US$5 million per occurrence and up to US$5 million in the aggregate. The Company has reserved US$200,000 for asbestos-related remediation and groundwater contamination in its properties. (Class Action Reporter, July 20, 2007) Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust has a primary investment focus on retail shopping malls and power and strip centers located in the eastern half of the United States, primarily in the Mid-Atlantic region. Its portfolio consists of a total of 55 properties. The Company is based in Philadelphia. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Third-Party Actions Pending v. Liggett --------------------------------------------------------------- As of Dec. 31, 2007, two Third-Party Payor Actions were still pending against Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary Liggett Group LLC, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. Other cigarette manufacturers are also named. The Third-Party Payor Actions typically have been commenced by insurance companies, union health and welfare trust funds, asbestos manufacturers and others. In Third-Party Payor Actions, plaintiffs seek damages for: funding of corrective public education campaigns relating to issues of smoking and health; funding for clinical smoking cessation programs; disgorgement of profits from sales of cigarettes; restitution; treble damages; and attorneys' fees. Several federal circuit courts of appeals and state appellate courts have ruled that Third-Party Payors did not have standing to bring lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers, relying primarily on grounds that plaintiffs' claims were too remote. The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to consider plaintiffs' appeals from the cases decided by five federal circuit courts of appeals. Miami-based Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group makes discount cigarettes under brands including Liggett Select, Grand Prix, Pyramid, and Eve, and several generic lines of cigarettes. The Company also makes the QUEST brand, a line of genetically engineered low-nicotine and nicotine-free cigarette products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Continues to Face Exposure Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Tenneco Inc. continues to face lawsuits initiated by a significant number of claimants alleging health problems as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. A small percentage of claims have been asserted by railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars manufactured by The Pullman Company, one of the Company's subsidiaries. Nearly all of the claims are related to alleged exposure to asbestos in the Company's automotive emission control products. A small percentage of these claimants allege that they were automobile mechanics and a significant number appear to involve workers in other industries or otherwise do not include sufficient information to determine whether there is any basis for a claim against the Company. The Company said it believes it is unlikely that mechanics were exposed to asbestos by the Company's former muffler products and that, in any event, they would not be at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work with these products. Further, many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with the number of each in some cases exceeding 200 defendants from a variety of industries. Additionally, the plaintiffs either do not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for damages. To date, with respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently through the judicial process, the Company has regularly achieved favorable resolution. Lake Forest, Ill.-based Tenneco Inc. produces automotive emission control and ride control products and systems. The Company serves both original equipment vehicle manufacturers ("OEMs") and the repair and replacement markets, or aftermarket, worldwide. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Actions Still Ongoing v. Pride Units --------------------------------------------------------------- Since 2004, certain of Pride International, Inc.'s subsidiaries have been facing several asbestos-related complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi. These cases were filed by several hundred individuals that allege that they were employed by some of the named defendants between 1965 and 1986. The complaints allege that certain drilling contractors used products containing asbestos in their operations and seek an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Eight individuals of the many plaintiffs in these suits have been identified as allegedly having worked for the Company. Houston-based Pride International, Inc. is an offshore drilling contractor operating, as of Feb. 27, 2008, a fleet of 64 rigs, consisting of two deepwater drillships, 12 semisubmersible rigs, 28 jackups, 10 platform rigs, five managed deepwater drilling rigs and seven Eastern Hemisphere-based land drilling rigs. The Company provides contract drilling services to oil and natural gas exploration and production companies through the use of mobile offshore drilling rigs in U.S. and international waters. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parker Drilling Still Faces Suits in Miss. --------------------------------------------------------------- Parker Drilling Company and certain of its subsidiaries continue to face asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi. In August 2004, the Company was notified that certain of its subsidiaries have been named, along with other defendants, in several complaints that have been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi by several hundred persons that allege that they were employed by some of the named defendants between 1965 and 1986. The complaints name as defendants numerous other companies that are not affiliated with the Company, including companies that allegedly manufactured drilling- related products containing asbestos that are the subject of the complaints. The complaints allege that the Company's subsidiaries and other drilling contractors used asbestos-containing products in offshore drilling operations, land-based drilling operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment and assert claims based on negligence and strict liability and claims under the Jones Act and that the plaintiffs are entitled to monetary damages. Based on the report of the special master, these complaints have been severed and venue of the claims transferred to the county in which the plaintiff resides or the county in which the cause of action allegedly accrued. Subsequent to the filing of amended complaints, the Company has has joined with other co-defendants in filing motions to compel discovery to determine what plaintiffs have an employment relationship with which defendant, including whether or not any plaintiffs have an employment relationship with subsidiaries of the Company. Out of 668 amended single-plaintiff complaints filed to date, 16 plaintiffs have identified the Company or one of its affiliates as a defendant. Discovery is proceeding in groups of 60 and none of the plaintiff complaints naming the Company are included in the first 60 (Group I). The initial discovery of Group I reaped dismissals with prejudice, two dismissals without prejudice and two withdraws from Group I, leaving only 40 plaintiffs remaining in Group I. No amounts were accrued at Dec. 31, 2007. Houston-based Parker Drilling Company provides contract drilling and drilling-related services. Since beginning operations in 1934, the Company has operated in 53 foreign countries and the United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Denies Wrights' Remand Motion --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, N.D. California denied the Motion to Remand filed by Albert Wright Jr. and Marva Wright, in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed against Foster Wheeler Ltd. and Leslie Controls, Inc. The case is styled Albert Wright Jr., Plaintiff, v. A.W. Chesterton Company Inc., Defendant. District Judge Martin J. Jenkins entered judgment of Case No. C07-05403 MJJ on Feb. 25, 2008. This is a personal injury action arising out of injuries allegedly sustained by Mr. Wright due to exposure to Defendants' asbestos and asbestos-containing products. The Wrights alleged that Mr. Wright contracted lung cancer as a result of his exposure to these products during his employment as a machinist and flange turner for the Navy. He worked aboard 26 or more Navy ships and vessels in his career. Mr. Wright worked aboard various Navy vessels including, but not limited to, the USS Midway, USS Enterprise, USS Kitty Hawk, USS Coral Sea, USS Oriskany, USS Constellation, USS Mount Hood, USS John F Kennedy, USS Hancock, USS Ticonderoga, USS Providence, USS Mount Baker, USS Mauna Kea, USS Pigeon, USS Pyro, USS Guitarro, USS Drum, USS Pintado USS Hawkbill, USS Permit, USS Swordfish, USS Halibut, USS Grayback, USS Brinkley Bass, USS Trigger, and USS Wahoo. The Wrights filed this action on Sept. 13, 2007 in San Francisco County Superior Court against Foster Wheeler, Leslie Controls and dozens of other defendants. The Wrights brought claims of negligence, strict liability, false representation, intentional tort, premises owner/contractor liability and loss of consortium. In this Motion, the Wrights argued that their claims against Foster Wheeler are based only on its failure to warn about the dangers of asbestos that Foster Wheeler incorporated into the design and manufacture of its boilers. Indeed, in the Complaint, the Wrights "disclaim any cause of action or recovery for any injuries and damages resulting from exposure to asbestos caused by the acts or omissions of defendants committed at the specific direction of an officer of the United States Government acting within his official capacity." Foster Wheeler filed a Notice of Removal on Oct. 23, 2007. The Wrights sought an order remanding this case to state court. The District Court denied the Motion to Remand. Given the evidence in the record, Defendants have established the requisite basis for removal. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $3.864B at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- American International Inc.'s gross asbestos-related reserve for losses and loss expenses for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007 was US$3.864 billion, compared with US$4.523 billion for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's asbestos-related reserves amounted to a gross of US$3.869 billion (net of US$1.533 billion) in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with a gross of US$4.039 billion (net of US$1.696 billion) in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007) The Company's net asbestos-related reserve for losses and loss expenses for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007 was US$1.454 billion, compared with US$1.889 billion for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. In 2007, the Company's gross loss and loss expenses incurred was US$96 million and its gross losses and loss expenses paid was US$755 million. In the same year, the Company's net loss and loss expenses incurred was US$5 million and its losses and loss expenses paid was US$440 million. In 2006, the Company's gross loss and loss expenses incurred was US$572 million and its gross losses and loss expenses paid was US$550 million. In the same year, the Company's net loss and loss expenses incurred was US$267 million and its losses and loss expenses paid was US$218 million. The gross incurred but not reporter reserve for losses and loss expenses was US$2.701 billion at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$3.270 billion at Dec. 31, 2006. The net IBNR reserve for losses and loss expenses was US$1.145 billion at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$1.469 billion at Dec. 31, 2006. During 2007, the Company recorded 656 claims opened, 150 claims settled, 821 claims dismissed or otherwise resolved, and 6,563 claims at end of year. During 2006, the Company recorded 643 claims opened, 150 claims settled, 908 claims dismissed or otherwise resolved, and 6,878 claims at end of year. New York-based American International Group, Inc. operates as an insurance firm. Domestically the Company is known as a provider of property/casualty, life, and specialty insurance to commercial, institutional, and individual customers. Overseas, the Company provides reinsurance, life insurance and retirement services, asset management, and financial services in more than 130 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Reserves $422.8M at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Financial Group, Inc.'s asbestos & environmental reserves, net of reinsurance recoverable, were US$422.8 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$432.3 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's A&E reserves for its property and casualty group amounted to US$446 million, net of reinsurance recoverables, at Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 7, 2007) The Company's gross asbestos-related reserves were US$486.4 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$517.7 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's property and casualty group has A&E claims arising in most cases from general liability policies written in years before 1987. The Company has undertaken periodic reviews of its A&E reserves with the aid of an independent actuarial firm and specialty outside counsel. In the second quarter of 2007, the Company completed a comprehensive study of its A&E exposures relating to the run-off operations of its property and casualty group. As a result of its study, the Company recorded a pretax charge of US$44.2 million, net of US$16.4 million in reinsurance recoverables. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's three year survival ratio was 11.5 times paid losses for the asbestos reserves. Cincinnati-based American Financial Group, Inc., is a holding company that, through subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in property and casualty insurance, focusing on specialized commercial products for businesses, and in the sale of traditional fixed, indexed and variable annuities and a variety of supplemental insurance products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Cases Asserted v. American Fin'l. ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Financial Group, Inc.'s insurance company subsidiaries and its 100 percent-owned subsidiary, American Premier Underwriters are parties to litigation and receive claims asserting alleged injuries and damages from asbestos, environmental and other substances and workplace hazards and have established loss accruals for such potential liabilities. As previously reported, Great American Insurance Company and certain other insurers were parties to coverage litigation (arising from claims alleging asbestos exposure resulted in bodily injury) under insurance policies issued during the 1970s and 1980s to Bigelow-Liptak Corporation and related companies, subsequently known as A.P. Green Industries, Inc. A.P. Green sought to recover defense and indemnity expenses related to those claims from a number of insurers, including Great American. In February 2002, A.P. Green filed petitions for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (In Re Global Industrial Technologies, Inc., et al, filed Feb. 14, 2002). In 2003, Great American Insurance Company entered into an agreement, which was approved by the bankruptcy court, for the settlement of coverage litigation related to A.P. Green asbestos claims. The settlement is for US$123.5 million (Great American has the option to pay in cash or over time with 5.25 percent interest) and allows up to 10 percent of the settlement to be paid in AFG Common Stock. The settlement agreement is conditioned upon confirmation of a plan of reorganization that includes an injunction prohibiting the assertion against Great American of any present or future asbestos personal injury claims under policies issued to A.P. Green and related companies. During the third quarter of 2007, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the A.P. Green Plan of Reorganization which includes the injunction required by Great American's settlement agreement. Certain parties appealed the confirmation on issues that management believes are ancillary to the Great American settlement. Cincinnati-based American Financial Group, Inc., is a holding company that, through subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in property and casualty insurance, focusing on specialized commercial products for businesses, and in the sale of traditional fixed, indexed and variable annuities and a variety of supplemental insurance products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Still Faces Hickey Case in N.J. --------------------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corporation is a defendant in the case of Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. Hickey, et al. (Case No. 03-CV-4372) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). This lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company during the period from March 27, 2000 through July 30, 2002. The lawsuit named the Company and five current and former officers and directors of the Company as defendants. One of these individuals and the Company remain as defendants after a partial grant of the defendants' motion to dismiss the action. The plaintiff's principal allegations against the defendants are that during the above period the defendants materially misled the investing public, artificially inflated the price of the Company's common stock by publicly issuing false and misleading statements and violated U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP, by failing to properly account and accrue for the Company's contingent liability for asbestos claims arising from past operations of W.R. Grace & Co. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. If the Court determines that the Company is liable in this case, the Company could be required to pay substantial damages. Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corporation is an innovator and manufacturer of packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems that serve food, industrial, medical and consumer applications. The Company conducts all of its business through two direct wholly-owned subsidiaries, Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air Corporation (US). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air, Units Still Face Grace Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corporation and specified subsidiaries, since November 2004, have been named as defendants in a number of cases, including a number of putative class actions, brought in Canada as a result of W.R. Grace & Co.'s alleged marketing, manufacturing or distributing of asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction. Grace has agreed to defend and indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries in these cases. The Canadian cases are currently stayed, and the Grace Plan provides for payment of these claims. The Cryovac transaction was a multi-step transaction, completed on March 31, 1998, that brought the Cryovac packaging business and the former Sealed Air Corporation's business under the common ownership of the Company. The parties to the agreement in principle signed a definitive settlement agreement as of Nov. 10, 2003 consistent with the terms of the agreement in principle. On June 27, 2005, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, where the Grace bankruptcy case is pending, signed an order approving the definitive settlement agreement. Although Grace is not a party to the settlement agreement, under the terms of the order, Grace is directed to comply with the settlement agreement subject to limited exceptions. Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corporation is an innovator and manufacturer of packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems that serve food, industrial, medical and consumer applications. The Company conducts all of its business through two direct wholly-owned subsidiaries, Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air Corporation (US). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Has $158.4M Interest at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corporation recorded an accrued asbestos-related interest of US$158.4 million, in its consolidated balance sheets, at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$123.5 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The Company recorded a charge of US$850.1 million in the fourth quarter of 2002, of which US$512.5 million is to be utilized for a cash payment that the Company is required to make upon the effectiveness of a plan of reorganization in the bankruptcy of W. R. Grace & Co. The Company did not use cash in any period with respect to this liability, and the Company cannot predict when it will be required to make this payment. The Company expects to fund this payment by using a combination of accumulated cash and future cash flows from operations and funds available under its US$500 million senior unsecured multi- currency credit facility or its accounts receivable securitization program or a combination of these alternatives. The cash payment of US$512.5 million accrues interest at a 5.5 percent annual rate, which is compounded annually, from Dec. 21, 2002 to the date of payment. Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corporation is an innovator and manufacturer of packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems that serve food, industrial, medical and consumer applications. The Company conducts all of its business through two direct wholly-owned subsidiaries, Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air Corporation (US). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Records $700,000 for Legal Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corporation's asbestos settlement and related costs reflected legal and related fees for asbestos-related matters of US$700,000 in 2007 and US$1.6 million in 2006, which are included in other, net, on the Company's consolidated statements of operations. On Nov. 27, 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the Committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in the bankruptcy case of W.R. Grace & Co. to resolve all current and future asbestos-related claims made against the Company and its affiliates in connection with the Cryovac transaction. The settlement will also resolve the fraudulent transfer claims, successor liability claims, as well as indemnification claims by Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. and affiliated companies, that had been made against the Company in connection with the Cryovac transaction. On Dec. 3, 2002, the agreement in principle was approved by the Company's Board of Directors. The Company received notice that both of the Committees had approved the agreement in principle as of Dec. 5, 2002. The Company recorded a charge of US$850.1 million as a result of the asbestos settlement in its consolidated statement of operations for the year ended Dec. 31, 2002. Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corporation is an innovator and manufacturer of packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems that serve food, industrial, medical and consumer applications. The Company conducts all of its business through two direct wholly-owned subsidiaries, Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air Corporation (US). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PartnerRe Has $87.7M A&E Reserves at Dec. -------------------------------------------------------------- PartnerRe Ltd.'s net reserve for unpaid losses and loss expenses at Dec. 31, 2007 included US$87.7 million (US$95.2 million at Dec. 31, 2006) that represents estimates of its net ultimate liability for asbestos and environmental claims. The gross liability for such claims was US$97.8 million at Dec. 31, 2007 and US$104.9 million at Dec. 31, 2006. Of the US$97.8 million at Dec. 31, 2007, US$89.1 million relates to U.S. casualty exposures arising from business written by PartnerRe SA and PartnerRe U.S. Of the US$104.9 million at Dec. 31, 2006, US$98.3 million relates to U.S. casualty exposures arising from business written by PartnerRe SA and PartnerRe U.S. The Company's reserve for unpaid losses and loss expenses, as of Dec. 31, 2006, includes US$95 million that represents an estimate of its net ultimate liability for A&E claims. (Class Action Reporter, March 30, 2007) Pembroke, Bermuda-based PartnerRe Ltd. is an international reinsurance group. The Company provides reinsurance on a worldwide basis through its wholly owned subsidiaries, Partner Reinsurance Company Ltd., PartnerRe SA, Partner Reinsurance Europe Limited, and Partner Reinsurance Company of the U.S. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Quigley to Solicit Amended Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. states that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, on Feb. 26, 2008, authorized Quigley Company, Inc. to solicit its amended reorganization plan for acceptance by claimants. If approved by the claimants and the courts, the amended reorganization plan will result in a permanent injunction directing all pending and future claims alleging personal injury from exposure to Quigley products to a Trust. Quigley is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. Quigley was acquired by the Company in 1968 and sold small amounts of products containing asbestos until the early 1970s. In September 2004, the Company and Quigley took steps that were intended to resolve all pending and future claims against the Company and Quigley in which the claimants allege personal injury from exposure to Quigley products containing asbestos, silica or mixed dust. The Company took a charge of US$369 million before-tax (US$229 million after-tax) to third quarter 2004 earnings in connection with these matters. In September 2004, Quigley filed a petition in the Bankruptcy Court seeking reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In March 2005, Quigley filed a reorganization plan in the Bankruptcy Court that needed the approval of both the Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York after receipt of the vote of 75 percent of the claimants. In connection with that filing, the Company entered into settlement agreements with lawyers representing more than 80 percent of the individuals with claims related to Quigley products against Quigley and the Company. The agreements provide for a total of US$430 million in payments, of which US$215 million became due in December 2005 and is being paid to claimants upon receipt by the Company of certain required documentation from each of the claimants. The reorganization plan provided for the establishment of a Trust (the Trust) for the payment of all remaining pending claims as well as any future claims alleging injury from exposure to Quigley products. In June 2007, Quigley filed an amended plan of reorganization to address the Bankruptcy Court's concerns regarding the voting tabulation methodology. In July 2007, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing to consider the adequacy of Quigley's disclosure statement. In October 2007, the Bankruptcy Court granted Quigley's application to approve its disclosure statement. Under the amended reorganization plan (as under the original reorganization plan), the Company will contribute US$405 million to the Trust through a note, which has a present value of US$172 million, as well as about US$100 million in insurance, and will forgive a US$30 million secured loan to Quigley. In addition, the Company entered into an agreement with the representative of future claimants that provides for the contribution to the Trust of an additional amount with a present value of US$88.4 million. In December 2007, the Bankruptcy Court modified its 2004 preliminary injunction order as it relates to the Company. As a result, while asbestos claims against the Company that are based on alleged exposure to a Quigley product remain stayed, asbestos claims that are not based on alleged exposure to a Quigley product are no longer stayed. In a separately negotiated transaction with an insurance company in August 2004, the Company agreed to a settlement related to certain insurance coverage which provides for payments to the Company over a 10-year period of amounts totaling US$405 million. New York-based Pfizer Inc. is a research-based, global pharmaceutical company. The Company discovers, develops, manufactures and markets prescription medicines for humans and animals. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 106,000 Claims Pending v. American Optical --------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. states that, as of Dec. 31, 2007, about 106,000 claims naming American Optical Corporation and numerous other defendants were pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials. American Optical and other defendants, as of Dec. 31, 2006, faced about 110,200 asbestos-related claims. (Class Action Reporter, March 23, 2007) Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert Company owned American Optical, which manufactured and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner- Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims. The Company is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to explore various means to resolve, these claims. Several of the insurance carriers that provided coverage for the American Optical asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials claims have denied coverage. The Company said it believes that these carriers' position is without merit and is pursuing legal proceedings against such carriers. Separately, there is a small number of lawsuits pending against the Company in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to products containing asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Gibsonburg Lime Products Company, which was acquired by the Company in the 1960s and which sold small amounts of products containing asbestos until the early 1970s. There also is a small number of lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by the Company or its subsidiaries. New York-based Pfizer Inc. is a research-based, global pharmaceutical company. The Company discovers, develops, manufactures and markets prescription medicines for humans and animals. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OneBeacon Records 491 Open Claims at Dec. -------------------------------------------------------------- OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. recorded 491 accounts with asbestos claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 542 accounts with claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. In 2007, the Company recorded 102 accounts reporting asbestos claims opened during the year and 153 accounts of which asbestos claims were closed during the year. In 2006, the Company recorded 121 accounts reporting asbestos claims opened during the year and 171 accounts on which asbestos claims were closed during the year. The Company incurred asbestos and environmental losses via its participation in industry pools and associations. The most significant of these pools was Excess Casualty Reinsurance Association (ECRA), which provided excess liability reinsurance to U.S. insurers from 1950 until the early 1980s. ECRA incurred significant liabilities for A&E, of which the Company bears about a 4.7 percent share at both Dec. 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, or US$59.5 million at Dec. 31, 2007 and US$64.5 million at Dec. 31, 2006, which is fully reflected in its loss and LAE reserves. As of Dec. 31, 2007, there were about 261 active claims by insureds against the Company without product liability coverage asserting operations or premises coverage. Immediately preceding the purchase of the Company by White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd. in 2001, the Company purchased a reinsurance contract with NICO under which it is entitled to recover from NICO up to US$2.5 billion in the future for asbestos claims arising from business written by the Company in in 1992 and prior, environmental claims arising from business written by the Company in 1987 and prior, and certain other exposures. Of claim payments from 1996 through 2007, about 49 percent of A&E losses have been recovered under the historical third party reinsurance. The Company estimates that on an incurred basis it has ceded estimated incurred losses of about US$2.1 billion to the NICO Cover at Dec. 31, 2007. Since entering into the NICO Cover, US$39.8 million of the US$2.1 billion of utilized coverage relates to uncollected amounts from third party reinsurers through Dec. 31, 2007. Net losses paid totaled US$986 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, with US$139 million paid in 2007. The Company's reserves for A&E losses, net of Third Party Recoverables but prior to NICO recoveries, were US$1 billion at Dec. 31, 2007. An industry benchmark of reserve adequacy is the "survival ratio," computed as a company's reserves divided by its historical average yearly loss payments. This ratio indicates about how many more years of payments the reserves can support, assuming future yearly payments are equal to historical levels. The Company's survival ratio was 14.2 at Dec. 31, 2007. Minnetonka, Minn.-based OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. provides personal auto and homeowners, commercial, and specialty insurance, including agricultural, marine, media liability, medical malpractice, and even tuition coverage for when a student is forced to leave school unexpectedly. Its subsidiaries include AutoOne Insurance and International Marine Underwriters. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 14T Claims Remain v. Owens-Illinois at Dec. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Owens-Illinois, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, continues to face 14,000 pending asbestos-related claims filed against it, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company determined that it faced asbestos lawsuits and claims involving about 14,000 plaintiffs and claimants. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007) During 2007, the Company received about 9,000 new filings and disposed of about 13,000 claims. The fourth quarter 2007 charge for asbestos-related costs was US$115 million (pretax and after tax), compared to the fourth quarter 2006 charge of US$120 million (pretax and after tax). These charges resulted from the Company's comprehensive annual review of asbestos-related liabilities and costs. In each case, the Company concluded that an increase in the accrued liability was required to provide for estimated indemnity payments and legal fees arising from asbestos personal injury lawsuits and claims pending and expected to be filed during the several years following the completion of the comprehensive review. Asbestos-related cash payments for 2007 were US$347.1 million, an increase of US$184.6 million from 2006. Deferred amounts payable at Dec. 31, 2007 were about US$34 million, compared with about US$82.6 million at Dec. 31, 2006. Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of Dec. 31, 2007, has disposed of the asbestos claims of about 361,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per claim of about US$6,900. The Company's current portion of asbestos-related liabilities were US$210 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$149 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$245.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$538.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. Perrysburg, Ohio-based Owens-Illinois, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is the successor to a business established in 1903. The Company is a manufacturer of glass containers, with markets in Europe, North America, Asia Pacific and South America. On July 31, 2007, the Company completed the sale of its plastics packaging business for about US$1.825 billion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 38 Injury Suits Pending v. Noble at Jan. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Noble Corporation states that, at Jan. 31, 2008, there were about 38 asbestos lawsuits in which it is a defendant, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. Two of those actions are scheduled for trial in 2008. These lawsuits have been filed in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Exposure related to these lawsuits is not currently determinable. From time to time, the Company is party to various lawsuits that are incidental to its operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury, including claims under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities. At Oct. 31, 2007, the Company recorded about 31 asbestos-related lawsuits, in which the Company is one of many defendants. None of these suits were scheduled for trial in 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007) Sugar Land, Tex.-based Noble Corporation is an offshore drilling contractor for the oil and gas industry. The Company performs contract drilling services with its fleet of 62 mobile offshore drilling units located worldwide. This fleet consists of 13 semisubmersibles, three dynamically positioned drillships, 43 jackups and three submersibles. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety Faces Product Liability Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Mine Safety Appliances Company is a defendant of product liability claims, including asbestos-related, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. The Company is presently named as a defendant in about 2,600 lawsuits primarily involving respiratory protection products allegedly manufactured and sold by the Company. Collectively, these lawsuits represent a total of about 16,500 plaintiffs. About 90 percent of these lawsuits involve plaintiffs alleging they suffer from silicosis, with the remainder alleging they suffer from other or combined injuries, including asbestosis. These lawsuits typically allege that these conditions resulted in part from respirators that were negligently designed or manufactured by the Company. Consistent with the experience of other companies involved in silica and asbestos-related litigation, in recent years there has been an increase in the number of asserted claims that could potentially involve the Company. Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Company develops, manufactures, and supplies sophisticated products that protect people's health and safety. The Company's line of safety products is used by workers in the fire service, homeland security, construction, and other industries, as well as the military. Products include self-contained breathing apparatus, or SCBAs, gas masks, gas detection instruments, head protection, respirators, thermal imaging cameras, fall protection, and ballistic helmets and body armor. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Junks Century Indemnity's Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, on Feb. 26, 2008, upheld a trial court ruling dismissing a coverage action filed by Century Indemnity Company against Mine Safety Appliances Company. Century filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey seeking a declaration of Century's obligations with respect to certain asbestos, silica and other claims under five insurance policies issued to the Company by Century. The New Jersey Superior Court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss this case on jurisdictional grounds. Century appealed that order. It is unknown whether Century will seek to appeal that decision. Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Company develops, manufactures, and supplies sophisticated products that protect people's health and safety. The Company's line of safety products is used by workers in the fire service, homeland security, construction, and other industries, as well as the military. Products include self-contained breathing apparatus, or SCBAs, gas masks, gas detection instruments, head protection, respirators, thermal imaging cameras, fall protection, and ballistic helmets and body armor. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety Lawsuit v. Century in Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- A coverage lawsuit filed by Mine Safety Appliances Company against Century Indemnity Company is currently in discovery in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pa. The suit alleges that Century breached five insurance policies by failing to pay amounts owing to the Company. This suit is related to a prior lawsuit filed by Century in the Superior Court of New Jersey seeking a declaration of Century's obligations with respect to certain asbestos, silica and other claims under the five insurance policies issued to the Company by Century. The Pennsylvania court has denied a motion by Century to stay or dismiss the Pennsylvania lawsuit in favor of the New Jersey action and the Pennsylvania action is proceeding. The Company said it believes that Century's refusal to indemnify it under the policies is wholly contrary to Pennsylvania law. Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Company develops, manufactures, and supplies sophisticated products that protect people's health and safety. The Company's line of safety products is used by workers in the fire service, homeland security, construction, and other industries, as well as the military. Products include self-contained breathing apparatus, or SCBAs, gas masks, gas detection instruments, head protection, respirators, thermal imaging cameras, fall protection, and ballistic helmets and body armor. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Manitowoc Company ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Manitowoc Company, Inc. continues to be a defendant in lawsuits involving asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. No other matters were disclosed in the Company's annual report. The Manitowoc Company, Inc., founded in 1902, is a diversified industrial manufacturer in three principal markets: Cranes and Related Products; Foodservice Equipment and Marine. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had net sales of about US$4 billion. The Company is based in Manitowoc, Wis. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Court Upholds Ruling to Favor St. Paul ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, upheld the ruling of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, which granted summary judgment in favor of The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. (Aetna), in an asbestos-related case filed by Daniel Fackelman and Barbara Fackelman. The case is styled Daniel Fackelman and Barbara Fackelman, h/w, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Lac d'Amiante du Quebec, Ltee and Rapid American Corporation, Defendants, and The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., Defendant-Respondent. Judges Cuff, Lihotz, and Simonelli entered judgment of the case on March 3, 2008. Mr. Fackelman commenced this action against Lac d'Amiante du Quebec, Ltee, Rapid American Corporation, and Aetna. The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. acquired Aetna Casualty & Surety Company. Lac d'Amiante and Rapid American mined, manufactured and supplied asbestos products to Mr. Fackelman's employer, Owens Corning Fiberglas Corporation. Aetna performed industrial hygiene studies at the Owens Corning facility in Berlin, N.J. Mr. Fackelman was employed by Owens Corning at the Berlin facility, where he was exposed to asbestos, from 1967 to 1968. He commenced employment at the facility of Owens Corning in July 1967 at the age of 19. His principal job during the next 10 months was a "stripper on the line." Mr. Fackelman explained that he took Kaylo, or asbestos pipe covering, out of a mold and stacked it in a bin. Sometimes the product broke or shattered. He gathered the fragments and threw them in a dumpster. When he commenced his employment, Mr. Fackelman was placed on a practice line to determine if he had the dexterity to do the job. His employer gave him no information about asbestos. He was not required to wear a mask or other breathing protection, although "white painting masks" were available for use by employees and some employees wore these masks. Mr. Fackelman left his employment with Owens Corning in May 1968. In 2002, his physician advised him that he had asbestosis. The record reflects that between 1958 and 1972, Aetna performed various air sample surveys, industrial hygiene studies, and special hazard studies at the Berlin plant. The engineering department of the Philadelphia division of Aetna performed inspection and advisory work for Aetna underwriters on new and existing accounts. Between 1958 and 1965, Aetna may have been the only entity performing air sampling at the Berlin plant. In August 1969, Owens Corning adopted a safety program. Upon receipt of the program, Aetna requested its personnel to "attempt to determine whether or not the plant is complying with the program." Moreover, the Berlin plant manager confirmed that Owens Corning adopted a more affirmative program to address health hazards posed by asbestos in 1968-69 and that the company consulted with Aetna. Judge Little granted Aetna motion for summary judgment. Mr. Fackelman appealed from the order granting Aetna's motion for summary judgment. Lac d'Amiante filed a petition in bankruptcy. Mr. Fackelman settled with Rapid American. Thus, the order granting Aetna's motion for summary judgment was a final order appealable by right. Hal Pitkow represented Daniel Fackelman and Barbara Fackelman. Francis X. Manning represented The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. (Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP, attorneys; Samuel J. Arena, Jr., of counsel; Mr. Manning and Sean R. Adam, of counsel and on the brief). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Has $257M Gross Reserves at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Markel Corporation's asbestos-related reserves, at Dec. 31, 2007, were US$256.9 million on a gross basis and US$153.3 million on a net basis, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. Incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses for 2007, 2006 and 2005 were primarily due to adverse development of asbestos- related reserves. Net reserves for reported claims and net incurred but not reported reserves for asbestos exposures were US$120 million at Dec. 31, 2007. Inception-to-date net paid losses and loss adjustment expenses for asbestos- and environmental-related exposures totaled US$326.4 million at Dec. 31, 2007, which includes US$51.2 million of litigation-related expense. In 2007, incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses included US$197.3 million of favorable development on prior years' loss reserves, which was primarily due to US$166.6 million of loss reserve redundancies experienced at the Markel Shand Professional/Products Liability unit and Markel International as a result of the favorable insurance market conditions experienced in recent years. The favorable development on prior years' loss reserves in 2007 was partially offset by US$34 million of adverse development on prior years' loss reserves on A&E exposures. Glen Allen, Va.-based Markel Corporation markets and underwrites specialty insurance products and programs to a variety of niche markets. Subsidiaries include Essex Insurance Co. (excess and surplus lines), Shand Professional/Products Liability (excess and surplus, professional and products liability), Markel Insurance (specialty program insurance), and Markel Southwest Underwriters (excess and surplus, brokered). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Worldwide Sees $1Mil Costs at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- M & F Worldwide Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2007, incurred or expected to incur about US$1 million of costs related to asbestos-related claims not subject to certain arrangements, as to which it either has received or expects to receive about US$800,000 in insurance reimbursements. The Company's non-operating contingent claims are generally associated with its indirect, wholly owned, non-operating subsidiary, Pneumo Abex LLC. Substantially all of these contingent claims are the financial responsibility of third parties and include various environmental and asbestos-related claims. As a result, the Company has not since 1995 paid and does not expect to pay on its own behalf material amounts related to these matters. In 1988, a predecessor of PepsiAmericas, Inc. (Original Indemnitor) sold to Pneumo Abex various operating businesses, all of which Pneumo Abex re-sold by 1996. Prior to the 1988 sale, those businesses had manufactured certain asbestos- containing friction products. Pneumo Abex has been named as a defendant in various personal injury lawsuits claiming damages relating to exposure to asbestos. Under indemnification agreements, the Original Indemnitor has ultimate responsibility for all the remaining asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through August 1998 and for certain asbestos-related claims asserted thereafter. In connection with the sale by Pneumo Abex in December 1994 of its Friction Products Division, a subsidiary (Friction Buyer) of Cooper Industries, Inc. (now Cooper Industries, LLC, the "Friction Guarantor") assumed all liability for substantially all asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after August 1998 and not indemnified by the Original Indemnitor. In 1995, MCG Intermediate Holdings Inc. (MCGI), the Company and two of its subsidiaries entered into a transfer agreement (Transfer Agreement). Under the Transfer Agreement, Pneumo Abex transferred to MCGI substantially all of its assets and liabilities other than the assets and liabilities relating to its former Abex NWL Aerospace Division (Aerospace) and certain contingent liabilities and the related assets, including its historical insurance and indemnification arrangements. The Transfer Agreement provides for appropriate transfer, indemnification and tax sharing arrangements, in a manner consistent with applicable law and previously existing contractual arrangements. The Transfer Agreement also requires MCGI, which currently is an indirect subsidiary of Holdings, to undertake certain administrative and funding obligations with respect to certain categories of asbestos-related claims and other liabilities, including environmental claims, that Pneumo Abex did not transfer. Pneumo Abex will be obligated to reimburse the amounts so funded only when it receives amounts under related indemnification and insurance agreements. Such administrative and funding obligations would be terminated as to these categories of asbestos-related claims in the case of a bankruptcy of Pneumo Abex or the Company or of certain other events affecting the availability of coverage for such claims from third-party indemnitors and insurers. Pneumo Abex's former subsidiary maintained product liability insurance covering substantially all of the period during which it manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing products. The subsidiary commenced litigation in 1982 against a portion of these insurers in order to confirm the availability of this coverage. As a result of settlements in that litigation, other coverage agreements with other carriers, payments by the Original Indemnitor and funding payments pursuant to the Transfer Agreement, all of Pneumo Abex's monthly expenditures for asbestos-related claims are managed and paid by others. Based in New York, M & F Worldwide Corp.'s Mafco Worldwide flavorings firm makes licorice extract. The Company's primary flavoring brand is Magnasweet, but the Company also sells Right Dress, gardening mulch that is a byproduct of processing licorice root. The Company has expanded into the security printing business through its acquisition of Clarke American Checks from Honeywell. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits in 30 States Pending v. IDEX, 5 Units ---------------------------------------------------------------- IDEX Corporation and five of its subsidiaries face lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products made with components that contained asbestos. Claims have been filed in Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming. Those components were acquired from third party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. To date, all of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance subject to applicable deductibles. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without payment. The balance have been settled for various insignificant amounts. One case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the Company's business unit. No provision has been made in the financial statements of the Company, other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary course. Northbrook, Ill.-based IDEX Corporation is an applied solutions company specializing in fluid and metering technologies, health and science technologies, dispensing equipment and fire, safety and other diversified products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26,383 Claims Pending v. Harsco at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Harsco Corporation, as of Dec. 31, 2007, faces 26,383 pending asbestos personal injury claims filed against it, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded 26,376 asbestos personal injury claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007) The Company has been named as one of many defendants (about 90 or more in most cases) in legal actions alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos. Any component within a Company product which may have contained asbestos would have been purchased from a supplier. Most of the asbestos complaints pending against the Company have been filed in New York. Almost all of the New York complaints contain a standard claim for damages of US$20 million or US$25 million against about 90 defendants, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without specifically identifying any Company product as the source of plaintiff's asbestos exposure. Of the 26,383 pending cases, 25,927 were pending in the New York Supreme Court for New York County in New York State. The other claims, totaling 456, are filed in various counties in a number of state courts, and in certain Federal District Courts (including New York), and those complaints generally assert lesser amounts of damages than the New York State court cases or do not state any amount claimed. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has obtained dismissal by stipulation, or summary judgment prior to trial, in 17,385 cases. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has been listed as a defendant in 368 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County. The Company's insurance carrier has paid all legal and settlement costs and expenses to date. The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary and excess policies that the Company said it believes will be available to substantially cover any liability that might ultimately be incurred on these claims. Camp Hill, Pa.-based Harsco Corporation provides industrial services and engineered products. The Company's operations fall into two reportable segments: Access Services and Mill Services, plus an "all other" category labeled Minerals & Rail Services and Products. The Company has locations in 50 countries, including the United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GATX Units Face 1,331 Lawsuits at Feb. 15 -------------------------------------------------------------- GATX Corporation's current or former subsidiaries, as of Feb. 15, 2008, faced 1,331 pending asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. As of Oct. 29, 2007, the Company recorded 1,303 asbestos-related cases pending against its subsidiaries or the former subsidiary where the Company has provided a limited indemnity. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 16, 2007) Several of the Company's subsidiaries have been named as defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury relating to asbestos. In these cases, the plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages based on common law, statutory or premises liability or, in the case of American Steamship Company, the Jones Act, which makes limited remedies available to certain maritime employees. In addition, demand has been made against the Company under limited indemnities for asbestos related claims given in connection with the sale of subsidiaries. Out of the total number of pending cases, 1,203 are Jones Act claims, most of which were filed against ASC before 2000. During 2007, 47 new asbestos-related cases were filed and 70 cases were dismissed or settled. During 2006, 124 new asbestos- related cases were filed and 112 cases were dismissed or settled. During 2005, 22 new cases were filed and 46 cases were dismissed or settled. For this three-year period, the aggregate amount paid to settle asbestos-related cases filed against the Company's subsidiaries and the former subsidiary was less than US$290,000. Chicago-based GATX Corporation leases, operates and manages long-lived, widely used assets in the rail, marine and industrial equipment markets. The Company also invests in joint ventures that complement existing business activities. The Company has three financial reporting segments: Rail, Specialty and American Steamship Company. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had balance sheet assets of US$4.7 billion, comprised of railcars, marine vessels and joint venture investments. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Faces 1,275 Cases at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- General Cable Corporation, as of Dec. 31, 2007, was a defendant in about 1,275 asbestos cases brought in various jurisdictions throughout the United States. The Company has been a defendant in asbestos litigation for about 20 years. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company was a defendant in about 34,715 lawsuits. About 33,440 of these lawsuits have been brought on behalf of plaintiffs by a single admiralty law firm (MARDOC) and seek unspecified damages. Plaintiffs in the MARDOC cases allege that they formerly worked in the maritime industry and sustained asbestos-related injuries from products that the Company ceased manufacturing in the mid- 1970s. The MARDOC cases are managed and supervised by a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by reason of a transfer by the judicial panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In the MARDOC cases in the MDL, the District Court in May 1996 dismissed all pending cases filed without prejudice and placed them on an inactive administrative docket. During 2002, plaintiffs' counsel requested that the District Court allow discovery in about 15 cases. Prior to this discovery, plaintiffs' counsel indicated that they believed that product identification could be established as to many of the about 100 defendants named in these MARDOC cases. To date, in this discovery, the Company has not been identified as a manufacturer of asbestos-containing products to which any of these plaintiffs were exposed. With regards to about 1,275 remaining cases, the Company has defended these cases based upon either lack of product identification as to the Company manufactured asbestos- containing product and/or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from the use of General Cable product. In the last 20 years, the Company has had no cases proceed to verdict. In many of the cases, General Cable was dismissed as a defendant before trial for lack of product identification. For cases outside the MDL as of Dec. 31, 2007, plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in 389 cases. In 253 of these cases, plaintiffs allege damages in excess of some dollar amount (about US$232,000 per plaintiff). In these cases there are no claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant. In 135 other cases pending in state and federal district courts (outside the MDL), plaintiffs seek about US$236 million in damages from as many as 110 defendants. In five cases, plaintiffs have asserted damages related to the Company in the amount of US$2 million. In addition, in relation to these 389 cases, there are claims of US$74 million in punitive damages from all of the defendants. To date, the Company has resolved the claims of about 11,277 plaintiffs. The cumulative average settlement for these matters is less than US$235 per case. The Company has accrued on its balance sheet, on a gross basis, a liability of US$5.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, and had recorded insurance recoveries of US$500,000. Highland Heights, Ky.-based General Cable Corporation develops, designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and installs copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Still Faces Injury Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Gardner Denver, Inc. continues to face a number of asbestos personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. The Company has also been named as a defendant in a number of silicosis personal injury lawsuits. The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos or silica from multiple sources and typically the Company is one of about 25 or more named defendants. In the Company's experience to date, the substantial majority of the plaintiffs have not suffered an injury for which the Company bears responsibility. Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos and silicosis litigation lawsuits (the "Products"). However, neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits. Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products were enclosed within the subject Products. Quincy, Ill.-based Gardner Denver, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets compressor and vacuum products and fluid transfer products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Still Has Indemnification Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corporation still faces claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement relating to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. Amounts recognized as asbestos-related reserves related to Duke Energy Carolinas in the Consolidated Balance Sheets totaled about US$1.082 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$1.159 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006. These reserves are based upon the minimum amount in the Company's best estimate of the range of loss of US$1.082 billion to US$1.350 billion for current and future asbestos claims through 2027. The reserves balance of US$1.082 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007 consists of about US$182 million related to known claimants and about US$900 million related to unknown claimants. The Company has a third-party insurance policy to cover certain losses related to Duke Energy Carolinas' asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self insured retention of US$476 million. Through Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has made about US$460 million in payments that apply to this retention. The insurance policy limit for potential insurance recoveries for indemnification and medical cost claim payments is US$1.107 billion in excess of the self insured retention. Probable insurance recoveries of about US$1.040 billion and US$1.020 billion related to this policy are classified in the Consolidated Balance Sheets primarily in Other within Investments and Other Assets as of Dec. 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, respectively. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. and Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. have also been named as defendants or co-defendants in lawsuits related to asbestos at their electric generating stations. Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy Corporation has 3.9 million electric customers and about 500,000 gas customers in the U.S. South and Midwest. Its U.S. Franchised Electric and Gas unit operates primarily through its Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Kentucky regional businesses. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eastman Chemical Still Faces Exposure Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eastman Chemical Company continues to face lawsuits in various state courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to exposure to asbestos at the Company's manufacturing sites. More recently, certain plaintiffs have claimed exposure to an asbestos-containing plastic, which the Company manufactured in limited amounts between the mid-1960s and the early 1970s. To date, the Company has obtained dismissals or settlements of its asbestos-related lawsuits. The Company has also obtained insurance coverage that applies to a portion of certain of the Company's defense costs and payments of settlements or judgments in connection with asbestos-related lawsuits. Kingsport, Tenn.-based Eastman Chemical Company is a chemical company, which manufactures and sells a broad portfolio of chemicals, plastics, and fibers. The Company has 13 manufacturing sites in eight countries that supply chemicals, plastics, and fibers products to customers throughout the world. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: District Court OKs Richoux's Remand Motion --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, E.D. Louisiana, granted Ronald Richoux's motion to remand, in an asbestos-related case filed against Capital One, N.A., CSR, Ltd., Eagle, Inc., ReillyBenton Company, Inc., and The McCarty Corporation. The case is styled Ronald Richoux v. CSR Limited, et al. District Judge Helen G. Berrigan entered judgment of Civil Action No. 08-931 on Feb. 29, 2008. Mr. Richoux alleged that he suffers from mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos, a portion of which occurred while he was employed by Delta Steamship Company at the Hibernia Bank Building. The building was owned by defendant Capital One's predecessor- in-interest, Hibernia National Bank. Mr. Richoux alleged that for many months after a 1965 fire at the Delta Steamship Company offices, he assisted in cleanup efforts, during which time he was "exposed to asbestos products manufactured and/or installed by CSR, Eagle, ReillyBenton and McCarty. A Louisiana resident, Mr. Richoux filed suit in Louisiana state court on Dec. 10, 2007. Capital One was served on Dec. 13, 2007. Mr. Richoux claimed that he also properly served CSR, an Australian corporation, on Dec. 17, 2007. Capital One contended that as of the date of removal, there was no proof of service in the record for CSR. Because of Mr. Richoux's rapidly deteriorating condition, a perpetuation deposition of Mr. Richoux was taken on Jan. 12, 2008. On Feb. 11, 2008, Capitol One removed the action to this Court, without obtaining the consent of any of the other named defendants. In his deposition, Mr. Richoux was asked if he had "any personal knowledge or information as to whether or not Eagle Asbestos and Packing ever supplied or installed or distributed any asbestos or asbestos-containing products that you may have been exposed to during the course of your life?" He answered "no" to this and similar questions regarding the other two non-diverse defendants. Mr. Richoux filed the instant motion to remand and requested that Capitol One be assessed fees and costs on Feb. 12, 2008. He contended that Capital One's removal is improper for lack of joinder by the four other named defendants, and that it is untimely. In addition, Mr. Richoux claimed the dearth of evidence supporting removal demonstrates that the removal was not filed for a proper purpose, but was instead merely a dilatory tactic. Accordingly, he requested that the Court assess fees and costs. Capital One argued that the removal was timely because it occurred within 30 days of Mr. Richoux's deposition, from which it became evident that the Louisiana defendants, Eagle, Reilly- Benton, and McCarty were improperly joined in the action. In addition, Capital One claimed that the consent of CSR, indisputably a foreign corporation, was not required because, at the time of the removal, there was no proof in the record that CSR had been properly served. Accordingly, the District Court remanded Mr. Richoux's action to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, for lack of jurisdiction. The determination of the amount of fees and costs was referred to the Magistrate Judge. In addition, the District Court dismissed as moot Mr. Richoux's motion for leave to file a supplemental exhibit to its reply brief. F. Gerald Maples, Alexander J. Williamson, Carlos Alberto Zelaya, II, Stephen Michael Wiles, F. Gerald Maples, P.A., New Orleans, La., represented Ronald Richoux. Francis Philip Accardo, Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Lawrence G. Pugh, III, Montgomery Barnett, New Orleans, La., Douglas R. Elliott, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Paul H. Spaht, Kantrow, Spaht, Weaver & Blitzer, Baton Rouge, La., Diane Michelle Sweezer, Beason Willingham, LLP, Houston, represented CSR Limited, et al. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest's A&E Losses Total $827.4M at Dec. --------------------------------------------------------------- Everest Re Group, Ltd.'s net total reserves for asbestos & environmental losses were US$827.4 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$650.1 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. The Company's net A&E loss reserves totaled US$558,101,000 in the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$480,271,000 in the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 7, 2007) The Company's gross total reserves for A&E losses were US$922.8 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$650.1 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's gross A&E loss reserves totaled US$652,192,000 in the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$643,096,000 in the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 7, 2007) At Dec. 31, 2007, 10.2 percent of the Company's gross reserves reflected an estimate of the Company's ultimate liability for A&E claims for which ultimate value cannot be estimated using traditional reserving techniques. The Company's A&E liabilities stem from Mt. McKinley Insurance Company's direct insurance business and Everest Reinsurance Company's assumed reinsurance business. Gross loss and loss adjustment expense reserves totaled US$9.041 billion at Dec. 31, 2007 and US$8.840 billion at Dec. 31, 2006. The increase in 2007 was primarily attributable to an increase in the Company's asbestos reserves, partially offset by favorable reserve development. Hamilton, Bermuda-based Everest Re Group, Ltd. is the holding company for Everest Reinsurance Company, an underwriter of property & casualty reinsurance and insurance. Everest Re assumes risks of certain policies written by other insurance companies. The Company offers specialized underwriting in several areas, including property & casualty, marine, aviation, and surety, as well as medical malpractice, directors and officers liability, and professional errors and omissions liability. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enstar Provides $677.6M for Claims at Dec. --------------------------------------------------------------- Enstar Group Limited's gross provision for asbestos & environmental claims and allocated loss adjustment expenses was US$677,610,000 at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$666,075,000 at Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's net provision for A&E claims and ALAE was US$417,977,000 at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$389,085,000 at Dec. 31, 2006. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had 19 separate insurance and/or reinsurance subsidiaries whose reserves are categorized into about 146 reserve categories in total, including 22 distinct asbestos reserving categories and 20 distinct environmental reserving categories. The liability for unpaid losses and LAE, inclusive of A&E reserves, reflects the Company's best estimate for future amounts needed to pay losses and related LAE as of each of the balance sheet dates reflected in the financial statements herein in accordance with GAAP. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had net loss reserves of US$355.2 million for asbestos-related claims. During 2007, excluding the impact of loss reserves acquired during the year, the Company's reserves for A&E liabilities decreased by US$34.5 million on a gross basis and by US$2.2 million on a net basis. Hamilton, Bermuda-based Enstar Group Limited swings its investments into firms that acquire and manage domestic and international reinsurance companies that are in run-off. The Company basically provides claims administration, adjustment and settlement, and collection services for the companies. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Suits Pending v. Fluor Corporation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fluor Corporation is a defendant in various lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos fibers and dust due to work that the Company may have performed at various locations. The Company has substantial third party insurance coverage to cover a significant portion of existing and any potential cost, settlements or judgments. No material provision has been made for any present or future claims. The Company has resolved a number of cases to date, which in the aggregate have not had a material adverse impact. Irving, Tex.-based Fluor Corporation is a professional services firm, providing engineering, procurement and construction management ("EPCM") and project management services on a global basis. The Company serves industries including oil and gas, chemical and petrochemicals, transportation, mining and metals, power, life sciences and manufacturing. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Pending v. Phelps Dodge --------------------------------------------------------------- Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.'s subsidiary Phelps Dodge Corporation and other subsidiaries, since about 1990, have been named as defendants in asbestos-related product liability or premises lawsuits. These lawsuits claim injury from exposure to asbestos contained in electrical wire products produced or marketed many years ago, or from asbestos at certain Phelps Dodge properties. Phoenix-based Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. is a mining company that produces copper, gold, and molybdenum. The Company's principal asset is the Grasberg minerals district in Papua, Indonesia, which based on the latest available reserve data provided by third-party industry consultants, contains the largest single recoverable copper reserve and the largest single gold reserve of any mine in the world. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 299 Suits Pending v. Bucyrus Int'l. at Dec. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bucyrus International, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, has been named as a co-defendant in 299 personal injury liability cases alleging damages due to exposure to asbestos and other substances, involving about 575 plaintiffs. The cases are pending in courts in various states. In all of these cases, insurance carriers have accepted or are expected to accept defense. These cases are in various pre-trial stages, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company faced about 290 personal injury liability cases, involving about 567 plaintiffs. (Class Action Reporter, March 16, 2007) South Milwaukee, Wis.-based Bucyrus International, Inc. is a designer and manufacturer of high productivity mining equipment for the extraction of coal, copper, oil sands, iron ore and other minerals in major mining centers worldwide. In addition to the manufacture of original equipment, the Company also provides the aftermarket replacement parts and service for this equipment. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BlueLinx May Incur Costs Over GP Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- BlueLinx Holdings, Inc. may incur substantial costs relating to Georgia-Pacific Corporation's asbestos-related product liability claims, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. Georgia-Pacific is a defendant in suits brought in various courts around the nation by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to products containing asbestos. These suits allege a variety of lung and other diseases based on alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by Georgia- Pacific. Prior to May 7, 2004, the Company's assets were owned by the distribution division of Georgia-Pacific Corporation. Atlanta-based BlueLinx Holdings Inc., operating through its wholly owned subsidiary, BlueLinx Corporation, distributes building products. As of Dec. 29, 2007, the Company distributed more than 10,000 products to about 11,500 customers. The Company distributes products in two principal categories: structural products and specialty products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBL & Associates Records $2.6M for Cleanup --------------------------------------------------------------- CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. has recorded in its financial statements a liability of US$2.6 million related to potential future asbestos abatement activities, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. Chattanooga, Tenn.-based is a real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company owns, develops, acquires, leases, manages, and operates regional malls and open-air and community shopping centers. Its shopping center properties are located in 27 states, but primarily in the southeastern and midwestern United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Five Reinstated Actions Pending v. Chiquita ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chiquita Brands International, Inc. states that while six asbestos-related MARDOC cases have been reinstated against it, one of the cases has been dismissed and there has been little activity in the remaining five reinstated cases to date. Over the last 21 years, a number of claims have been filed against the Company on behalf of merchant seamen or their personal representatives alleging injury or illness from exposure to asbestos while employed as seamen on Company-owned ships at various times from the mid-1940s until the mid-1970s. The claims are based on allegations of negligence and unseaworthiness. In these cases, the Company is typically one of many defendants, including manufacturers and suppliers of products containing asbestos, as well as other ship owners. Seven of these cases are pending in state courts in various stages of activity. Over the past 10 years, 25 state court cases have been settled and 36 have been resolved without any payment. In addition to the state court cases, there are about 5,300 federal court cases that are currently inactive (known as the "MARDOC" cases). The MARDOC cases are managed under the supervision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Federal Court). In 1996, the Federal Court administratively dismissed all then- pending MARDOC cases without prejudice for failure to provide evidence of asbestos-related disease or exposure to asbestos. Under this order, all MARDOC cases subsequently filed against the company have also been administratively dismissed. The MARDOC cases are subject to reinstatement by the Federal Court upon a showing of some evidence of asbestos-related disease, exposure to asbestos and service on the Company's ships. As a matter of law, punitive damages are not recoverable in seamen's asbestos cases. Cincinnati-based Chiquita Brands International, Inc. and its subsidiaries operate as a marketer and distributor of bananas and other fresh produce sold under the "Chiquita" and other brand names in more than 70 countries and of packaged salads sold under the "Fresh Express" and other brand names primarily in the United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cincinnati Fin'l. Has $123M for A&E at Dec. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cincinnati Financial Corporation carried US$123 million of net loss and loss expense reserves for asbestos and environmental claims as of year-end 2007, compared with US$131 million for such claims as of year-end 2006. These amounts constitute 3.6 percent and 3.9 percent of total loss and loss expense reserves as of these year-end dates. The Company said it believes its exposure to asbestos and environmental claims is limited, largely because its reinsurance retention was US$500,000 or below prior to 1987. The Company also predominantly was a personal lines company in the 1960s and 1970s when asbestos and pollution exclusions were not widely used. During the 1980s and early 1990s, commercial lines grew as a percentage of the Company's overall business and its exposure to asbestos and environmental claims grew accordingly. Over that period, the Company endorsed to or included in most policies an asbestos and environmental exclusion. Additionally, since 2002, the Company has revised policy terms where permitted by state regulation to limit its exposure to mold claims prospectively and further reduce its exposure to other environmental claims generally. Between 2005 and 2007, total asbestos and environmental reserves decreased 1.3 percent. Fairfield, Ohio-based Cincinnati Financial Corporation's flagship Cincinnati Insurance sells commercial property, liability, auto, bond, and fire insurance; personal lines include homeowners and liability products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 75 Suits Pending v. Ameren Corp. at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ameren Corporation, as of Dec. 31, 2007, had 75 pending asbestos-related lawsuits filed against it and its subsidiaries, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. As of June 30, 2007, the Company had 71 pending asbestos-related lawsuits filed against it and its subsidiaries. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007) As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 349 claims filed, 123 claims settled, and 151 claims dismissed. The Company, Union Electric Company (UE), Central Illinois Public Company (CIPS), Ameren Energy Generating Company (Genco), Central Illinois Light Company (CILCO), and Illinois Company (IP) have been named, along with numerous other parties, in a number of lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos exposure. Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill. The total number of defendants named in each case is significant; as many as 189 parties are named in some pending cases and as few as six in others. However, in the cases that were pending as of Dec. 31, 2007, the average number of parties was 70. The claims filed against Ameren, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and IP allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs' activities at the Company's present or former electric generating plants. Former CIPS plants are now owned by Genco, and former CILCO plants are now owned by AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company (AERG). Most of IP's plants were transferred to a Dynegy Inc. subsidiary prior to the Company's acquisition of IP. As a part of the transfer of ownership of the CIPS and CILCO generating plants, CIPS and CILCO have contractually agreed to indemnify Genco and AERG, respectively, for liabilities associated with asbestos- related claims arising from activities prior to the transfer. From Oct. 1, 2007 through Dec. 31, 2007, six additional asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against UE, CIPS, CILCO and IP, mostly in the circuit court of Madison County, Ill. Seven lawsuits were settled. As of Dec. 31, 2007, nine asbestos-related lawsuits were pending against Electric Energy, Inc. The general liability insurance maintained by EEI provides coverage with respect to liabilities arising from asbestos-related claims. IP has a tariff rider to recover the costs of asbestos-related litigation claims, subject to the following terms. Beginning in 2007, 90 percent of cash expenditures in excess of the amount included in base electric rates are recoverable by IP from a trust fund established by IP and financed with contributions of US$10 million each by the Company and Dynegy. At Dec. 31, 2007, the trust fund balance was US$22 million, including accumulated interest. St. Louis, Mo.-based Ameren Corporation distributes electricity to 2.4 million customers and natural gas to almost 1 million customers in Missouri and Illinois through utility subsidiaries Union Electric Company, Central Illinois Public Service Company, Central Illinois Light Company, and Illinois Power Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maritime Suits Ongoing v. Cleveland-Cliffs --------------------------------------------------------------- Cleveland-Cliffs Inc states that its subsidiaries, The Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company and The Cleveland-Cliffs Steamship Company, have been named defendants in 485 asbestos actions brought from 1986 to date. These actions were brought by former seamen in which the plaintiffs claim damages under federal law for illnesses allegedly suffered as the result of exposure to airborne asbestos fibers while serving as crew members aboard the vessels previously owned or managed by the Company's entities until the mid-1980s. All of these actions have been consolidated into multidistrict proceedings in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, whose docket now includes a total of over 30,000 maritime cases filed by seamen against ship-owners and other defendants. All of these cases have been dismissed without prejudice, but can be reinstated upon application by plaintiffs' counsel. The claims against the Company's entities are insured in amounts that vary by policy year. The Company's entities continue to vigorously contest these claims and have made no settlements on them. Founded in 1847, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc is an international mining company, the largest producer of iron ore pellets in North America and a supplier of metallurgical coal to the global steelmaking industry. The Company operates six iron ore mines in Michigan, Minnesota and Eastern Canada, and three coking coal mines in West Virginia and Alabama. The Company is based in Cleveland, Ohio. ASBEST0S LITIGATION: Cleveland-Cliffs Action Settled on Dec. 21 --------------------------------------------------------------- Cleveland-Cliffs Inc, on Dec. 21, 2007, settled an asbestos- related litigation in Ohio for an amount within the limits on available insurance coverage, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. In April 2007, a lawsuit was filed naming the Company, The Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company, The Cleveland-Cliffs Steamship Company and other subsidiaries as defendants in a maritime asbestos lawsuit brought in the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The plaintiff has alleged exposure to asbestos while serving as a crew member aboard vessels previously owned or managed by the Company's entities between 1967 and 1971. This case was not subject to the multidistrict proceedings in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and accordingly, was not subject to the dismissal. Founded in 1847, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc is an international mining company, the largest producer of iron ore pellets in North America and a supplier of metallurgical coal to the global steelmaking industry. The Company operates six iron ore mines in Michigan, Minnesota and Eastern Canada, and three coking coal mines in West Virginia and Alabama. The Company is based in Cleveland, Ohio. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. Celanese Drop to 626 at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Celanese Corporation's U.S. subsidiaries, Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings, Inc., are defendants in about 626 asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings, as of Sept. 30, 2007, faced about 672 asbestos cases. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007) During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, 92 new cases were filed against the Company, 80 cases were resolved and 33 cases were revised after further analysis by outside counsel. Because many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the number of actual cases. The Company has reserves for defense costs related to claims arising from these matters. Dallas-based Celanese Corporation produces chemicals and advanced minerals. The Company produces acetyl products, which are intermediate chemicals for nearly all major industries, as well as produces high performance engineered polymers that are used in various high-value end-use applications. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Cites 38 Cases Set for Trial in 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Belden Inc. has 38 asbestos-related actions scheduled for trial in 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. The Company is party to various legal proceedings and administrative actions that are incidental to its operations. These proceedings include personal injury cases, about 144 of which the Company was aware at Feb. 6, 2008. Electricians have filed most of these cases, primarily in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, generally seeking compensatory, special and punitive damages. In these cases, the claimant alleges injury from alleged exposure to heat-resistant asbestos fiber. The Company's alleged predecessors had a small number of products that contained asbestos, but ceased production of such products more than 20 years ago. Through Feb. 6, 2008, the Company has been dismissed, or reached agreement to be dismissed, in about 208 similar cases without any going to trial, and with 16 of these involving any payment to the claimant. The Company has insurance that it believes should cover a significant portion of any defense or settlement costs borne by the Company in these types of cases. St. Louis, Mo.-based Belden Inc. designs, manufactures and markets signal transmission solutions, including cable, connectivity and active components for markets ranging from industrial automation to data centers, broadcast studios, and aerospace. The Company reports in four segments: the Belden Americas segment, the Specialty Products segment, the Europe segment and the Asia Pacific segment. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Faces 18,789 Claims at Feb. 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp., as of Feb. 1, 2008, was defending against 18,789 asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. The Company faced 18,791 such claims as of Oct. 19, 2007, 18,813 claims as of July 27, 2007, 19,120 claims as of April 27, 2007, and 19,388 claims as of Feb. 16, 2007. The Company is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos- containing products previously manufactured by the Company. The Company produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. Those fabrics generally had a useful life of three to 12 months. These suits allege a variety of lung and other diseases based on alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by the Company. As of Feb. 1, 2008, about 12,611 of the claims pending against the Company are pending in Mississippi. Of these, about 12,031 are in federal court, at the multidistrict litigation panel (MDL), either through removal or original jurisdiction. As of Feb. 1, 2008, the Company had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 21,635 claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was US$6,706,000. Of this amount, US$6,671,000, or 99 percent, was paid by the Company's insurance carrier. The Company has about US$130 million in confirmed insurance coverage that should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage that it should be able to access. Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing. The Company produces about 45 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and relies on independent suppliers for the remainder. It also makes industrial fabric doors, such as aircraft hangar doors and dock doors, as well as synthetic insulation, and industrial fabric filters. The Company is based in Albany, N.Y. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brandon Drying Faces 8,741 Claims at Feb. 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp.'s affiliate Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc., as of Feb. 1, 2008, was defending against 8,741 asbestos- related claims, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission at Feb. 29, 2008. Brandon Drying, a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a subsidiary of the Company, is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which the Company is named as a defendant. Brandon Drying faced 8,741 claims as of Oct. 19, 2007, 9,023 such claims as of July 27, 2007, 9,089 claims as of April 27, 2007, and 9,189 claims as of Feb. 16, 2007. The Company acquired Geschmay, formerly known as Wangner Systems Corporation, in 1999. In 1978, Brandon Drying acquired certain assets from Abney Mills, a South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon Drying from Abney were assets of Abney's wholly-owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc., which had sold dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney. It is believed that Abney ceased production of asbestos- containing fabrics prior to the 1978 transaction. As of Feb. 1, 2008, Brandon Drying has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 8,825 claims for a total of US$152,499. Brandon Drying's insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2 percent of the total indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings, subject to the standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8 percent of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon Drying. During 2004, Brandon Drying's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100 percent of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon Drying for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon Drying related to these proceedings. Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing. The Company produces about 45 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and relies on independent suppliers for the remainder. It also makes industrial fabric doors, such as aircraft hangar doors and dock doors, as well as synthetic insulation, and industrial fabric filters. The Company is based in Albany, N.Y. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mount Vernon Cases Ongoing v. Albany Int'l. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In some of these asbestos cases, Albany International Corp. is named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising out of those products. The Company denies any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets. Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, the Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions. Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing. The Company produces about 45 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and relies on independent suppliers for the remainder. It also makes industrial fabric doors, such as aircraft hangar doors and dock doors, as well as synthetic insulation, and industrial fabric filters. The Company is based in Albany, N.Y. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Petroleum Still Faces Injury Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anadarko Petroleum Corporation continues to face various personal injury claims, including claims by employees of third- party contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica and benzene. These employees worked at refineries (previously owned by predecessors of acquired companies) located in Texas, California and Oklahoma. Based in The Woodlands, Tex., Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is an independent oil and gas exploration and production company, with 2.43 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) of proved reserves as of Dec. 31, 2007. The Company's major areas of operation are located onshore in the United States, the Gulf of Mexico and Algeria. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster's Losses, ALAE Total $442.8M ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crum & Forster Holding Corp.'s net unpaid latent losses and allocated loss adjustment expense for asbestos, environmental and other latent exposures was US$442.8 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$443.5 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's gross unpaid latent losses and ALAE for asbestos, environmental and other latent exposures was US$580.1 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$586.2 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company has written general liability, commercial multi- peril and umbrella policies under which its policyholders continue to present claims alleging asbestos-related injury and claims alleging injury, damage or clean up costs arising from environmental pollution and other latent claims. The vast majority of these claims are presented under policies written many years ago. The increase in net latent losses incurred during 2007 as compared to 2006 was due to the combined strengthening of asbestos, environmental and other latent reserves. Gross and net latent payments have continued to decline since 2005. In 2005, latent loss and ALAE payments included a large policy buyback payment, which was 100 percent reinsured and did not affect net payments, and adverse developments related to one asbestos policyholder which affected both gross and net payments. For 2007, the Company recorded 48 claims opened during the year, 47 claims closed during the year, and 401 policyholders open in the year ended Dec. 31, 2007. For 2006, the Company recorded 68 claims opened during the year, 96 claims closed during the year, and 400 policyholders open in the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. Morristown, N.J.-based Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. is a national commercial property and casualty insurance company with a focused underwriting strategy targeting specialty classes of business and underserved market opportunities. The Company writes commercial coverage including workers' compensation, general liability, commercial automobile, property, commercial multi-peril, accident and health and other lines of business. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Still Faces Kelly-Moore Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. continues to face litigation filed by Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. in the San Francisco Superior Court (California) in connection with certain general liability and umbrella liability policies issued to it. The litigation seeks coverage for bodily injury claims arising out of exposure to asbestos-containing products that Kelly-Moore and a subsidiary sold between 1960 and 1978. It also seeks breach of contract and bad faith damages. In May 2006, Kelly-Moore filed a second amended complaint seeking to recover from the Company defense costs it allegedly paid to defend asbestos claims. Kelly-Moore also seeks payment of sums for contribution and subrogation under three other excess insurers' assigned claims based on defense payments allegedly made on Kelly-Moore's behalf. The Company has learned through discovery and submissions to the court filed by Kelly-Moore that Kelly-Moore seeks US$53 million for the defense costs, plus interest, and an additional US$33 million for the contribution/subrogation claims. Kelly-Moore also seeks to recover extra-contractual damages as part of its bad faith claim. The Company filed a cross-complaint against Kelly-Moore seeking reimbursement of certain substantial loss and expense payments made to or on behalf of Kelly-Moore to date. The parties are currently engaged in pre-trial motions and discovery. Jury selection is scheduled to commence on March 3, 2008 and trial was set to begin with opening statements on March 5, 2008. Morristown, N.J.-based Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. is a national commercial property and casualty insurance company with a focused underwriting strategy targeting specialty classes of business and underserved market opportunities. The Company writes commercial coverage including workers' compensation, general liability, commercial automobile, property, commercial multi-peril, accident and health and other lines of business. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Gross Reserves Total $2.924B at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACE Limited's gross reserves, allocated and unallocated loss expense reserves for asbestos exposures were US$2.924 billion for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$3.221 billion for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's net reserves, allocated and unallocated loss expense reserves for asbestos exposures were US$1.492 billion for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$1.611 billion for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's asbestos-related loss reserves amounted to a gross of US$3.061 billion (a net of US$1.560 billion) at June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007) For asbestos, the Company faces claims relating to policies issued to manufacturers, distributors, installers, and other parties in the chain of commerce for asbestos and products containing asbestos. Claims can be filed by individual claimants or groups of claimants with the potential for hundreds of individual claimants at one time. Claimants will generally allege damages across an extended time period which may coincide with multiple policies for a single insured. In 2007, the number of newly reported asbestos claims rose nine percent to 87, compared with 80 new claims in 2006. The total pending asbestos claims decreased 16 percent to 1,169 at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 1,391 at Dec. 31, 2006. This decrease in pending claims is influenced by the number of closings during the period. This decrease in claims was attributable, in part, to the formal closing of files that had been inactive for some time. A review of the inactive files revealed that payment was no longer sought on the files, therefore, the files were closed. Hamilton, Bermuda-based ACE Limited and its direct and indirect subsidiaries are a global property and casualty insurance and reinsurance organization. The Company provides products and services to commercial and individual customers in more than 140 countries and jurisdictions. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong World Faces Workers Injury Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Armstrong World Industries, Inc. has six pending workers' compensation claims, and a U.K. subsidiary has six employer liability claims involving alleged asbestos exposure, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008. On Oct. 2, 2006 (Effective Date), the Company's plan of reorganization, which was confirmed by order dated Aug. 18, 2006, became effective, and the Company emerged from Chapter 11. Prior to Dec. 6, 2000, the Company had been named as a defendant in personal injury cases and property damage cases related to asbestos-containing products. On Dec. 6, 2000, the Company filed a voluntary petition for relief (the Filing) under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to use the court-supervised reorganization process to achieve a resolution of the Company's asbestos-related liability. Upon the Company's Plan of Reorganization becoming effective on Oct. 2, 2006, the Asbestos PI Trust was created for the purpose of addressing and resolving the Company's personal injury (including wrongful death) asbestos-related liability. As of Oct. 2, 2006, all present and future asbestos-related personal injury claims against the Company, including contribution claims of co-defendants, arising directly or indirectly out of the Company's pre-Filing use of or other activities involving asbestos were channeled to the Asbestos PI Trust. The Company has no recorded liability for asbestos-related personal injury claims as of Dec. 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006. On Oct. 2, 2006, under the POR becoming effective, the Company transferred to the Asbestos PI Trust rights arising under liability insurance policies issued to the Company with respect to asbestos-related personal injury claims. As of Oct. 2, 2006, resolution of asbestos-related personal injury insurance matters is the responsibility of the Asbestos PI Trust. As part of accounting for emergence, the Company reflected the transfer of these rights to the Asbestos PI Trust. Therefore, there is no recorded insurance asset in respect of asbestos claims as of Dec. 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006. In addition, workers' compensation claims brought against the Company or its subsidiaries or other affiliates will not be channeled to the Asbestos PI Trust. These claims remain subject to the workers' compensation process. Historically, workers' compensation claims against the Company and its subsidiaries have not been significant in number or amount. The Company honored its obligations with respect to such claims during the Chapter 11 Case and following emergence. Workers' compensation law provides that the employer is responsible for evaluation, medical treatment and lost wages as a result of a job-related injury. Lancaster, Pa.-based Armstrong World Industries, Inc. designs and manufactures floors, ceilings and cabinets. In 2007, the Company's consolidated net sales totaled about US$3.5 billion. The Company operates 40 plants in 10 countries and has about 12,900 employees worldwide. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berkley Has $41.59M Net Reserves at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Berkley Corporation's net reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses relating to asbestos and environmental claims were US$41,590,000 at Dec. 31, 2007 and US$37,473,000 at Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's gross reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses relating to asbestos and environmental claims were US$60,836,000 at Dec. 31, 2007 and US$49,937,000 at Dec. 31, 2006. Net incurred losses and loss expenses for reported asbestos and environmental claims were about US$7,029,000 in 2007 and US$3,000,000 in 2006. Net paid losses and loss expenses for reported asbestos and environmental claims were about US$2,912,000 in 2007, and US$2,980,000 in 2006. Greenwich, Conn.-based W. R. Berkley Corporation is an insurance holding company that is a commercial lines writers in the United States and operates in five segments of the property casualty insurance business: Specialty lines of insurance, Regional commercial property casualty insurance, Alternative markets, Reinsurance, and International. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairchild Continues to Face Injury Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Fairchild Corporation continues to face asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2008. On Jan. 21, 2003, the Company and one of its subsidiaries were served with a third-party complaint in an action brought in New York by a non-employee worker and his spouse alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. The defendant, who is one of many defendants in the action, purchased a pump business from the Company, and asserts the right to be indemnified by the Company under its purchase agreement. The aforementioned case was discontinued as to all defendants, thereby extinguishing the indemnity claim against the Company in the instant case. However, in September 2003, the purchaser notified the Company of, and claimed a right to indemnity from the Company in relation to thousands of other asbestos-related claims filed against it. The Company has not received enough information to assess the impact, if any, of the other claims. During the last 49 months, the Company has been served directly by plaintiffs' counsel in cases related to the same pump business. A couple of these cases were dismissed as to all defendants based upon forum objections. The Company was voluntarily dismissed from additional pump business cases during the same period, without the payment of any consideration to plaintiffs. During the last 49 months, the Company, or its subsidiaries, has been served with separate complaints in actions filed in various venues by non-employee workers, alleging personal injury or wrongful death as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products other than those related to the pump business. The plaintiffs' complaints do not specify which, if any, of the Company's former products are at issue, making it difficult to assess the merit and value, if any, of the asserted claims. During the same time period, the Company has resolved similar, non-pump, asbestos-related lawsuits that were previously served upon the Company. In most of the cases, the Company was voluntarily dismissed, without the payment of any consideration to plaintiffs. The remaining few cases were settled for a nominal amount. The Company's insurance carriers have participated in the defense of all of the aforementioned asbestos claims, both pump and non-pump related. The Fairchild Corporation's Banner Aerospace unit distributes aircraft products -- including avionics, radar products, liquid crystal displays, GPS products, and communications systems -- and offers aircraft repair, overhaul, sales, and inspection services. The Company is based in McLean, Va. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNH Global N.V. Party to Asbestos Matters -------------------------------------------------------------- CNH Global N.V. and its subsidiaries are party to various legal proceedings in the ordinary course of its business, including asbestos, product warranty, environmental, dealer disputes, disputes with suppliers and service providers, workers' compensation, patent infringement, and customer and employment matters. No other matters were disclosed in the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2008. CNH Global N.V. is a global, full-line company in both the agricultural and construction equipment industries. The Company markets its products globally through its two brand families, Case and New Holland. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company made its products in 39 facilities throughout the world and distributed its products in about 160 countries through a network of about 11,100 dealers and distributors. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: K-Sea Affiliate to Settle Exposure Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- K-Sea GP Holdings LP's affiliate, EW Transportation LLC, and its predecessors are pursuing settlement of an asbestos-related action, according to its registration statement filed on Form S- 1, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2008. EW LLC and its predecessors have been named, together with a large number of other companies, as co-defendants in 39 civil actions by various parties alleging unspecified damages from past exposure to asbestos and second-hand smoke aboard some of the vessels that it contributed to K-Sea Transportation Partners L.P. (KSP) in connection with the initial public offering of KSP's common units. EW LLC and its predecessors have been dismissed from 38 of these lawsuits for an aggregate sum of about US$47 million. EW LLC and KSP may be subject to litigation in the future involving these plaintiffs and others alleging exposure to asbestos due to alleged failure to properly encapsulate friable asbestos or remove friable asbestos on its vessels, as well as for exposure to second-hand smoke and other matters. East Brunswick, N.J.-based K-Sea GP Holdings LP's assets consist of partnership interests in K-Sea Transportation Partners, which provides marine transportation and logistic services for petroleum products in the U.S. KSP has a fleet of more than 70 tank barges, some 60 tugboats, and one tanker. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Plaintiffs in Crane Co. Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, 2nd District, California, upheld the ruling of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which favored Peggy Irene Norris and other plaintiffs and respondents, in an asbestos-related action filed against Crane Co. The case is styled Peggy Irene Norris et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Crane Co., Defendant and Appellant. Judges Kriegler, Turner, and Mosk entered judgment of Case No. B196031 on March 11, 2008. Joseph Henson Norris was born in August 1936 and joined the Navy in December 1954. He reported to the U.S.S. Bremerton in April 1955. The ship was midway through a complete overhaul in dry dock at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard in California. The Navy never recommended that Joseph Norris take any measures to reduce his exposure to asbestos. On Sept. 26, 2005, Joseph Norris and Peggy Norris sued Crane and 17 other defendants, alleging negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, and loss of consortium, based on Joseph Norris' exposure to asbestos from defendants' products while he served on the U.S.S. Bremerton. On March 1, 2006, Joseph Norris and Peggy Norris filed a motion requesting a preferential trial date, because Joseph Norris was terminally ill and not expected to survive four months. The trial court granted the request. On Aug. 11, 2006, the trial court considered the parties' motions in limine. Joseph Norris died in North Carolina on Aug. 14, 2006. Plaintiffs' attorney informed the trial court of Joseph Norris' death on Aug. 17, 2006. The court granted his oral request for leave to amend the complaint to substitute Peggy Norris as Joseph Norris' successor in interest and to add a cause of action for wrongful death. On Aug. 18, 2006, the first amended complaint was filed by Peggy Norris, individually and as successor in interest to the estate of Joseph Norris, Karen Norris, Kathy Norris, and Patricia Norris against Crane and Thorpe Insulation Company for negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, and loss of consortium. On Aug. 28, 2006, plaintiffs finished the presentation of their evidence. Thorpe moved for nonsuit on the ground that there had been no proof that Thorpe products had caused any injury to Joseph Norris. The trial court granted the motion. The trial court excused the jury for two days to return on Aug. 30, 2006. A remand order was issued and the trial proceedings continued on Aug. 30, 2006. On Sept. 6, 2006, the trial court granted Crane's motion for nonsuit on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. On Sept. 8, 2006, plaintiffs filed a written motion to allow the pending action to be continued by Peggy Norris as Joseph Norris' successor in interest. The trial court granted the motion. The jury found that Peggy Norris sustained economic damages of US$541,557, medical bills of US$60,822, and noneconomic damages of US$3 million as a result of Joseph Norris' mesothelioma. Karen Norris, Kathy Norris, and Patricia Norris had each sustained noneconomic damages of US$100,000 as a result of Joseph Norris' mesothelioma. The trial court entered judgment on Oct. 10, 2006, finding that plaintiffs had settled with other joint tortfeasors for a total settlement of US$640,330, and therefore, reducing the amount of economic damages by a total offset amount of US$98,842.56. The court awarded Peggy Norris US$2,003,536.44 against Crane and awarded Karen Norris, Kathy Norris, and Patricia Norris each US$50,000 against Crane. On Oct. 25, 2006, Crane filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for new trial. The trial court denied both motions. Crane filed a timely notice of appeal from the Oct. 10, 2006 judgment and the order denying the motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Crane contended: There is no substantial evidence that Joseph Norris was exposed to asbestos from Crane products, or that Crane products were a substantial factor in causing his illness; The trial court should not have instructed the jury on the "consumer expectations" test to determine whether Crane valves were defective; Crane owed no duty to Joseph Norris, because Crane could not have appreciated a risk to bystanders from its use of asbestos; Crane was prejudiced by the trial court's denial of a continuance after Joseph Norris' death; Crane was prejudiced by an amendment of the verdict form during deliberations; and the judgment should account for post-verdict compensation that plaintiffs recover from other sources. The Appeals Court concluded that substantial evidence supported the jury's findings, the consumer expectations test was appropriate in this case, Crane had a duty to Joseph Norris, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion as to the procedural matters. Therefore, the Appeals Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP, Raymond E. Gill and Robert E. Feyder represented Crane Co. Baron & Budd, P.C., John L. Langdoc, Renee M. Melancon; Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, LLP and Paul R. Kiesel represented Peggy Irene Norris, Karen Lee Norris Francis, and Patricia Robin Norris Matthews. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Va. Court Issues Split Ruling in TIG Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division, granted in part and denied in part a Motion to Dismiss filed by TIG Insurance Company and a Motion for Leave to File Amended Counterclaim filed by Alfa Laval, Inc. The case is styled TIG Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v. Alfa Laval, Inc., Defendant. Chief U.S. District Judge James R. Spencer entered judgment of Civil Action No. 3:07CV683 on March 5, 2008. TIG is a successor to American Surety Corporation. Alfa Laval, a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Richmond, Va., is presently involved in several asbestos product liability lawsuits (Underlying Actions). Alfa Laval asserted that American Surety sold commercial general liability insurance policies to Alfa Laval's predecessor, The DeLaval Separator Company, for the policy periods of 1951 to 1962. Under those insurance contracts, Alfa Laval contended that it has paid all premiums due and owing under the polices and, therefore, TIG is obligated to defend, pay defense costs, and indemnify Alfa Laval in the Underlying Actions. Conversely, TIG claimed that after a diligent search it has not located any such insurance contracts nor has Alfa Laval located and produced the insurance contracts. Accordingly, TIG brought the present action seeking a declaration that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify Alfa Laval or, in the alternative, that any obligations it may have with respect to the Underlying Actions are barred or limited under the terms, conditions, definitions, and exclusions contained in the alleged insurance contracts. In response, Alfa Laval filed a Counterclaim alleging that TIG breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. Alfa Laval sought an award of compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages for TIG's alleged bad faith. TIG moved to dismiss Alfa Laval's claim for breach of good faith and fair dealing, asserting that because a bad faith claim sounds in contract, not tort, Alfa Laval may not seek punitive or exemplary damages. Alfa Laval countered that punitive damages may be awarded in breach of contract actions if an independent, willful tort beyond a breach of a duty imposed by a contract can be demonstrated. In the alternative, Alfa Laval argued that even if the Court determines that punitive damages are not available, dismissal of the entire claim is unwarranted because Alfa Laval also sought other forms of relief. The District Court shall dismiss Alfa Laval's prayer for exemplary and punitive damages. Additionally, the Court granted Alfa Laval leave to amend its Counterclaim in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion, but not as currently proposed. John Becker Mumford, Jr., Hancock Daniel Johnson & Nagle PC, Richmond, Va., represented TIG Insurance Company. Robert Francis Redmond, Jr., Williams Mullen, Richmond, Va., Cort Malone, William Gorman Passannante, Anderson Kill & Olick PC, New York, represented Alfa Laval, Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Urges Court to Junk Allegheny Request ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co. and the other Debtors ask the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to deny Allegheny Center Associates' request to dismiss their summary judgment request. The Debtors maintain that Allegheny and its counsel had: * Actual notice of the Debtors' request for summary judgment on Allegheny's claims; * Actual notice of the consequences of any failure to respond to the Debtors' summary judgment request; * Ample opportunity to file a written response; and * A full and fair opportunity to be heard in the Court. Despite the ample notice they received, however, Allegheny and its counsel remained silent and ignored the summary judgment request, the Debtors note. The Debtors assert that Allegheny is not entitled to an "excusable neglect" under Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Timothy P. Cairns at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, in Wilmington, Del., argues that inaction on the part of a party or its attorney does not constitute excusable neglect. He notes that Allegheny hired the law firm Speights & Runyan to file its Claim, however, Speights & Runyan did not confer with Allegheny to determine that Allegheny: * Had already filed a proof of claim for the same buildings; * Had removed asbestos from its buildings in the 1980s; and * Disclosed its asbestos removals in the proof of claim it filed before Speights & Runyan filed the duplicative claims. Mr. Cairns relates that during the oral argument on the Debtors' summary judgment request, Speights & Runyan sat silent when the Court asked if anyone present was representing Allegheny. Speights & Runyan's failure to know their client's name is not excusable, he asserts. (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 153; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Opposes Speights Appeal for Extension ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co. and the other Debtors oppose Speights & Runyan's request to extend the time for it to file memoranda of law on behalf of three asbestos-related property damage claimants, Bayshore Community Hospital, the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, and the Jameson Memorial Hospital. "It has become crystal clear that the Speights & Runyan firm has absolutely no desire to have the Court rule on the legitimacy of their property damage claims," James E. O'Neill at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, LLP, in Wilmington, Del., argues. It is equally clear that Speights & Runyan is promoting a "stall and delay" approach to its claims so that, when the Debtors move forward toward confirmation of a Plan, the law firm will have sufficient claims to have not been expunged to demand a large piece of the reorganization pie, Mr. O'Neill adds. (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 153; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace's Estimation Trial to End in May 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Judith Fitzgerald will continue the estimation trial of W.R. Grace & Co.'s asbestos-related personal injury liabilities on March 24, 2008. The estimation trial is expected to continue until May. In light of the anticipated trial dates, the Debtors, the Official Committee of Personal Injury Claimants and David T. Austern, the Future Claims Representative, filed with the Court updated lists of witnesses they intend to call during the estimation trial. The Debtors relate that they intend to call on 12 witnesses during the March trial date to address these topics: Witness Topic ------- ----- Dr. Peter Lees Grace's asbestos containing products and the magnitude of claimants' potential exposure to those products Dr. Suresh Moolgavkar Principles of epidemiology, the epidemiology of asbestos-related diseases, and the impact of exposure to Grace products on a person's risk of disease based on the epidemiological literature Dr. Elizabeth Anderson Risk assessment techniques, claimants' exposure to Grace products, and whether those exposures could have caused disease Drs. Andrew Harron, Methods they used to diagnose Walter Allen Oaks, plaintiffs with asbestos-related Jay Segarra, and diseases for purposes of litigation Alvin Schonfield David Austern The practices and criteria of the Manville Trust in accepting or denying claims and the lack of a nexus between claim criteria and claim trends and either (i) the validity of claims under state law, (ii) valid medical criteria, or (iii) valid exposure criteria Patricia Houser The practices and criteria of the Manville Trust in accepting or denying claims John Mekus The practices and criteria of the Celotex Trust in accepting or denying claims William Nure The practices and criteria of the Eagle-Picher, UNR and Keene trusts in accepting or denying claims The Debtors also intend to call on Dr. B. Thomas Florence to testify about the estimate of Grace's current and future asbestos personal injury claims and liabilities on March 31, 2008. The PI Committee and the FCR said they intend to present Drs. Arnold Brody, Laura Welch and Victor Roggli, as witnesses during the March estimation trial. The PI Committee and the FCR said they will present as witnesses Steve Hays, Dr. John Parker, Jay Hughes, Robert Beber, Marshall Shapo, Steve Snyder, Joseph Radecki, Peter Kraus, Jeff Posner, David Siegel, Dr. Mark Peterson, Jacob Jacoby, and Jennifer Biggs during the April estimation trial. Three witnesses, William Longo, Daniel Myer, and Prof. Eric Stallard, will be presented in May 2008. The PI Committee and FCR added that they expect to present testimony by deposition or prior trial from Donald Prouty, Braxton Colley and representatives of Rust Consulting, Inc., and The BMC Group, Inc. (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 154; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Claimants Seek to Add More Evidence -------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & Co. states that the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and David T. Austern, the Future Claimants Representative, ask the Court to admit past settlements and settlement criteria as evidence to estimate pending and future asbestos personal injury claims pursuant to Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The PI Committee and the FCR assert that, under Federal Rule of Evidence 703, evidence of past settlements and settlement criteria may serve as the basis for expert testimony in the Debtors' estimation trial. The PI Committee's counsel, Elihu Inselbuch, at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in New York, relates that the Debtors have maintained that the PI Committee and the FCR cannot use the Debtors' past settlements and settlement criteria to estimate pending and future asbestos PI claims or to rebut the Debtors' contention that the tort system compelled them to settle meritless claims. But, at the same time, he notes that the Debtors contend that they are free to use their own cherry- picked selection of past settlements to estimate pending and future asbestos claims against them. Mr. Inselbuch asserts that past settlements and settlement criteria are clearly admissible to estimate pending and future asbestos PI Claims and may be used for that purpose. The Debtors' argument ignores Rule 408 and the binding case law and should be denied, he contends. But if the Court were to accept the Debtors' argument and exclude the settlement-based evidence that the PI Committee and FCR's witnesses would rely on, Mr. Inselbuch argues that the Court must bar the Debtors' own use of settlement-derived evidence as well. (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 154; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup in New York State Bldg. to Cost $7M ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation states that removing asbestos from a vacant state office building in downtown Buffalo, N.Y., could cost more than US$7 million, Associated Press reports. The Erie Canal Harbor Development approved the contract for the asbestos removal project on March 21, 2008. Meanwhile, crews are set to begin a US$4.5 million asbestos abatement project at a nearby auditorium. Both buildings are to be demolished by early 2009 as part of a US$500 million redevelopment effort. The sweeping plan includes construction of a Bass Pro Shops Outdoor World store, along with another 500,000-square-feet of new retail, entertainment, hotel, office and residential development. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Pipe Lagger's Death to Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at the Burnley Coroner's Court heard that John Kenny, a former pipe lagger, died from exposure to asbestos after working at Padiham Power Station more than 40 years ago, The Citizen reports. In the 1960s, Mr. Kenny worked as a subcontractor for a firm called Babcock & Wilcox, the Court was told. East Lancashire deputy coroner Mark Williams heard that part of Mr. Kenny's duties as a pipe lagger was to mix asbestos into a paste, before it was applied to pipework. Mr. Kenny died on Nov. 13, 2007 at the Royal Blackburn Hospital. In a statement, his widow, Joyce Kenny, said he began to experience breathing difficulties two years ago. The inquest heard that after working at Padiham Power Station, Mr. Kenny transferred to a similar facility at Thorpe Marsh, in Doncaster, before returning to his previous occupation as an excavator driver. Tests by the Lung Diseases Research Group showed the concentration of asbestos in Mr. Kenny's system was significantly above normal expected background levels. Recording an industrial disease verdict, Mr. Williams said, "The pathologist's report gives his cause of death as severe broncho- pneumonia, asbestosis and left ventricular hypertrophy." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Worker's Widow Seeks GBP150T in Payout ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marjorie Thomas, whose husband William Thomas died from mesothelioma, has launched a legal bid to win up to GBP150,000 in compensation, Liverpool Echo reports. Mr. Thomas died on February 2007 at the age of 78. Mrs. Thomas, of Netherton, Liverpool, U.K., has started a fight to get compensation from Mr. Thomas' former employers Tate & Lyle and Kraft Foods UK Ltd. A writ has been lodged at the high court alleging that Mr. Thomas was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers when he worked for Tate and Lyle between 1962 and 1968, and Kraft Foods from 1968 and 1982. The writ says that during his illness, Mr. Thomas needed intensive care and assistance and claims his life expectancy was cut short. The claim, which was started by Mr. Thomas before his death, accuses his former employers of negligence, saying they failed to provide ventilation or suitable breathing equipment. The claims also alleges they failed to damp down asbestos, warn Mr. Thomas of the risks or provide him with a safe place to work. Mr. Thomas worked for Tate & Lyle as a plant maintenance operative, repairing pumps and spray drying machinery. The writ claims he was exposed to asbestos lagging on pipes and fittings during his job. He also worked near to laggers mixing up asbestos fiber in open containers, and applying it to pipes and fittings, it is alleged. At Kraft, Mr. Thomas worked as a project engineer at various factories, and visited one in Haverford West where an old asbestos lagged boiler was removed. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Six Actions Filed in Ill. Court on March 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., recorded six asbestos- related lawsuits filed on March 13, 2008, the Madison St. Clair Record reports. These cases are: -- Marcella Waters of Nebraska claims she was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Dec. 6, 2007. She claims she was exposed to asbestos while working from 1946 through 1977 as a secretary. She also claims she was exposed to asbestos on the clothing of her husband who worked as a laborer. SimmonsCooper of East Alton, Ill., represents Mrs. Waters. -- The estate of Mary Hazelrigg of Indiana claims Ms. Hazelrigg was exposed to asbestos during the 1970s working as a welder assistant and from the clothes of her ex-husband who worked as a laborer. Represented by SimmonsCooper, Ms. Hazelrigg was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Oct. 6, 2006, and died on April 2, 2007. -- Darrel Henderson of Kansas City, Kans. claims his lung cancer was caused from working with and around asbestos during his career in the U.S. Navy as a printer and as a concrete laborer. Represented by the Goldenberg firm in Edwardsville, Ill., Mr. Henderson claims he was diagnosed with the cancer on Oct. 16, 2007. -- Represented by the Goldenberg firm, the estate of Nancy Foster claims she died from lung cancer after working with and around asbestos from 1965-75 as a laborer and hotel housekeeper. Ms. Foster resided in Independence, Mo. at the time of her death. -- Edward Kronsperger of Belleville, Mich., claims he was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Jan. 22, 2008. Represented by the Lanier Law Firm in Houston, Mr. Kronsperger enlisted in the U.S. Navy from 1956-1960, and was a material handler and maintenance man in Wayne, Mich., from 1960 until 1985. He also claims he was exposed to asbestos on the clothing of his father who worked in Dearborn, Mich., from 1938 to 1956. -- The estate of James Price of Lebanon, Tenn., claims he was exposed to asbestos while working as a painter for Texaco Inc., Shell Oil Company, Amoco Corporation, Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc., Chrysler LLC, and American Zinc Company Inc. from 1964 to 1993. Represented by the Goldenberg firm, Mr. Price was diagnosed with lung cancer just prior to his death on June 17, 2007. Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack has been assigned to all of the cases. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Four Suits Filed in Ill. Court on March 14 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., recorded four asbestos- related lawsuits filed on March 14, 2008, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. These cases are: -- William Yeager of Jefferson City, Mo. claims he was exposed to asbestos during his 39-year career as a boilermaker in various locations in the U.S., including Cahokia. Represented by the O'Brien Law Firm in St. Louis, Mr. Yeager was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Dec. 7, 2007. -- Forrest Bateman of Idaho claims he was exposed to asbestos while working as a dairy farmer, machinist and x-ray technician from 1949 to 1990. He also claims that he was exposed to asbestos that was on the clothes of his wife when she would come home from working as an assembly line worker at General Motors Corporation. Represented by SimmonsCooper, Mr. Bateman was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Jan. 10, 2008. -- Nina Anderson of Illinois claims she was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Nov. 5, 2007. She claims she was exposed to asbestos while working in Oklahoma, Missouri and Illinois from 1962 through 2008 as a laborer, waitress, key punch operator and secretary. She also claims she was exposed to asbestos on the clothing of her ex-husband who has worked as a brick layer since the 1970s. She is represented by SimmonsCooper. -- The estate of Daniel Malcolm claims he was exposed to asbestos while working as a teacher from 1965 to 1994 in East Peoria, Carpentersville and Bloomington. Mr. Malcolm was diagnosed with mesothelioma on March 13, 2006. Represented by Barry Julian of Alton, Mr. Malcolm also worked in a foundry in the summer of 1964. Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack has been assigned to all of the cases. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Five Suits Filed in Ill. Court on March 17 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., recorded five asbestos- related lawsuits filed on March 17, 2008, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. These cases are: -- Larry Marlow of Texas claims he was diagnosed with mesothelioma on June 22, 2007, after working 41 years as a laborer. He is represented by SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill. -- The estate of Doyle Clayton claims he died from mesothelioma after working from 1956 to 1990 as a machinist in various locations. Represented by SimmonsCooper, Mr. Clayton resided in North Carolina at the time of his death. -- The estate of Lois Nisi claims she died from mesothelioma after working as machinist for 48 years. Represented by the Goldenberg firm, Ms. Nisi resided in Chicago at the time of her death. -- Gloria LaBarge of California claims she was exposed to asbestos while working from 1968 through 2008 in various occupations throughout the U.S. Represented by SimmonsCooper, Ms. LaBarge claims she was diagnosed with mesothelioma on March 27, 2007. -- Roy Brown of Indiana claims his mesothelioma was caused by working with and around asbestos fibers from 1972 to 1974 as a laborer in Indiana and Illinois. He was diagnosed with his disease on Dec. 6, 2007, and retained SimmonsCooper to represent him. Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack has been assigned to all of the cases. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Five Suits Filed in Ill. Court on March 18 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., recorded five asbestos- related lawsuits filed on March 18, 2008, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. These suits are: -- John Barringer of Pennsylvania claims he was diagnosed with mesothelioma on June 6, 2007. He was employed from 1955 to 1991 in management of computers at various locations throughout Pennsylvania and also stationed at the U.S. Navy Terminal at Great Lakes Naval Base in Illinois from 1946 to 1947. He is represented by SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill. -- Dolores Joppa of Arkansas claims she was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Sept. 20, 2007. She was employed at Western Electric in Cicero, Ill., from 1945 to 1950 and by Phillips Oil Inc. in Enid, Okla., from 1950 to 1951. She also claims she was exposed to asbestos on the clothing of her husband who worked with and around asbestos on many occasions. Mrs. Joppa is represented by Mike Bilbrey of Edwardsville, Ill. -- The estate of Frederick Shuberg claims he was exposed to asbestos while working as a technician from 1964 to 2004 in various locations. Mr. Shuberg was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Aug. 6, 2007. Represented by SimmonsCooper, Mr. Shuberg lived in Minnesota at the time of his death. -- Lawrence Schmidt of Collinsville, Ill., claims his colon cancer was caused by working with and around asbestos as a painter at various locations including the Venice Public School System. He is represented by the Goldenberg firm. -- The estate of Charles Lampin, Sr., claims the St. Charles, Mo. resident was diagnosed with esophageal cancer in December 2007. The estate claims Mr. Lampin was in the U.S. Navy for a few years prior to joining the local electric union until his retirement in 1989. The estate is represented by the Goldenberg firm. Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack has been assigned to all of the cases. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Insurers to Pay $500M Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Judith Fitzgerald of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Pittsburgh said that Federal-Mogul Corporation insurers may have to pay more than US$500 million in asbestos damages under the Chapter 11 plan that got the Company out of bankruptcy in 2007, The Associated Press reports. The insurers include Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Co., AIG Casualty Co., Allianze Global Corporate & Specialty AG, Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. Judge Fitzgerald's ruling was made public on March 20, 2008. She ruled against more than two dozen insurance companies, who were fighting to avoid paying claims for damages linked to Federal- Mogul's asbestos products. The insurers argued they had bargained to cover damage claims against the Company, and should not be forced to pay into a trust Federal-Mogul set up in Chapter 11. Peter Van N. Lockwood, an attorney for the asbestos plaintiffs, said the face amount of the insurance policies at stake in the dispute is more than US$500 million. Judge Fitzgerald told the insurance companies to pay claims now being handled by the Federal-Mogul asbestos trust, just as they would have had to pay the Company itself if it had never filed for bankruptcy. The insurers challenged Federal-Mogul's right to make them pay into the asbestos trust on the grounds the company was motivated to defend itself against potentially worthless claims, but the trust was not. Judge Fitzgerald's ruling preserved a favored strategy for corporations troubled by massive tort liabilities. Companies that want to divert damage claims away from themselves and into trusts often use their insurance policies as part of the trust funding. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Jury Awards $25.2M in Consolidated Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Philadelphia jury awarded US$25.2 million in compensatory and punitive damages in an asbestos-related lawsuit, The Legal Intelligencer reports. In two cases, consolidated with the other suit in a reverse- bifurcated trial, the jury established potential damages of US$12.6 million. However, the two cases were settled before the liability phase. The US$18.2 million in punitive damages was awarded by the jury in one of the three cases in which the defendants requested Kentucky law be applied. The other two cases ended when the defendants all settled after the compensatory damages phase. The jury in the six-week-long trial before Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge James Murray Lynn was picked Jan. 30, 2008. The jurors came back with a damages verdict on Feb. 14, 2008 in all three cases and handed up a liability verdict in the remaining case on March 14, 2008, according to one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, Benjamin Shein of the Shein Law Center. He worked on the case with Bethann Schaffzin of his law firm. The estate of James Baccus, the one plaintiff whose case went to the liability phase and was awarded punitive damages, will receive US$7 million in compensatory damages and US$18.2 million in punitive damages. In all three of the cases, there were several defendants who settled prior to even the damages phase of the trial, Mr. Shein said. James Baccus, who has since died of malignant mesothelioma, allegedly worked around asbestos while he served in the U.S. Navy in Philadelphia. However, most of his injuries allegedly occurred in Kentucky, where his family now lives, and he once worked for American Synthetic Rubber Company L.L.C., according to Mr. Shein. His case, Baccus v. Crane Co., was brought against the Crane Co., John Crane Inc. and Yarway Corporation. The jury had previously awarded US$7 million in compensatory damages to Mr. Baccus and apportioned liability in the amount of 45 percent against John Crane, 35 percent against Crane Co. and 20 percent against Yarway, Mr. Shein said. The jurors assessed US$11.9 million in punitive damages against Crane and US$6.3 million against Yarway. Richard Scherr died from mesothelioma at the age of 71 and was survived by his wife, Constance, and nine children. He was allegedly exposed to asbestos while working for PFK-Mark III Inc., a construction company that used asbestos material while building water and sewer treatment facilities, Mr. Shein said. In the compensatory damages portion of the trial, Scherr v. Garlock Sealing Technologies Inc., the jury awarded Mr. Scherr's wife and estate US$8.6 million against companies Garlock, Fairbanks Morse, and Durabla. All three had settled for an unknown amount after the damages phase. William Wheeler was a union painter who worked in Pennsylvania and New Jersey from 1954 to 2001. He was allegedly exposed to asbestos at several different work sites after he personally used asbestos joint compounds. He died at the age of 67, 12 months after being diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. The jury, in Wheeler v. Garlock Sealing Technologies Inc., awarded Mr. Wheeler's estate US$4 million in compensatory damages against Garlock. Garlock settled with the Wheeler estate for an undisclosed amount after the damages phase of trial, Mr. Shein said. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Court Rules v. John Crane in Newinski ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC (RPWB) in conjunction with Sieben Polk Attorneys at Law, on March 19, 2008, announced a verdict handed down in Minnesota District Court against John Crane, Inc. on behalf of Dennis Newinski and his wife, according to a RPWB press release dated March 19, 2008. Mr. Newinski was exposed to asbestos gaskets and packing materials manufactured by John Crane while working for Northern States Power Company (now a subsidiary of Xcel Energy) in Minnesota from 1968 until 2000. Mr. Newinski, a three-time candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives, was diagnosed in 2007 with malignant mesothelioma. The jury found John Crane negligent and awarded the Newinski family more than US$4.6 million in damages. RPWB attorney, Christian Hartley says, "The dangers of asbestos in the work place have been known for many years yet Crane continued to manufacture and sell products containing asbestos without warning those exposed." The jury returned the verdict after 10 days of trial and several hours of deliberations in District Court, 2nd Judicial District, Ramsey County, Minn. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Rules on Figgins' Death --------------------------------------------------------- An inquest heard that Thomas Duncan Figgins, who died at the the age of 82, spent more than 40 years insulating boilers and pipes and also had furnace duties for Hick Hargreaves & Company Ltd engineering firm, This is Lancashire reports. Mr. Figgins, a widower who lived on Deane, Greater Manchester, England, had retired aged 65. He had been ill for several weeks when he died in Bolton Hospice on Oct. 18, 2007. Although the number of asbestos fibers in Mr. Figgins' lungs was below that expected for someone who had been exposed to the material, it was still a major factor in his death. Dr. Saiyyid Raza, a consultant at the Royal Bolton Hospital, said, "It is possible that he spent 28-30 years of those 40 years at work without protection because the problem of asbestos was not known at the time." Coroner Jennifer Leeming recorded a verdict of death by industrial disease and said, "The medical cause of death was bronchial pneumonia. On the evidence the underlying cause was industrial disease." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Jury Favors DuPont in Whisnant Action --------------------------------------------------------------- After deliberating two full days, jurors in the case of Willis Whisnant vs. DuPont returned with a verdict in favor of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company on March 25, 2008, The Southeast Texas Record reports. The trial began on Feb. 21, 2008 and took place in Judge Floyd's 172nd Judicial District Court. In February 2008, plaintiff's attorney Glen Morgan said DuPont's past asbestos safety policies had been so egregious that the company had no right to exist. However, a Jefferson County jury did not agree, and found no negligence on the part of DuPont in the death of Mr. Whisnant of mesothelioma. The trial focused on Willis Whisnant Jr., a former B.F. Shaw pipe fitter who worked at DuPont back in 1966 as an independent contractor. His family claims he was exposed to enough asbestos fibers to contract mesothelioma that took his life in 1999 at age 72. Even though Mr. Whisnant was an independent contractor, jurors ruled that DuPont was still at least partially responsible for his safety, but decided that DuPont did not negligently contribute to his cancer by purposely exposing him to harmful asbestos. After his death, Mr. Whisnant'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 and fibers created health hazards. Mr. Whisnant's suit against DuPont, which included around five other defendants, was severed from the original case. A court official said the other defendants in the case had settled. According to medical testimony, Mr. Whisnant's chest was riddled with bone-eating tumors, a condition the plaintiffs attempted to link to Mr. Whisnant's stint at DuPont. The plaintiffs maintained 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, which include Larry Cotten of Cotten & Schmidt in Fort Worth and Sandra Clark of Beaumont's Mehaffy Weber, argued that its 1940s studies only focused on people who were "heavily" exposed to asbestos on a daily basis, like miners for example, not chemical plant workers. DuPont also argued that the chemical company took steps to protect its employees from asbestos before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration implemented asbestos guidelines in 1972. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Death of Lecturer Baffles Coroner's Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A Cheshire Coroner's Court inquest heard that 65-year-old lecturer Raymond Williamson died of mesothelioma but was not exposed to asbestos, this is Cheshire.co.uk reports. The inquest has raised questions into the incidence of naturally occuring mesothelioma. Cheshire Coroner Nicholas Rheinberg addressed the issue during the inquest on March 20, 2008. Mr. Williamson, of Halton Road, in Great Sankey, England, died at Warrington Hospital from mesothelioma on July 20, 2007. The inquest heard it was ambiguous how and when Mr. Williamson, a retired lecturer at both Liverpool and Manchester universities, could have been exposed to asbestos. Mr. Williamson's brother, Kenneth, presented several theories including the possibility that he was exposed while conducting research on lasers in the 1960s. But what was more baffling was that a post-mortem examination did not reveal any asbestos fibers in Mr. Williamson's body although there was evidence of mesothelioma in the lining of his lung and abdomen. Dr. Mohammed Al-Jafari, who conducted the post-mortem, said: "Up to 10 to 15 percent of mesotheliomas are not related to asbestos exposure but if there is any suggestion of asbestos exposure, even very brief or mild, that would override the possibility of non-asbestos-related mesothelioma." Mr. Rheinberg recorded an open verdict, saying, "It is impossible for me to say whether he died of natural or unnatural causes. There is nothing obviously outstanding to suggest asbestos exposure albeit there are a number of possibilities. But what is quite extraordinary is that while most of us would have shown up evidence of asbestos exposure because we live in an industrial society, not one fiber was found." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Inquiry at Wis. Apartments Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- An investigation into possible asbestos-related Clean Air Act violations at a 1930s-era apartment building in New London, Wis., is ongoing, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports. Asbestos dust was showering down on people working without masks and protective suits as they removed heating pipes from the apartment building last summer, according to federal documents. The search warrant, unsealed week in federal court, says that in 2007, one of the building owners, Michael D. Phillips, had the asbestos removed illegally from the apartments. According to the warrant, Mr. Phillips told the building manager that if the tenants did not like the way asbestos was being removed, he would evict them. Mr. Phillips, who owns the building with Perry A. Petta, denied he said that and said he did not know that asbestos was dangerous. Assistant U.S. Attorney Mel Johnson, who is handling the case, said such environmental cases against property owners were rare. The building on S. Pearl Street is empty. Health officials ordered it vacated in January 2008. The building is in foreclosure, Mr. Phillips said, and there are 10 bags full of asbestos debris in the building. Mr. Phillips said he bought the 20-apartment building in 2006 as an investment. He said he figured he did not need an inspection because the bank did not require it. He said he had not gotten inspections on other buildings he had purchased. Mr. Phillips hired a local company to replace the heating system and said he learned in August 2007 that there was asbestos. He later contacted an asbestos removal company. According to the warrant, which the criminal division of the Environmental Protection Agency secured, former building manager Sandy Kurth, who was later fired and evicted, said he worked with the contractor starting in July 2007 to remove pipes that appeared to be covered in asbestos. At one point, asbestos dust showered down on the workers after a pipe was hit. Also, the workers jumped on the bags of asbestos to make them more compact, according to the warrant. In all, an estimated 1,000 feet of pipe was removed. Mr. Phillips was present for some of the work, and one of the tenants told him it looked like asbestos, according to the warrant. No masks, gloves or protective suits were used, and the pipes were "dry cut," instead of the required wet-cutting technique to avoid dust, according to the warrant. A New London building inspector and a state Department of Natural Resources warden responded to complaints in 2007, took samples confirming the asbestos and later ordered the building be emptied. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colo. Builders Win $6.4M in Cleanup Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Denver-based law firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck won US$6.4 million on behalf of Richmond American Homes of Colorado and other builders regarding asbestos claims at Lowry Air Force Base, Rocky Mountain News reports. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled against the U.S. Air Force for reimbursement of costs incurred to clean asbestos in the soil at Lowry. According to Brownstein Hyatt, it marks the first time in an environmental cleanup case that the court awarded indirect damages known as "unabsorbed overhead," which are losses the home builders incurred as a result of delays in their construction schedule caused by the contamination. Aside from Richmond, which is owned by MDC Holdings, other clients who were party to the lawsuit included Metropolitan Development, Metropolitan Builders Inc., Standard Pacific of Colorado Inc. and Touchstone Homes. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Overturns Harenda Case Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Wisconsin Supreme Court, on March 13, 2008, overturned a Court of Appeals ruling in the case styled In State of Wisconsin v. Harenda Enterprises, Inc. (docket #2005AP1829), LegalNewsline.com reports. The Supreme Court ruled that averaging asbestos-contents of multiple layers of building materials is the correct method. The state favored the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of treating each layer's results separately. The state also argued that the state statute relied on by the Court of Appeals is ambiguous in whether it prescribes averaging asbestos test results. The Supreme Court agreed and concurred with using EPA guidelines instead. Justice Anne Walsh Bradley in the split decision wrote, "[W]e conclude that the EPA's interpretation is controlling because it is neither inconsistent with [the statute] nor clearly erroneous. We further determine that the clarifications do not constitute impermissible rule making; rather, they are valid interpretive rules." In dissent, Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler said the EPA "clarifications" of the state rule on asbestos removal did not clarify the situation and in fact are even "contrary to he promulgated rule." Justice Ziegler was joined by Justices Patience Drake Roggensack and David T. Prosser. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie State Gov't. to Close Legal Loophole ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian State Government is trying to close a legal loophole affecting asbestos victims' families, ABC News reports. Compensation payments for the families of asbestos victims have been reduced by up to a third after a Court of Appeal ruled that damages pay-outs made to victims should offset any separate compensation awarded to relatives. Attorney General Jim McGinty says he wants to amend the Fatal Accidents Act, which would see damages payouts for family members returned to their previous level. Opposition leader Troy Buswell says he will support the move. He said, "We need to see the detail of the Government's plan, but look, certainly in principle." The Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia is confident State Parliament will pass an amendment to close the loophole. ADS president Robert Vojakovic says it is important the amendment is backdated so about 30 families that have already settled their cases will be able to claim up to an extra AU$160,000. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Seven Cases Filed in Ill. Court on March 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- Six mesothelioma victims from New Hampshire, Texas, North Carolina, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan and one lung cancer victim from Tennessee filed asbestos complaints in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., on March 3, 2008, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Three different law firms filed the suits against a combined 250 defendants which will net Madison County US$32,513.50 just in filing fees. Brent Coon and Associates filed one suit on behalf of the estate of a Tennessee man who died from lung cancer, the Goldenberg Firm in Edwardsville filed one on behalf of an Indiana man and East Alton based SimmonsCooper filed five on behalf of plaintiffs from New Hampshire, Texas, North Carolina, Illinois and Michigan. Goldenberg's client, Terry Treber, alleges he first became aware he had mesothelioma on Nov. 8, 2007. According to Mr. Treber, he was employed from 1960 through 1990 in Illinois, New Mexico, Colorado, Rhode Island, Ohio and Indiana as laborer, fireman, packer boy, machinist and for four months in the U.S. Navy. The suit filed by Brent Coon & Associates was on behalf of the estate of O.D. Dampher of Tennessee. The estate alleges Mr. Dampher died from lung cancer on March 4, 2006, after working as a laborer in various locations including Illinois. SimmonsCooper filed the remaining five suits: 1. The estate of Thomas Whall of New Hampshire claims he worked as an organic chemist at various locations from 1969 through 1987. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma on April 1, 2006, and died on Nov. 19, 2006. 2. David Franklin of Texas claims he was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Dec. 3, 2007. He claims his father would carry asbestos dust home on his clothing where it would again become airborne. 3. Craig Rice of Michigan he was exposed to asbestos while employed from 1972 to 1996 as an electrician and lathe operator. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Sept. 1, 2006. 4. Dale Applegate of Illinois claims he was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Feb. 7, 2008. He was employed 1973 until 2008 as a laborer, maintenance worker and construction worker in various locations in Illinois. 5. John Ciolek of North Carolina was exposed to asbestos from 1952 until present as a laborer and inspector in various locations including Illinois. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Jan. 22, 2008. Each case seeks compensatory damages in excess of US$200,000, plus punitive damages in order to punish the defendants for willful, wanton, intentional and reckless misconduct and to deter them and others from engaging in like misconduct in the future. Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack has been assigned Case Nos. 08 L 175, 08 L 176, 08 L 177, 08 L 178, 08 L 179, 08 L 180, and 08 L 181. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kings College Fined for Workers' Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Health and Safety Executive warned about managing the risks from asbestos, after its prosecution of Kings College, Cambridge after painters were exposed to asbestos containing materials while working at the college, abeceder reports. Kings College in Cambridge was fined GBP16,000, including GBP14,500 in costs, at Cambridge Magistrates Court on March 6, 2008, after pleading guilty to breaching the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. The College Clerk of Works Geoff Cunnington was also fined GBP1,000 with GBP500 costs after pleading guilty to breaching the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. HSE Principal Inspector, David Head said, "Every year 1,000 people who worked in building maintenance and repair trades die from past exposures to asbestos fibers. The exposure of employees to asbestos at Kings College could and should have been avoided by straightforward safety precautions. HSE will not hesitate to take action against those who fall short of the law in such a way." The prosecution arose following an incident on Nov. 29, 2006 at the College, when a number of college employees, who were painting asbestos containing material under the balcony of Keynes Hall Theatre, were exposed to asbestos fibers. The HSE investigation found that Kings College had allowed its employees to work on asbestos containing materials without taking the appropriate precautions. The asbestos containing material was of a type that requires persons to hold an HSE license before working on it. An HSE license is only granted to employers who can meet the standards required by the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Reconsideration in Harris Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division denied Mary Ellen Harris' motion for reconsideration in an asbestos- related action filed on behalf of Thomas Lee Harris against Viad Corp. The case is styled Mary Ellen Harris, Special Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Lee Harris, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Rapid American Corporation, et al., Defendants. Senior District Judge James B. Moran entered judgment of Case No. 07 C 6055 on March 7, 2008. On Dec. 18, 2007, the court denied Mrs. Harris' motion to remand this case to state court. She moved the court to reconsider, and the motion was denied. Mrs. Harris brought her motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and argued that this court mistakenly relied on the affidavit of Admiral Ben Lehman in deciding the motion to remand. Mrs. Harris characterized the affidavit as hearsay and asserts that Admiral Lehman formed his opinions by relying on the affidavit of another individual, S.A. Forman. In the alternative, Mrs. Harris moved the court to sever the claims against Viad and remanded the claims against the remaining defendants to the Circuit Court of Cook County. Mrs. Harris had provided the court with no reason to justify why the non-state actors in this case should be remanded to state court. In the interest of judicial economy, the court denied the motion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Northumberland MP Raises Asbestos Awareness ---------------------------------------------------------------- Northumberland, England MP Alan Beith is backing a campaign to ensure people are "asbestos aware," Northumberland Gazette reports. The senior Liberal Democrat has joined the British Lung Foundation and others at the House of Commons to raise awareness of the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma. To mark Action Mesothelioma Day, the British Lung Foundation is monitoring the progress of the Mesothelioma Framework, an NHS action plan for people with the disease. The charity carried out a survey of cancer networks in England and presented its findings to the National Cancer Director, Professor Mike Richards at the reception at Westminster. Mr. Beith signed an Early Day Motion calling for greater efforts to be made to improve treatment and care for people with mesothelioma after the survey showed that time and resources were major barriers to the full implementation of the Framework. Mr. Beith said, "I am delighted to be supporting the British Lung Foundation's Action Mesothelioma Campaign, as it is helping to bring about real improvements for people with this cruel disease and continues to work for more research into the disease and more awareness about the dangers of asbestos. "The British Lung Foundation's survey shows that there is a dangerously low level of awareness about the dangers of asbestos amongst the very people who are most at risk of mesothelioma." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Electrician's Death Linked to Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at Oldham, Greater Manchester, England heard that the death of 61-year-old electrician Christopher Scully was related to asbestos, Oldham Advertiser reports. Mr. Scully worked as an electrician since the age of 15. In a statement written before his death, Mr. Scully noted that he had been exposed to asbestos throughout the 1960s and remembered working at one site where blue asbestos was being sprayed. Mr. Scully wrote that employees were rarely provided with overalls, or masks, and that they never received advice about the risk of asbestos. Mr. Scully also stated that he would often be exposed to asbestos dust as a result of fitting electrical appliances to ceilings and removing storage heaters. In October 2006, Mr. Scully visited his GP after suffering continual catarrh and exhaustion. Six months later, he was found to have a lung tumor so large it could not be operated on. Although he was given chemotherapy, Mr. Scully died in September 2007. A postmortem found that as well as the right lung, the liver and lymph nodes all contained tumor deposits. Oldham Coroner Simon Nelson recorded a verdict that Mr. Scully died from carcinoma of the right lung, to which exposure to asbestos would have been a contributory factor. Speaking after the inquest, Mr. Scully's family said more should be done to prevent other people dying from exposure to asbestos. His daughter, Anne-Marie Sidaway, said, "My dad visited the doctors nine times before he received an x-ray. It was only after he went to the reception and coughed up blood in front of them that they realized how ill he was." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Royal Navy Worker's Death Linked to Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest on March 25, 2008 heard that the death of former Royal Navy engineer Andrew Jakeman was linked to asbestos, getreading reports. The 77-year-old Mr. Jakeman died after being exposed to asbestos during his time as an engineer for the electricity board. Mr. Jakeman died at the Duchess of Kent House hospital in November 2007, after being diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in December 2005. Mr Jakeman, from Waverley Road in West Reading, Berkshire, U.K., joined the Navy in 1946 when he was aged 16 and spent 10 years in the forces before starting work as a maintenance engineer for the electricity board in 1956. The inquest heard that Mr. Jakeman was aware that he had been exposed to asbestos during his time working for the electricity board as he often worked on substations and power stations where asbestos was known to be present, but at that time not known to be harmful. Berkshire Coroner Peter Bedford said, "There is clear evidence that Mr. Jakeman had been exposed to this during his employment and I am therefore recording a verdict of death from the industrial disease of malignant mesothelioma." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 9 Suits v. Dana Removed to Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Companies LLC has removed nine Madison County, Ill., asbestos actions to federal court, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Dana, a supplier of axles, driveshafts, structural sealings, and thermal management products, was recently reorganized under Chapter 11 after having declared bankruptcy March 3, 2006. It emerged from bankruptcy on Jan 31, 2008. On March 3, 2008, Dana argued that the parties have a complete diversity of citizenship and the plaintiffs from four different states seek damages in excess of US$75,000. The cases removed to federal court in East St. Louis were filed prior to its bankruptcy, however under Section 326 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code the cases were automatically stayed until bankruptcy proceedings were completed. Represented by Heyl, Royster, Voelker and Allen of Edwardsville, Dana Companies argues for removal since it is the only remaining defendant in the cases. Dana Companies also argues that since a one-year period it has to remove cases was tolled during bankruptcy, its notices of removal are timely. Dana argues that the 7th Circuit has held the jurisdiction is established where there is a "reasonable probability" that more than US$75,000 is in controversy. It argues that each count in the nine cases removed seek damages in excess of US$75,000. One case has already been remanded back to Madison County by U.S. Chief District Judge Daid Herndon. Two days after the removal of Wisconsin plaintiff Joseph Berger's case, Judge Herndon remanded on a sua sponte order. Judge Herndon said federal judges are "obliged to police the constitutional and statutory limitations on their jurisdiction" and should raise and consider jurisdictional issues regardless of whether the matter is ever addressed by the parties to the suit. For the purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is deemed a citizen of both the state in which it is incorporated and the state where its principal place of business is located. "In this suit, Defendant, although formerly a corporation, is now an LLC," Judge Herndon wrote. Judge He wrote that Dana's failure to properly plead the citizenship of the LLC places into question whether the citizenship between the parties is completely diverse which causes him to approach the case as if jurisdiction does not exist. The other eight cases are assigned to District Judge G. Patrick Murphy after fellow district Judges Reagan and Stiehl recused themselves. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Victim to Sue Richard Dunston Insurers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Beddoes, of Doncaster, England, seeks out former workmates in the hope they can help him with his claim for asbestos compensation against the insurers of Richard Dunston Shipyard, where he worked for 25 years, The Star reports. The 70-year-old Mr. Beddoes worked for Richard Dunston Shipyard of Thorne for 25 years from Sept. 27, 1955 when he began as an apprentice driller, to 1980 when he was made redundant. The shipyard no longer exists and he is hoping to take action against their insurers. Mr. Beddoes carried out drilling work in the engine rooms of ships being built at the yard at the same time as the exhaust systems of the boats were being lagged with different asbestos. As well as working in an asbestos dust-filled environment, the buildings at the shipyard were made of asbestos and, while drilling, Mr. Beddoes wore asbestos gloves which left a white powder on his hands. Personal injury specialist Neil Pratt, an expert in industrial and asbestos related illnesses, said, "This is a terrible illness which is putting Dennis and his family under a lot of stress and strain. "Dennis was exposed extensively to asbestos during his time at the shipyard and we desperately need to contact his former co- workers in order to support and progress his claim." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota to Pay for Claim Made After Death ------------------------------------------------------------- It has been learned that Kubota Corporation has agreed to pay compensation to the family of an unnamed Japanese woman who lived near the Company's former Kanzaki factory in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture, The Yomiuri Shimbun reports. The family's application for the money was rejected on the grounds that it was made after her death. It will be Kubota's first payment of relief money over an application not covered by the law, but which the Company thinks is eligible for relief. The decision was announced on March 16, 2008 during a press conference held by the bereaved family from Osaka Prefecture and its support organization. The woman had lived about 1.5 kilometers from the factory for about for about five years in the 1960s. She died at age 67 in May 2006. The cause of death was initially diagnosed as cancerous pleurisy, but was later discovered to have been mesothelioma. In October 2006, her family applied for compensation to the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency. However, the law requires those applications to be made when sufferers are still alive. In February 2007, the agency announced that it had decided not to pay. The family therefore began negotiating with Kubota through the support organization. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Gov't. to Examine Law Lords' Decision --------------------------------------------------------------- U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government is to examine a decision to end compensation for people with asbestos-related pleural plaques, Building reports. The move follows a ruling by the Law Lords last October 2007 that compensation for pleural plaques should end. Prime Minister Brown said he is "determined to take some action" on the issue and will meet a delegation of MPs who have been campaigning. When Labour MP Stephen Jarrow asked Prime Minister Brown about the decision, he replied, "Asbestosis and mesothelioma are terrible diseases, and all of us who have seen the effects that they cause know that we have to do more to help the victims of those diseases. On pleural plaques, we are looking at the matter at this very moment. We will publish a consultation document soon." However, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians (Ucatt) is concerned that a consultation could slow down the process to overturn the decision and cause delays to claims. Alan Ritchie, general secretary of Ucatt, said, "Last year the Law Lords, delivered a cruel attack on thousands of ordinary work people, made ill by callous employers. While I appreciate that the government is now looking seriously at the matter, we need swift action. The clock is ticking for asbestos victims." The Scottish Executive is already looking at overturning the ban on compensation for the condition. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Welsh Art Teacher's Death Linked to Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- North Wales coroner Dewi Pritchard Jones says asbestos in Flintshire, Wales' schools likely caused the death of art teacher Renee Blodwen Eden, Building reports. Mr. Jones said he would write to Flintshire County Council about the dangers of asbestos in schools following the death of the 69-year-old Ms. Eden. During an inquest, Mr. Jones said Ms. Eden had died of mesothelioma and it was "more than likely" she contracted it after exposure to asbestos in Flintshire's schools. Ms. Eden taught in Castell Alun, Hope Argoed Mynydd Isa and Elfed at Buckley and retired in 1998. She was diagnosed with mesothelioma last April 2007. The council said it constantly monitored the safety of its buildings. National Union of Teachers figures show 145 teachers died from asbestos-related disease in England and Wales between 1991 and 2000. ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent research, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* 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 * * *