/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080404.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 4, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 67 Headlines AFFINION GROUP: Reaches Settlement in Two Consumer Fraud Suits AMERICAN ITALIAN: Issues Shares to Lawyers as Part of Settlement CALIFORNIA: Settlement in Strip-Search Suit Gets Final Approval CENTERLINE HOLDING: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y. COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Derivative, Securities, ERISA Suits COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Calif., Del. Suits Over BofA Merger DAVIDSON COMPANIES: Sued Over Data Security Breach DEERE & CO: DOL Backs Participants in 401(k) Suit in Appeal DUKE ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Katrina-Related Suit DUKE ENERGY: Faces Suits Over Natural Gas Markets Manipulation DUKE ENERGY: July 2008 Trial Set for S.C. ERISA, ADEA Litigation EL PASO: June Hearing Set for "Bank of America" Royalties Suit EL PASO: Kans. "Price" Antitrust Suit Awaits Class Certification FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Mass. Court Approves Carbon Black Settlement MENU FOODS: Reaches Settlement on Tainted Pet Food Litigation MGM MIRAGE: Nevada Court Issues Stay for FACTA Violations Suit NISOURCE INC: W.Va. "Stand Energy" Suit Still in Discovery NISOURCE INC: Appeals $404.3M Judgment in W.Va. Royalties Suit NISOURCE INC: Ky. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in Royalties Suit ORBITZ LLC: Plaintiff in Taxes, Fees Litigation Appeals Ruling ORBITZ LLC: Still Faces Calif. Taxes/Fees Assessment Litigation ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Units Face Several Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suits PHH CORP: N.J Securities Fraud Lawsuits Voluntarily Dismissed PHH CORP: Md. Court Nixes Amended Complaint Over $1.8BB Buyout PHILADELPHIA STOCK EXCHANGE: Shareholder Suit Settlement Okayed PXRE GROUP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. RYLAND HOMES: Homeowners to Get $1.8M Award in Water-Damage Suit SECURE COMPUTING: Seeks Nixing of Calif. Securities Fraud Suit STATION CASINOS: Nev. Court Approves Shareholder Suit Settlement STATION CASINOS: Faces "Luckevich" Labor-Related Suit in Nevada STEWART INFORMATION: Faces N.Y. Title Insurance Antitrust Suits WAL-MART CORP: Faces S.C. Suit Over Unfair Treatment of Workers Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Vacates, Remands Bethel Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenn. Court Favors Defendants in Woody Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bankruptcy Court to Issue Ruling on Sommer ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Solutia Inc. Exited Bankruptcy Last Feb. 28 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairfax Has $1.39B Claims Reserves at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navistar Int'l. Subject to Exposure Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Quaker Unit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Cases Still Ongoing v. Joy Global ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Actions Ongoing v. Allis-Chalmers ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gorman-Rupp, Units Still Face Injury Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR's Leslie Unit Has 707 Cases at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces 8,335 Claims at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Liability Totals $99.72M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FutureFuel Chemical May Face Asbestos Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PMA Capital Has $25.7M Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Has $22.6M Liability at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Faces 3,430 Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WVR Funding Faces Claims from Predecessors ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Commission's Ruling Upheld in Jones Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Consolidates Dana Bankruptcy Appeals ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McKinley, Everest Oppose Motions in Asarco ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fitzgerald Orders NJDEP to Drop Grace Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Md. Supervisor Pleads Guilty to CAA Breach ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit Filed v. 45 Firms in Ill. on March 26 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 45 More Exposure Cases Linked to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Gov't. Study Finds No Health Risks ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs $11M Award in Garza Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court to Choose Hardie Case Judge ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Probing Disposal at Dublin Integrated ASBESTOS LITIGATION: South Africa Announces Total Asbestos Ban ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe Finds Fraud Evidence in Tersigni Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Welder's Son Sues 25 Firms in W.Va. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Carpenter's Death to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong's Cash Flow Rises Due to Refunds ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maricopa Defendants Cleared in Covell Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Sparkses in Metalclad Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Campaigner Loses 6th Kin Member to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chandler Steps Up Fight for Compensation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Launches Campaign in North West England ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 122 Lawsuits Pending v. IntriCon at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3,027 Actions Pending v. Graybar at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alamo Reserves $325T for Possible Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Baldor Electric ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Still Faces Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hexion Still Involved In Liability Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind.'s Coverage Action Ongoing in Texas ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 470 Injury Actions Still Pending v. NL Ind. ********* AFFINION GROUP: Reaches Settlement in Two Consumer Fraud Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group, Inc., which was known as the Trilegiant Corp. prior to 2007, settled two of several purported class actions filed against it, both alleging violations of federal or state consumer protection statutes, 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. August 2005 Litigation On Aug. 9, 2005, a class action suit was filed against Trilegiant Corp. with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The claim asserts violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and various California consumer protection statutes. The suit seeks unspecified actual damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. As noted in the description of the 2001 Litigation below, the parties have obtained preliminary approval of a class-wide settlement in the 2001 Class Action that, if such approval becomes final, will result in the dismissal of this lawsuit with prejudice. January 2005 Litigation On Jan. 28, 2005, a class action complaint was filed against The Bon, Inc., FACS Group, Inc., and Trilegiant with the Superior Court of Washington, Spokane County. The claim asserts violations of various consumer protection statutes. The company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was denied by the court. The company appealed the court's decision, and the case has been stayed until the appellate court has ruled on the motion to compel arbitration. November 2002 Litigation On Nov. 12, 2002, a class action complaint was filed against Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears National Bank, Cendant Membership Services, Inc., and Allstate Insurance Co. with the Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County alleging, among other things, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and violations of the Illinois consumer fraud and deceptive practices act. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama but was remanded to the Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County. The company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was granted by the court on Jan. 31, 2008. In granting the motion, the court further ordered that any arbitration with respect to this matter take place on an individual (and not class) basis. November 2001 Litigation On Nov. 15, 2001, a class action complaint was filed in Madison County, Illinois against Trilegiant alleging violations of state consumer protection statutes in connection with the sale of certain membership products. Motions to dismiss were denied and a class was certified by the court. On Feb. 14, 2008, the parties entered into a definitive settlement agreement that resolves this lawsuit and the August 2005 Suit on a class-wide basis. On Feb. 15, 2008 the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Under the court's preliminary approval order, a final fairness hearing was scheduled for July 18, 2008, at which the court will decide whether to grant final approval of the settlement. Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com-- is a global provider of integrated marketing and loyalty solutions to companies around the world. Affinion partners with other companies to develop customized marketing programs that provide products and services to their end customers. AMERICAN ITALIAN: Issues Shares to Lawyers as Part of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Italian Pasta Co. issued more than a half-million shares of common stock on March 27, 2008, as part of a deal to settle a class action lawsuit, Kansas City Business Journal reports. Business Journal says that, according to a regulatory filing by American Italian with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 527,903 shares of Class A convertible common stock will be used to pay the plaintiff lead counsel's fees and expenses. AIPC now has nearly 19.4 million shares outstanding. The company's stock closed at $5.20 a share on March 27. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 15, 2008, Judge Ortrie D. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, on Feb. 12, granted final approval to the $25-million settlement deal -- pursuant to which American Italian's insurers will pay $11 million and the company will distribute $14 million of common stock to the class. Shares for class members have yet to be issued, the report notes. The settlement, which did not include any admission of wrongdoing by the company, resolves federal securities law claims in a consolidated class action filed in August 2005. Business Journal recalls that several shareholders filed the complaints against American Italian, alleging that its executives and directors had "cooked the books" to create an illusion that the company was doing well even as sales slumped during the low-carbohydrate diet craze. The suits were consolidated into a single class-action suit. When the company revealed in August 2005 that it would take a big accounting charge and that past financial statements on file with the SEC were inaccurate, the company's stock plunged. Several key company leaders sold large amounts of their personal holdings in the company's stock before the accounting errors came to light. The suit is "In re American Italian Pasta Co. Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:05-cv-00725-ODS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, under Judge Ortrie D. Smith. The plaintiffs' lead counsel is: Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, New York 10017-5516 Phone: 212-661-1100 Fax: 212-661-8665 Web site: http://www.pomlaw.com/ CALIFORNIA: Settlement in Strip-Search Suit Gets Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Court Judge Stephen G. Larson approved on a final basis a settlement deal in a class action lawsuit that alleged strip searches at San Bernardino County jails humiliated inmates, The Press-Enterprise reports. Under the settlement, claimants will share an aggregate of $25.5 million settlement minus 25% slated for attorneys' fees, the plaintiffs' lead attorney, Barry Litt, Esq., told Press- Enterprise. This means that roughly 21,000 class-action members in the suit against San Bernardino County will receive from $350 to $1,500, Mr. Litt said. The report notes that the settlement was virtually unchanged from the one tentative agreement signed in by Judge Larsonin September 2007. Press-Enterprise recounts that originally, as many as 160,000 jail inmates were eligible to participate in the suit, which asserted that body-cavity searches were performed with little regard for modesty, at times in view of jail visitors and law enforcement officers of the opposite sex. The suit also contended that searches were performed on inmates in groups and regardless of the severity of criminal offense. The report further recalls that the complaints stemmed from searches at West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga and Central Detention Center in San Bernardino, performed over 4 and a half years from May 2003 to December 2007. County authorities have said that strip-searching is a key security measure meant to keep law enforcement officers and inmates safe. As part of the settlement, San Bernardino County officials perform strip searches only on inmates who have been arrested on drug or weapons charges or if there is reasonable suspicion that they may be smuggling contraband. CENTERLINE HOLDING: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- Centerline Holding Co. is facing several purported securities fraud class action suits that were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's March 5, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On Jan. 18, 2008, the first of the federal securities putative class actions was filed against the company and certain of its officers and trustees. Thereafter, five other essentially duplicative putative class actions were also filed with the same court. The complaint in each case asserts that the company and other defendants violated federal securities law by failing to disclose in a timely fashion its recently announced transaction with Freddie Mac. Each complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other relief. After March 18, 2008, the court will designate a lead plaintiff for these cases and the company expects that all six lawsuits will eventually be consolidated into a single action. The federal lawsuits are: -- "Goldstein v. Centerline Holding Company, et al., No. 08 CV 00505," filed on Jan. 18, 2008; -- "Frank v. Centerline Holding Company, et al., No. 08 CV 01026," filed on Jan. 31, 2008; -- "Weinrib v. Centerline Holding Company, et al., No. 08 CV 01158," filed on Feb. 4, 2008; -- "Lyons v. Centerline Holding Company, et al., No. 08 CV 01458," filed on Feb. 11, 2008; -- "Dechter v. Centerline Holding Company, et al., No. 08 CV 01593," filed on Feb. 15, 2008; -- "Quill v. Centerline Holding Co., Inc, et al., No. 08 CV 01902," filed on Feb. 26, 2008. Centerline Holding Co. -- http://www.centerline.com/-- formerly CharterMac, is an alternative asset manager focused on real estate funds and financing. Organized as a statutory trust, the Company conducts substantially all of its business through its subsidiaries generally under the designation Centerline Capital Group. The Company operates in four groups: Affordable Housing, Commercial Real Estate, Portfolio Management and Credit Risk Products. The Affordable Housing and Commercial Real Estate groups raise capital through a series of funds to deploy into an array of real estate debt and equity investments. The Portfolio Management group monitors and services the investments within its funds and servicing portfolio. The Credit Risk Products group provides credit support to affordable housing debt and equity products investing in syndicated corporate debt. COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Derivative, Securities, ERISA Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Countrywide Financial Corp., and certain of its current and former officers, directors and retirement plan administrators are facing several lawsuits alleging claims for derivative relief on behalf of the Company and securities, retirement plan, and other class actions, 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 were either filed with the federal district court in Los Angeles, California, state superior court in Los Angeles or state court in Delaware. Among other things, these lawsuits allege breach of state law fiduciary duties and violation of the federal securities laws and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). These cases allege, among other things, that Countrywide did not disclose complete and accurate information about its mortgage lending practices and financial condition. The shareholder derivative cases brought in federal court are brought on Countrywide's behalf and do not seek recovery of damages from the Company. Two consolidated cases alleging claims for derivative relief on behalf of the Company are also pending in federal district court in Delaware, and alleges, among other things, that certain Company proxy filings contain incorrect statements relating to the compensation of the Company's Chief Executive Officer. Countrywide Financial Corp. -- http://my.countrywide.com/-- is a holding company, which through its subsidiaries, is engaged in mortgage lending and other real estate finance-related businesses, including mortgage banking, banking and mortgage warehouse lending, dealing in securities and insurance underwriting. The Company operates through five business segments: Mortgage Banking, which originates, purchases, sells and services non-commercial mortgage loans nationwide; Banking, which takes deposits and invest in mortgage loans and home equity lines of credit; Capital Markets, which operates an institutional broker-dealer that primarily specializes in trading and underwriting mortgage-backed securities (MBS); Insurance, which offers property, casualty, life and disability insurance as an underwriter and as an insurance agency, and Global Operations, which licenses and supports technology to mortgage lenders in the U.K. COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Calif., Del. Suits Over BofA Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Countrywide Financial Corp., its directors, and Bank of America (BofA), face various class actions relating to the company's proposed merger with Bank of America, 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 have been filed with the state courts of California and Delaware on behalf of a proposed class of Countrywide shareholders. The class action lawsuits filed in state court in California have been removed to federal court in Los Angeles. These lawsuits allege that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by entering into the merger agreement with Bank of America and that Bank of America allegedly aided and abetted those alleged breaches. Countrywide Financial Corp. -- http://my.countrywide.com/-- is a holding company, which through its subsidiaries, is engaged in mortgage lending and other real estate finance-related businesses, including mortgage banking, banking and mortgage warehouse lending, dealing in securities and insurance underwriting. The Company operates through five business segments: Mortgage Banking, which originates, purchases, sells and services non-commercial mortgage loans nationwide; Banking, which takes deposits and invest in mortgage loans and home equity lines of credit; Capital Markets, which operates an institutional broker-dealer that primarily specializes in trading and underwriting mortgage-backed securities (MBS); Insurance, which offers property, casualty, life and disability insurance as an underwriter and as an insurance agency, and Global Operations, which licenses and supports technology to mortgage lenders in the U.K. DAVIDSON COMPANIES: Sued Over Data Security Breach -------------------------------------------------- A Billings law firm filed a class-action lawsuit with the federal court against Davidson Companies, claiming that the company was negligent, resulting in a data security breach, Great Falls Tribune reports. The two lead plaintiffs in the suit are Lowell Dennis Schafer of Bozeman, who is a current Davidson client, and Terri Ann Oppenheimer-Schafer of San Antonio, Texas, a former client. The report recounts that Davidson Companies, which is a Great Falls-based investment firm, announced in late January 2008 that a hacker broke into its data base and obtained the names and Social Security numbers of some 226,000 of its clients. According to the class-action lawsuit, "the Davidson Companies failed to comply with the industry standards designed to protect such confidential personal and financial information from theft" and that the company did not provide "adequate safeguards in its storage and handling of its clients' confidential personal and financial information." GF Tribune notes that the suit does not specify a monetary demand from Davidson. Other people affected by the breach can join the plaintiffs in the class-action suit. According to John Heenan, Esq., the attorney who filed the suit, he expects more people to contact him. The plaintiffs are not aware of any actual identity theft issues, Mr. Heenan said. Davidson's legal department, on the other hand, told GF Tribune that it has not seen the paper work for the lawsuit and declined to comment. DEERE & CO: DOL Backs Participants in 401(k) Suit in Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- The Department of Labor is backing 401(k) participants in an appeal of the dismissal of a class-action lawsuit filed against Deere & Co. and Fidelity Investments, pionline.com reports, citing Jerome Schlichter, Esq., founding partner at Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, which represents the Deere participants. Mr. Schlichter told pionline.com that the DOL said the suit should not have been dismissed. The report recounts that Judge John C. Shabaz, of the U.S. District Court in Madison, Wis., dismissed the suit against the Moline, Ill.-based Deere, and Fidelity. Fidelity is trustee and record keeper for Deere's $2.5 billion 401(k) plan. According to a report by the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 30, 2007, Judge Shabaz, on June 20, 2007, threw out the lawsuit, saying that Deere was not obligated to disclose the revenue sharing arrangements in its 401(k) plan. Deere employees alleged that the plan and Fidelity charged unreasonable fees to participants, but the judge ruled that Deere and Fidelity met their fiduciary obligations under ERISA. The appeal is pending. The suit is "Hecker, Dennis v. Deere & Co., Case No. 06-C-0719- S," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin under Judge John C. Shabaz. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jerome Schlichter, Esq. Schlichter, Bogard & Denton Attorneys At Law 100 South Fourth Street, #900 Saint Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 621-6115 - and - Solheim, Billing & Grimmer, S.C. P.O. Box 1644 1 S. Pinckney St., Ste. 301 Madison, WI 53701-1644, Phone: Phone: (608) 282-1200 DUKE ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Katrina-Related Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the purported class action, "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.," are appealing the dismissal of the case, which names Duke Energy Corp., as a defendant. On April 19, 2006, Duke Energy and Cinergy Corp., were named in the third amended complaint of the purported class action, which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. In the case, the plaintiffs claim that Duke Energy and Cinergy, along with numerous other utilities, oil companies, coal companies and chemical companies, are liable for damages relating to losses suffered by victims of Hurricane Katrina. The plaintiffs also claim that the defendants' greenhouse gas emissions contributed to the frequency and intensity of storms such as Hurricane Katrina. In October 2006, Duke Energy and Cinergy were served with this lawsuit. On Aug. 30, 2007, the court dismissed the case. The plaintiffs have filed their notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 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. The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Judge L. T. Senter, Jr., presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: F. Gerald Maples, Esq. (federal@geraldmaples.com) Meredith A. Mayberry, Esq. (mmayberry@geraldmaples.com) F. Gerald Maples, PA 902 Julia Street New Orleans, LA 70113 Phone: 504/569-8732 - and - Randall Allan Smith, Esq. (rasmith3@bellsouth.net) Stephen M. Wiles, Esq. (smwiles@smithfawer.com) Smith & Fawer 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702 New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone: 504/525-2200 Fax: 504/525-2205 DUKE ENERGY: Faces Suits Over Natural Gas Markets Manipulation -------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corp. and several of its affiliates face purported class actions that generally allege they and other defendants manipulated the natural gas markets by various means. A total of 12 lawsuits have been filed against Duke Energy affiliates, including Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC, and other energy companies. Seven of these cases were dismissed on filed rate and federal preemption grounds, and the plaintiffs in each of these dismissed cases appealed their respective rulings. On Sept. 24, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the prior rulings and remanded four of the cases to the District Court for further proceedings. The defendants request for reconsideration was denied. In July 2007, the judge in two of the cases reconsidered and reversed his prior ruling dismissing the cases. The seventh case was appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, where oral argument was heard in November 2007 and a decision is pending. In February 2008, the judge in one of the cases granted a motion to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of DETM. Each of these cases contains similar claims, that the respective plaintiffs, and the classes they claim to represent, were harmed by the defendants' alleged manipulation of the natural gas markets by various means, including providing false information to natural gas trade publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and agreements in violation of the antitrust laws of the respective states. The plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts, 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. Duke Energy Corp. -- http://www.duke-energy.com/-- is an energy company located in the Americas that provides its services through four business units. DUKE ENERGY: July 2008 Trial Set for S.C. ERISA, ADEA Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A tentative July 2008 trial is scheduled for a purported class action filed against Duke Energy Corp. with the U.S. District Court for the District Court of South Carolina, alleging discrimination and violation of pension laws. Allegations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and Age Discrimination in Employment Act violations against Duke Energy and the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan arose out of the conversion of the Duke Energy Co. Employees' Retirement Plan into the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan. The case also raises some Plan administration issues, alleging errors in the application of Plan provisions (e.g., the calculation of interest rate credits in 1997 and 1998 and the calculation of lump-sum distributions). The plaintiffs seek to represent present and former participants in the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan. This group is estimated to include approximately 36,000 persons. They also seek to divide the putative class into sub-classes based on age. Six causes of action are alleged, ranging from age discrimination, to various alleged ERISA violations, to allegations of breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs seek a broad array of remedies, including a retroactive reformation of the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan and a recalculation of participants'/beneficiaries' benefits under the revised and reformed plan. Duke Energy filed its answer in March 2006. A second class action was filed with U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, alleging similar claims and seeking to represent the same class of defendants. The second case has been voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, effectively consolidating it with the first case. The matter is currently in discovery with a tentative trial date of July 2008, 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 "George et al. v. Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00373-HFF," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Judge Henry F. Floyd presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: James Robinson Gilreath, Esq. (jim@gilreathlaw.com) Gilreath Law Firm P.O. Box 2147 Greenville, SC 29602 Phone: 864-242-4727 Fax: 864-232-4395 Cheryl F. Perkins, Esq. (cperkins@attorneyssc.com) Whetstone Myers Perkins and Young, LLC P.O. Box 8086 Columbia, SC 29202 Phone: 803-799-9400 Fax: 803-799-2017 - and - Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq. (mwallace@wallacegraham.com) Wallace and Graham 525 North Main Street Salisbury, NC 28144 Phone: 704-633-5244 Fax: 704-633-9434 EL PASO: June Hearing Set for "Bank of America" Royalties Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A June 2008 class certification hearing is scheduled for the purported class action, "Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas and Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company, L.P.," which names El Paso Natural Gas Co., as a defendant. Named as defendant in the suit along with the company is Burlington Resources, Inc., which is now a subsidiary of ConocoPhillips. The suit was filed in October 2003 with the District Court of Kiowa County, Oklahoma, asserting royalty underpayment claims related to specified shallow wells in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico. The Plaintiffs assert that royalties were underpaid starting in the 1980s when the purchase price of gas was lowered below the Natural Gas Policy Act maximum lawful prices. They also assert that royalties were further underpaid by Burlington as a result of post-production cost deductions taken starting in the late 1990s. The action was transferred to Washita County District Court in 2004. A tentative settlement reached in November 2005 was rejected by the court in June 2007. A class certification hearing has been scheduled for June 2008, according to El Paso's March 4, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. El Paso Natural Gas Co. -- http://www.elpaso.com/-- is engaged in the primary business of interstate transportation of natural gas. It conducts its business activities through two pipeline systems: The EPNG system, which consists of approximately 11,000 miles of pipeline with a winter sustainable west-flow capacity of 4,850 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) and approximately 800 MMcf/d of east-end deliverability, and The Mojave system, which consists of approximately 400 miles of pipeline with a design capacity of approximately 400 MMcf/d. During the year ended December 31, 2004, the average throughput on the EPNG system and the Mojave system was 4,074 billion barrels tons per day (BBtu/d) and 161 BBtu/d, respectively. EL PASO: Kans. "Price" Antitrust Suit Awaits Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has yet to rule on the plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification of a second class action suit filed against a number of El Paso Corp. subsidiaries and other natural gas companies. The suit "Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines and Their Predecessors, et al.," was originally filed in 1999, alleging that the defendants mis-measured natural gas volumes and heating content of natural gas on non-federal and non-Native American lands. The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of royalty owners in wells on non-federal and non-Native American lands in Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado. The suit also seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages in the form of additional royalty payments (along with interest, expenses and punitive damages) and injunctive relief with regard to future gas measurement practices. Motions for class certification have been briefed and argued in the proceedings and the parties are awaiting the court's ruling. The company reported no development in the matter in its March 4, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. El Paso Natural Gas Co. -- http://www.elpaso.com/-- is engaged in the primary business of interstate transportation of natural gas. It conducts its business activities through two pipeline systems: The EPNG system, which consists of approximately 11,000 miles of pipeline with a winter sustainable west-flow capacity of 4,850 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) and approximately 800 MMcf/d of east-end deliverability, and The Mojave system, which consists of approximately 400 miles of pipeline with a design capacity of approximately 400 MMcf/d. During the year ended December 31, 2004, the average throughput on the EPNG system and the Mojave system was 4,074 billion barrels tons per day (BBtu/d) and 161 BBtu/d, respectively. FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Mass. Court Approves Carbon Black Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts approved the proposed settlement in the matter, "In re Carbon Black Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 03-10191 WGY," which names an acquisition of Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc., as a defendant. The suit was filed on Jan. 30, 2003, with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. It was filed against Columbian Chemical Co., formerly a subsidiary of Phelps Dodge Corp., which itself is an acquisition of Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, and several other companies. The suit was consolidated with 14 other actions that were filed with four other district courts. The consolidated suit is "In re Carbon Black Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 03-10191 WGY," and is pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. It was brought on behalf of a purported class of all individuals or entities who purchased carbon black directly from the defendants since January 1999. On Sept. 27, 2007, the court entered an order approving a proposed settlement and dismissing with prejudice all claims against Columbian and other defendants in these actions, 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. Freeport-McMoran Copper & Gold Inc. -- http://www.fcx.com/-- through its wholly owned subsidiary, Phelps Dodge, and its majority-owned subsidiary, PT Freeport Indonesia, is a copper, gold and molybdenum mining company. In North America, the Company has six operating copper mines: Morenci, Bagdad, Sierrita and Safford in Arizona, and Chino and Tyrone in New Mexico, as well as one operating molybdenum mine: Henderson in Colorado. In South America, the Company has four operating copper mines: Cerro Verde in Peru, and Candelaria, Ojos del Salado and El Abra in Chile. The Company owns a 53.56% interest in Cerro Verde, an 80% interest in both Candelaria and Ojos del Salado and a 5% interest in El Abra. It owns 90.64% of PT Freeport Indonesia, including 9.36% owned through its wholly owned subsidiary, PT Indocopper Investama. The Company also operates Atlantic Copper S.A. (Atlantic Copper). Atlantic Copper's operations involve the smelting and refining of copper concentrates. MENU FOODS: Reaches Settlement on Tainted Pet Food Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Menu Foods Income Fund (TSX:MEW.UN) has announced a "comprehensive cross-border agreement in principle" on litigation arising from its tainted pet food scandal, according to The Canadian Press. The report relates that Menu Foods will file the settlement proposal with the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 1, 2008, and at an undetermined date in Canada. The settlement, the company said, is to be funded by the income trust and its insurer. "It's a comprehensive settlement," Amy W. Schulman, a lawyer for Menu Foods, said. "It would resolve all the claims." Ms. Schulman, however, said that she could not disclose how much the settlements would be worth, but the company did say that it expects its total costs associated with the massive recall of its products last year to be about $53.8 million. Canadian Press points out that the mediated settlement of the so-called multi-district litigation, which combined various class-action suits filed in the United States, came just over a year after dog and cat owners were panicked by news that products from the maker of store-brand pet food had been tainted by Chinese-supplied wheat gluten laced with poisonous melamine. The report recounts that more than 150 brands of pet food were recalled because of the contamination. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 8, 2007, the head of Menu Foods said that, as of that time, about 90 class actions have been filed against the company over its recalled pet food, which has been blamed for numerous pet deaths, David Friend of Canadian Press reports. In the United States, Canadian Press relates, dozens of cases against Menu Foods and many of the companies that own the private labels were consolidated in a federal court in Camden, N.J. Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., a lead lawyer for the pet owners, told Canadian Press, "we're pleased we've been able to come to an agreement in principle on the major terms of the settlement. We've committed to the court we will have a fully drawn settlement agreement by May 1," which is the deadline the company has to file the terms of the settlement in Camden. U.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman set a May 14 hearing to consider the agreement. The company told reporters that it expects the court approval process in Canada to come at roughly the same time. MGM MIRAGE: Nevada Court Issues Stay for FACTA Violations Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada stayed a purported class action against MGM MIRAGE, Inc., which is alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, 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. On June 22, 2007, the Company was served with a purported nationwide class action lawsuit filed with the federal district court in Nevada, entitled, "Lety Ramirez v. MGM MIRAGE, Inc., et al." The lawsuit asserts that the Company failed to comply timely with FACTA's directive that merchants who accept credit and debit cards not display more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the card expiration date on electronically-generated receipts provided to customers at the point of sale. FACTA's compliance deadline for electronic machines that were first put into service before Jan. 1, 2005, was Dec. 4, 2006, while electronic machines put into use on or after Jan. 1, 2005, required immediate compliance. Although the complaint does not assert that the plaintiff sustained any actual damage, the plaintiff seeks on behalf of herself and all similarly situated putative class members throughout the United States statutory damages of $100 (minimum) to $1,000 (maximum) for each transaction violation, attorneys� fees, costs, punitive damages and a permanent injunction. By order entered Dec. 3, 2007, the district court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety but granted the motion to strike from the complaint plaintiff's request for injunctive relief. The Company then filed an answer to the complaint on Dec. 20, 2007. No discovery has been propounded on the plaintiff or the Company. On Feb. 11, 2008, the court granted the parties' stipulation to stay this case pending issuance of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on review of the order of a California federal district court denying class certification in a FACTA case. The suit is "Ramirez v. MGM Mirage, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv- 00326-PMP-PAL," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Judge Philip M. Pro presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Randal D. Shimon, Esq. (randy@shimon-lovaas.com) Shimon & Lovaas, APC 3016 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 210 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Phone: 702-388-1011 Fax: 702-387-1011 Representing the defendants is: Patrick G. Byrne, Esq. (pbyrne@swlaw.com) Snell & Wilmer 3883 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 1100 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Phone: 702-784-5201 Fax: 702-784-5252 NISOURCE INC: W.Va. "Stand Energy" Suit Still in Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------- Discovery continues in a purported class action pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia that alleges certain "select shippers," including certain subsidiaries and affiliates of NiSource, Inc., have engaged in an "illegal gas scheme" that constituted a breach of contract and violated state law. Initially, on July 14, 2004, Stand Energy Corp. filed a complaint with the Kanawha County Court in West Virginia styled, "Stand Energy Corp., et al. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., et al." The complaint contains allegations against various NiSource subsidiaries and affiliates, including Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf, and asserts that those companies and certain "select shippers" engaged in an "illegal gas scheme" that constituted a breach of contract and violated state law. The "illegal gas scheme" complained of by the plaintiffs relates to the Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf gas imbalance transactions that were the subject of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission enforcement staff investigation and subsequent settlement approved in October 2000. Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf filed a notice of removal with the U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia on Aug. 13, 2004, and a motion to dismiss on Sept. 10, 2004. In October 2004, however, the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which clarified the identity of some of the "select shipper" defendants and added a federal antitrust cause of action. On Jan. 6, 2005, the court denied the Columbia companies' motion to strike the complaint and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend. To address the issues raised in the Second Amended Complaint, the Columbia companies revised their briefs in support of their previously filed motions to dismiss. In June 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part the Columbia companies' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Columbia companies have filed an answer to the Second Amended Complaint. One of the plaintiffs, Atlantigas Corp., was dismissed from the case, and has appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals. On Dec. 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the case as a class action. The court has ordered for discovery to proceed on the issue of class certification as well as the merits of the case. The company reported no development in the matter in its March 5, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Stand Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00867," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Judge Robert C. Chambers presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Joshua I. Barrett, Esq. Rudolph L. DiTrapano, Esq. Molly McGinley Han, Esq. Lonnie C. Simmons, Esq. Ditrapano Barrett & Dipiero 604 Virginia Street Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: 304/342-0133 Fax: 304 342-4605 Web site: http://www.ditrapanolaw.com/ - and - Robert C. Sanders, Esq. The Law Office of Robert C. Sanders 12051 Upper Marlboro Pike Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-2922 Phone: 301/574-3400 Fax: 301 574-2153 Representing the defendants are: Michael S. Becker, Esq. (mbecker@kirkland.com) Kirkland & Ellis Suite 1200, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202/879-5000 Fax: 202 879-5200 - and - John H. Tinney, Esq. (JackTinney@tinneylawfirm.com) The Tinney Law Firm P. O. Box 3752 Charleston, WV 25337-3752 Phone: 304/720-3310 Fax: 304/720-3315. NISOURCE INC: Appeals $404.3M Judgment in W.Va. Royalties Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- NiSource, Inc., appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals a $404.3-million judgment handed out by a West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County jury in the purported class action, "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.," according to its March 5, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in early 2003 against Columbia Natural Resources, alleging that CNR underpaid royalties on gas produced on their land by improperly deducting post- production costs and not paying a fair value for the gas. They also claimed that the defendants fraudulently concealed the deduction of post-production charges. In December 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to add NiSource, Inc., and Columbia Energy Group as defendants. CNR is a former NiSource subsidiary, which was sold in 2003. Although NiSource sold CNR in 2003, NiSource remains obligated to manage this litigation and for the majority of any damages ultimately awarded to the plaintiffs. On Jan. 27, 2007, the jury hearing the case returned a verdict against all defendants in the amount of $404.3 million. This amount is comprised of $134.3 million in compensatory damages and $270 million in punitive damages. On Sept. 25, 2007, the Court issued an order which appears to also to be its final appealable judgment. In January 2008, the defendants filed their petition for appeal, and will be filing an amended petition in March 2008, with the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which may or may not accept the appeal. The suit is "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.," filed with the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County, Judge Thomas Evans, III, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Marvin Masters, Esq. 181 Summers Street Charleston, West Virginia 25301 Phone: 304-342-3106 Fax: 304-342-3189 Representing the defendants is: Timothy Miller, Esq. 400 Fifth Third Center, 700 Virginia St., P.O. Box 1791 Charleston, West Virginia 25326 Phone: 304-344-5800 Fax: 304-344-9566 NISOURCE INC: Ky. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in Royalties Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has yet to rule on motions seeking dismissal of the purported class action, "John Thacker, et al. v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.," which names NiSource, Inc., as a defendant. On Feb. 8, 2007, John Thacker filed the purported class action, alleging that Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., failed to pay royalty owners the correct amounts pursuant to the provisions of their oil and gas leases covering real property located within the state of Kentucky. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 19, 2007, which, among other things, added NiSource, Inc., as a defendant. All of the defendants' motions to dismiss have been fully briefed and await a ruling by the court. The company reported no development in the matter in its March 5, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Thacker v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Case No. 7:07-cv-00026-GFVT," filed with the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Thomas E. Meng, Esq. (tmeng@stites.com) Stites & Harbison PLLC 250 W. Main Street, 2300 Lexington Financial Center Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: 859-226-2300 Fax: 859-425-7902 Representing the defendants are: Anne Adams Chesnut, Esq. (aac@gdm.com) Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald, PLLC 300 W. Vine Street Suite 1100 Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: 859-288-4613 Fax: 859-255-2742 - and - Nora Clevenger Price, Esq. (pricenc@steptoe-johnson.com) Steptoe & Johnson 1000 Fifth Avenue Suite 250 P.O. Box 2195 Huntington, WV 25722-2195 Phone: 304-522-8290 Fax: 304-526-8089 ORBITZ LLC: Plaintiff in Taxes, Fees Litigation Appeals Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in the matter, "In re Orbitz Taxes and Fees Litigation," are appealing the summary judgment by an Illinois court, which favored the defendants. On May 24, 2005, a consolidated class action complaint, entitled, "In re Orbitz Taxes and Fees Litigation," was filed with the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against Orbitz, LLC; Orbitz, Inc.; and Cendant, Inc. This case purports to be a national class action brought by persons who paid a fee in connection with paying for a hotel room through the Orbitz Web site from March 19, 2003, to the present. The plaintiff also seeks actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs, interest and penalties on behalf of the purported class. On May 31, 2006, the Court dismissed Cendant from the case, and dismissed all of the claims except for the plaintiff's Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act claim. On May 30, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. This most recent complaint only asserts a claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and names only one class representative, an Illinois resident. The plaintiff alleges that Orbitz failed to provide proper disclosures to consumers relating to fees charged by Orbitz when the consumer is booking a hotel room through the Orbitz website. Orbitz is also alleged to have misled consumers by failing to break out the exact amount of the service fee in the taxes and fees line displayed to consumers before the booking is complete. On June 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order certifying the action as a nationwide class action. On that same date, Orbitz filed a motion for summary judgment. At the close of the Dec. 19, 2007 hearing on both motions, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification and granted summary judgment in favor of Orbitz. On Jan. 17, 2008, the plaintiff filed its Notice of Appeal, according to the company's March 21, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.orbitz.com/-- is a global online travel company that uses technology to enable leisure and business travelers to research, plan and book a range of travel products. The Company owns and operates a portfolio of consumer brands that includes Orbitz, CheapTickets, ebookers, HotelClub, RatesToGo and the Away Network and corporate travel brands, Orbitz for Business and Travelport for Business. It provides customers with access to a set of travel products, including air, hotels, vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, travel insurance and destination services from over 80,000 suppliers worldwide. ORBITZ LLC: Still Faces Calif. Taxes/Fees Assessment Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Orbitz, LLC, remains a defendant in the purported class action, "Ronald Bush, et al. v. CheapTickets, Inc., et al.," which was filed with the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The suit was filed on Feb. 17, 2005, on behalf of all Californians who were assessed a "Taxes/Fees" charge when paying for a hotel, motel, or resort room through the defendants. Specifically, the defendants are a number of Internet travel companies, including Trip Network, Inc. (d/b/a Cheaptickets.com); Cendant Corp.; Orbitz, Inc.; and Orbitz. The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the California Business and Professions Code, conversion, and imposition of a constructive trust. Their claims are based on allegations that the defendants charged for taxes that were not legitimate in that they were not required by the taxing authorities to be collected. The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants failed to disclose this improper practice. They seek an order certifying the action as a class action, actual damages, punitive damages, restitution and disgorgement, attorneys' fees, costs, interest, and injunctive relief. On July 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims under the California Business and Professions Code and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The company reported no development in the matter in its March 21, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.orbitz.com/-- is a global online travel company that uses technology to enable leisure and business travelers to research, plan and book a range of travel products. The Company owns and operates a portfolio of consumer brands that includes Orbitz, CheapTickets, ebookers, HotelClub, RatesToGo and the Away Network and corporate travel brands, Orbitz for Business and Travelport for Business. It provides customers with access to a set of travel products, including air, hotels, vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, travel insurance and destination services from over 80,000 suppliers worldwide. ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Units Face Several Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certain of subsidiaries and affiliates of Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., including Orbitz, Inc.; Orbitz, LLC; Trip Network, Inc. (d/b/a CheapTickets); Travelport Americas, LLC (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.); and Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com), are parties to various cases brought by municipalities and other governmental entities involving hotel occupancy taxes and the company's merchant hotel business model. Some of the cases are purported class actions and most of the cases were brought simultaneously against other Internet travel companies, including Expedia, Travelocity and Priceline. The cases allege, among other things, that we violated the jurisdictions' hotel occupancy tax ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under the ordinance. While not identical in their allegations, the cases generally assert similar claims, including violations of local or state occupancy tax ordinances, violations of consumer protection ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a constructive trust, demand for a legal or equitable accounting, injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and in some cases, civil conspiracy. The plaintiffs seek relief in a variety of forms, including: declaratory judgment, full accounting of monies owed, imposition of a constructive trust, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement, restitution, interest, penalties and costs, attorneys' fees, and where a class action has been claimed, an order certifying the action as a class action. Some of the purported class actions pending against the company were filed by: -- City of Los Angeles, on Dec. 30, 2004, with the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles; -- City of Fairview Heights, on Oct. 5, 2005, with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois; -- City of Rome, et al., on Nov. 18, 2005, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; -- Pitt County, North Carolina, on Dec. 1, 2005, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; -- City of San Antonio, Texas, et al., on May 8, 2006, with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas; -- Lake County Convention and Visitor Bureau and Marshall County, Indiana, on June 12, 2006, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana; -- Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, on Sept. 21, 2006, with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky; -- County of Nassau, New York, on Oct. 24, 2006, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; -- City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, on Feb. 28, 2007, with the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas; -- City of Jefferson, Missouri, on June 27, 2007, with the 19th Judicial Circuit Court, Cole County, Missouri; -- City of Oakland, California, on June 29, 2007, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and -- City of Gallup, New Mexico, on July 6, 2007, with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The company reported no development in the cases in its March 21, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.orbitz.com/-- is a global online travel company that uses technology to enable leisure and business travelers to research, plan and book a range of travel products. The Company owns and operates a portfolio of consumer brands that includes Orbitz, CheapTickets, ebookers, HotelClub, RatesToGo and the Away Network and corporate travel brands, Orbitz for Business and Travelport for Business. It provides customers with access to a set of travel products, including air, hotels, vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, travel insurance and destination services from over 80,000 suppliers worldwide. PHH CORP: N.J Securities Fraud Lawsuits Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in several purported securities fraud class actions that were filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against PHH Corp. have voluntarily dismissed their respective cases. In March and April 2006, several class actions were filed against the company, its chief executive officer and its former chief financial officer with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of all persons who purchased the company's common stock during certain time periods beginning March 15, 2005, in one case and May 12, 2005, in the other cases, and ending March 1, 2006. They allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Each of these purported class actions has since been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs, 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 first identified complaint is "Monica Salim, et al. v. PHH Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-01302," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiff firms in this or similar case: Baron & Budd, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX, 75219 Phone: 1800-946-9646 e-mail: info@baronandbudd.com Brodsky & Smith, LLC 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39 Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 Phone: 610.668.7987 Fax: 610-660-0450 e-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com Federman & Sherwood 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720 Oklahoma City, OK, 73102 Phone: 405-235-1560 e-mail: wfederman@aol.com - and - Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. 261 Old York Road, Suite 423 Jenkintown, PA, 19046 Phone: 215.886.1900 e-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net PHH CORP: Md. Court Nixes Amended Complaint Over $1.8BB Buyout -------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland dismissed the consolidated amended complaint in a purported class action opposing the sale of PHH Corp. to General Electric Capital Corp. and The Blackstone Group. Following the announcement of the $1.8-billion buyout in March 2007, two purported class actions were filed against the company and each member of its Board of Directors with the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, the first of these actions also named GE and Blackstone. The plaintiffs seek to represent an alleged class consisting of all persons (other than the Company's officers and Directors and their affiliates) holding the Company's Common stock. In support of their request for injunctive and other relief, the plaintiffs allege that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize stockholder value in approving the transaction. On April 5, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the first filed complaint. On April 10, 2007, the claims against Blackstone were dismissed without prejudice. On May 11, 2007, the Court consolidated the two cases into one action. On July 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The new pleading did not name GE or Blackstone as defendants. It essentially repeated the allegations previously made against the members of the company's Board of Directors and added allegations that the disclosures made in the preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on June 18, 2007 omitted certain material facts. On Aug. 7, 2007, the Court dismissed the consolidated amended complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs were seeking to assert their claims directly, whereas, as a matter of Maryland law, claims that directors have breached their fiduciary duties can only be asserted by a stockholder derivatively. 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. PHH Corp. -- http://www.phh.com-- is an outsource provider of mortgage and fleet management services. The Company operates in three segments: Mortgage Production, Mortgage Servicing and Fleet Management Services. PHILADELPHIA STOCK EXCHANGE: Shareholder Suit Settlement Okayed --------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Supreme Court, on March 27, 2008, approved a settlement deal in a shareholder lawsuit against the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, clearing the way for the exchange's acquisition by Nasdaq OMX Group Inc., Thomson Financial reports. The report recalls that in 2006, after Philadelphia Stock Exchange -- the nation's oldest stock exchange -- sold a major stake to six Wall Street firms, shareholders filed suit, saying the deal diluted their ownership interests. The class-action lawsuit, filed with Delaware's Court of Chancery, also named as defendants Citigroup Inc. (NYSE:C), Merrill Lynch (NYSE:MER) (OOTC:MERIZ), Credit Suisse First Boston, Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS), UBS Securities (NYSE:UBS), and Citadel Derivatives Group. In the lawsuit, shareholders said they were not adequately compensated for the deal. Thomson Financial relates that the terms of the June 2007 settlement were not disclosed. In November last year, Nasdaq agreed to buy the exchange for $652 million. The Philadelphia Stock Exchange, the report notes, is the nation's third largest options market. PXRE GROUP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- PXRE Group, Ltd. -- now known as Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. -- continues to face a consolidated securities fraud class action pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Initially, several class actions were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company; Jeffrey Radke, the company's chief executive officer; and John Modin, the company's former chief financial officer. These suits were brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of investors who purchased the publicly traded securities of PXRE between July 28, 2005, and Feb. 16, 2006. Each of the class action complaints asserts nearly identical claims and alleges that during the purported class period certain PXRE executives made a series of materially false and misleading statements or omissions about PXRE's business, prospects and operations, thereby causing investors to purchase PXRE's securities at artificially inflated prices, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the 1934 Act. The class action complaints allege, among other things, that the company failed to disclose and misrepresented these material adverse facts: -- the full impact on PXRE's business of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma; -- the doubling of PXRE's cost of the 2005 Hurricanes to an estimated $758 million to $788 million; and -- the magnitude of the loss to PXRE and PXRE's potential loss of its financial-strength and credit ratings from A.M. Best. Furthermore, the complaints allege, based on the foregoing asserted facts, that PXRE's statements with respect to its loss estimates for the 2005 hurricane season lacked any reasonable basis. The class actions seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as other forms of relief. Pursuant to an opinion and order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dated March 30, 2007, these lawsuits have been consolidated into one proceeding. Argo Group reported no development in the matter in its March 5, 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 PXRE Group, Ltd. Securities Litigation, case No. 1:06-cv-03410-KMK," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Kenneth M. Karas presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. (jalieberman@pomlaw.com) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212)-661-1100 Fax: (212)-661-8665 - and - Bradley Peter Dyer, Esq. (BPDyer@SSBNY.com) Stull Stull & Brody 6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212 687-7230 Fax: 212 490-2022 Representing the defendants is: Bruce Domenick Angiolillo, Esq. (bangiolillo@stblaw.com) Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-455-2000 Fax: 212-455-2502 RYLAND HOMES: Homeowners to Get $1.8M Award in Water-Damage Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hundreds of Ryland Homes homeowners who sued over water-damage claims would share $1.85 million if a preliminary settlement gets final approval, according to Orlando Sentinel. Meanwhile, attorneys for the homeowners will receive $1.1 million, plus $300,000 for costs. The report says that class members with the 45 largest claims would share up to $450,000, or up to $10,000 each. Two hundred people with the next-largest claims would share up to $700,000, or $3,500 each. Another $700,000 is reserved for the lowest level of claimants, who stand to gain up to $1,400 each. Orlando Sentinel recounts that in March 2005, homeowners sued the Ryland Group, claiming that their houses were damaged during the 2004 hurricanes because water leaked through the exterior finish. Ryland, however, did not admit liability. The class-action suit involves single-family houses built between 2000 and 2005. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 25, 2006, William Drier, a retired appellate judge from New Jersey, certified the class action against Ryland Homes, which action includes approximately 6,000 homes Ryland built across Florida since January 2000. The plaintiffs are represented by: Francis X. Rapprich, Esq. (frapprich@fisherlawfirm.com) Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Dickson, Talley & Dunlap, PA, Phone: +1-407-843-2111 Gary W. Jackson, Esq. (gjackson@thejacksonlawgroup.com) The Jackson Law Group Phone: +1-704-377-6680 - and - William Dixon Robertson III, Esq. (Dixon.robertson@wdrlaw.com) Phone: +1-803-988-0040 SECURE COMPUTING: Seeks Nixing of Calif. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Secure Computing Corp. and certain directors and officers of the company are seeking for the dismissal of an amended securities fraud class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's March 5, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit was filed against the company by Rosenbaum Capital, LLC, on Jan. 19, 2007. The alleged plaintiff class includes persons who acquired the company's stock between May 4, 2006, through July 11, 2006. Rosenbaum Capital was appointed lead plaintiff in the action, and thus filed an amended complaint on July 2, 2007. The amended complaint alleges generally that the defendants made false and misleading statements about our business condition and prospects for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. It seeks unspecified monetary damages. After the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, the defendants filed motions to dismiss. Those motions are fully briefed, and the parties are awaiting the court's decision. The suit is "Rosenbaum Capital, LLC v. McNulty et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00392-SC," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Samuel Conti. Representing the plaintiff is: Elizabeth C. Guarnieri, Esq. (ecg@classcounsel.com) Green Welling, LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2750 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-477-6700 Fax: 415-477-6710 Representing the defendants is: Michael L. Charlson, Esq. (michael.charlson@hellerehrman.com) Heller Ehrman LLP 275 Middlefield Road Menlo Park, CA 94025-3506 Phone: 650/324-7000 Fax: 650 324-0638 STATION CASINOS: Nev. Court Approves Shareholder Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Eight Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada gave final approval to the proposed settlement in the matter, "In re Station Casinos Shareholder Litigation, Master Case No. A- 532367," which is a lawsuit relating to Station Casinos, Inc.'s definitive merger agreement with Fertitta Colony Partners, LLC. Merger Agreement On Dec. 4, 2006, Station Casinos announced that it received a proposal from Fertitta Colony to acquire all of its outstanding common stock for $82 per share in cash. In February 2007, Station Casinos entered into a definitive merger agreement with Fertitta Colony, pursuant to which Fertitta agreed to purchase all of the company's outstanding common stock for $90 per share in cash. Fertitta Colony is a company formed by Frank J. Fertitta III, chairman and chief executive officer of Station; Lorenzo J. Fertitta, vice chairman and president of Station; and Colony Capital Acquisitions, LLC, an affiliate of Colony Capital, LLC. Initial Lawsuits On Dec. 4, 2006, Helen Roessler filed a purported class action complaint with the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, Case No. A532367, against the company, its Board of Directors, and Fertitta Colony. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and challenges the proposed transaction as inadequate and unfair to the company's public stockholders. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit and an injunction against the proposed transaction. Three similar putative class actions were subsequently filed with the District Court: -- "Goldman v. Station Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No. A532395, filed on Dec. 4, 2006;" -- "Traynor v. Station Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No. A532407, filed on Dec 4, 2006;" and -- "Filhaber v. Station Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No. A532499, filed on Dec. 5, 2006." Griffiths Litigation On Jan. 2, 2007, David Griffiths filed a purported class action complaint with the District Court against the company, its Board of Directors, Delise F. Sartini, Blake L. Sartini, Colony Capital LLC, Colony Capital Acquisitions LLC, and FCP. The complaint alleges that the company's Board breached its fiduciary duties and that the remaining defendants aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, an injunction against the proposed transaction, declaratory relief, the imposition of a constructive trust upon the defendants, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs. Consolidation of Initial Cases On Jan. 4, 2007, the District Court consolidated the Initial Lawsuits under the heading, "In Re Station Casino's Shareholder Litigation," and appointed lead counsel and liason counsel in connection therewith. On Jan. 29, 2007, Mr. Griffiths filed a motion to vacate the District Court's order appointing lead counsel and to establish a briefing schedule on motions to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel. At the March 5, 2007 hearing on this motion, Mr. Griffiths' motion was denied. Class and Derivative Suit On Feb. 14, 2007, the West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund filed a purported class and derivative action complaint with the District Court against the company's Board of Directors, Thomas J. Barrack, Jr., Delise Sartini, Blake Sartini, Colony Capital, Colony Acquisitions, FCP, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, and German American Capital Corp. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company breached its fiduciary duties and the remaining defendants aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the proposed transaction. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, an injunction against the proposed transaction unless and until the company adopts and implements a fair sale process, the disclosure of all material information to the company's stockholders, the imposition of a constructive trust upon the defendants, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs. Consolidation of All Cases All of the above-referenced actions have been consolidated into a single action under the heading, "In re Station Casinos Shareholder Litigation, Master Case No. A-532367," Dept. No. 13, District Court, Clark County, Nevada. On June 1, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint with the District Court against Station, Station's directors, Frank J. Fertitta III, Lorenzo J. Fertitta, Blake L. Sartini and Delise F. Sartini, Colony, Colony Acquisitions and FCP. The Amended Complaint alleges that Station's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Station and its stockholders as follows: (1) The defendants failed to engage in a fair process that would maximize value to Station's stockholders because the defendants put into place covenants in Station's bond indentures that could, under certain circumstances: -- require a purchaser of Station not affiliated with Frank J. Fertitta III and Lorenzo J. Fertitta to redeem those bonds; -- put into place a stockholder rights plan and a staggered board; -- adopted a supermajority voting requirement in connection with any merger transaction and imposed a $160 million termination fee on Station. (2) The process being used to sell Station is wrongful, unfair and harmful and is an attempt by the defendants to aggrandize their personal and financial positions. It does not reflect the true inherent value of Station that was known only to the defendants. This value, which far exceeds the $90.00 per share merger consideration, includes the returns from Red Rock, the Company's Native American casino-management contracts and the expected returns from Aliante Station and other expansion projects. (3) The directors have not and are not exercising independent business judgment and have acted and are acting to the detriment of the plaintiff class. In particular, the members of the Special Committee are not independent of Frank J. Fertitta III and Lorenzo J. Fertitta, were handpicked for Station's Board of Directors by Frank J. Fertitta III and Lorenzo J. Fertitta, are loyal and beholden to them and will do what Frank J. Fertitta III and Lorenzo J. Fertitta tell them to do. The Special Committee failed to properly shop Station, artificially depressing the value of Station's stock, thereby depriving plaintiffs of the right to receive the maximum value for their shares. They are taking steps to avoid competitive bidding, to cap the price of Station stock and to give FCP and other members of the buying group an unfair advantage by, among other things, failing to solicit other potential acquirers or alternative transactions. (4) The Company's preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on May 7, 2007 misrepresented material facts and omits material information necessary for stockholders to make an informed decision concerning the transaction because, in part, it did not discuss whether the defendants considered alternative transaction forms, nor did it properly detail the sale process. (5) The Preliminary Proxy Statement did not detail whether Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., financial advisor to the Special Committee, performed any sensitivity studies or whether it valued Station assuming Station would be split into separate operating and holding companies. The Preliminary Proxy Statement also failed to detail the proper valuation for Station, or the basis for the valuation. In addition, Bear Stearns is in a conflict position because it owns 36,639 shares of Station common stock. The Amended Complaint also alleges that Frank J. Fertitta III, Lorenzo J. Fertitta, Blake L. Sartini, Delise F. Sartini, FCP, Colony and Colony Acquisitions knowingly aided and abetted the Company's directors in breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company's public stockholders. The Amended Complaint seeks an injunction preliminarily and permanently enjoining the defendants from proceeding with, consummating or closing the proposed merger transaction, and demands that the plaintiffs be awarded their costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. Settlement In November 2007, in order to resolve the litigation and avoid further cost and delay, the Company and the individual defendants, without admitting any wrongdoing, entered into a global stipulation of settlement with plaintiffs. Pursuant to the proposed settlement, the Company made supplemental disclosures in its Definitive Proxy Statement filed with the SEC on July 9, 2007, to address certain of the disclosure claims raised in the Consolidated Action. As part of the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs' counsel applied to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $1.9 million, inclusive of costs and expenses. The Company agreed to pay the fees and expenses on behalf of all plaintiffs as awarded by the court in an amount up to $1.9 million. On Dec. 11, 2007, the District Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement. Thereafter, notice of the Proposed Settlement was disseminated to more than 31,000 former shareholders of Station and published in the Wall Street Journal (national edition), the Los Angeles Times and the Las Vegas Review Journal. None of the former shareholders objected to the terms of the Proposed Settlement. Consequently, at a hearing on Feb. 11, 2008, Judge Mark R. Denton approved the proposed settlement of the consolidated action on a final basis, according to the company's March 5, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Station Casinos, Inc. -- http://www.stationcasinos.com/-- is a gaming and entertainment company that owns and operates nine major hotel/casino properties under the Station and Fiesta brand names and eight smaller casino properties, in the Las Vegas metropolitan area, as well as manages a casino for a Native American tribe. The Company owns and operates Palace Station Hotel & Casino (Palace Station), Boulder Station Hotel & Casino (Boulder Station), Texas Station Gambling Hall & Hotel (Texas Station), Sunset Station Hotel & Casino (Sunset Station), Santa Fe Station Hotel & Casino (Santa Fe Station), Red Rock Casino Resort Spa (Red Rock), Fiesta Rancho Casino Hotel (Fiesta Rancho), Fiesta Henderson Casino Hotel (Fiesta Henderson), Wild Wild West Gambling Hall & Hotel (Wild Wild West), Wildfire Casino (Wildfire), Magic Star Casino (Magic Star), Gold Rush Casino (Gold Rush) and Lake Mead Casino (Lake Mead Lounge). STATION CASINOS: Faces "Luckevich" Labor-Related Suit in Nevada --------------------------------------------------------------- Station Casinos, Inc., is facing a labor-related class action lawsuit that was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, according to the company's March 5, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On Feb. 4, 2008, Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr filed the purported class action complaint, Case No. CV-00141, against the Company. The plaintiffs are all former employees of the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company: -- failed to pay its employees for all hours worked, -- failed to pay overtime, -- failed to timely pay wages, and -- unlawfully converted certain earned wages. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000, punitive damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel. The suit is "Josh Lukevich v. Station Casinos, Inc., Case No. 2:08-cv-00141-LRH-LRL," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Judge Larry R. Hicks, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Kelly McInerney, Esq. (kelly@mcinerneylaw.net) McInerney & Jones 9460 Double R Blvd. Suite 103 Reno, NV 89521 Phone: (775) 853-6440 Fax: (775) 853-6445 - and - Matthew Righetti, Esq. (matt@righettilaw.com) Righetti Law Firm, P.C. 456 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 983-0900 Fax: (415) 397-9005 Representing the defendants is: Joanna S. Kishner, Esq. (joanna.kishner@dlapiper.com) DLA Piper US LLP 3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy Suite 400 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Phone: 702-677-3900 Fax: 702-737-1612 STEWART INFORMATION: Faces N.Y. Title Insurance Antitrust Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Stewart Information Services Corp. is facing several purported antitrust class action suits in New York over the price of title insurance, 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. In February 2008, several lawsuits, seeking class action status, were filed against the company's New York underwriters and several of its competitors. These suits allege that the company and its competitors conspired to fix title insurance prices in New York through membership in a rating bureau. In addition, certain of the lawsuits also allege that the prices charged by title insurers constituted overcharges in violation of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Stewart Information Services Corp. -- http://www.stewart.com-- is a real estate information, title insurance and transaction management company. Its two main operating segments of business are title insurance-related services and real estate information (REI). It provides title insurance and related information services required for settlement by the real estate and mortgage industries through more than 9,500 policy-issuing offices and agencies in the U.S. and international markets. Stewart also provides post-closing lender services, automated county clerk land records, property ownership mapping, geographic information systems, property information reports, document preparation, background checks and expertise in tax-deferred exchanges. Its international division delivers products and services protecting and promoting private land ownership worldwide. Stewart's primary international operations are in Canada, the U.K., Central Europe, Mexico, Central America and Australia. WAL-MART CORP: Faces S.C. Suit Over Unfair Treatment of Workers --------------------------------------------------------------- Wal-Mart Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit stemming from its alleged unfair and harsh treatment of hourly employees, Alfonso Coley writes for Associated Content. The report says that the lawsuit did not come as a surprise to many associates who are employed at Wal-Mart in the South Carolina region or to the workers who have already left the company. According to Associated Content, there have been many noted cases of associates harassed while on their meal breaks and while taking their 15-minute breaks. Mr. Coley relates that the civil class action suit is comprised of two parts, one involving the company's unfair practice of having associates work off the clock without compensation, and the other involving hourly associates working past their earned meal break. Many hourly associates have been subjected to this practice, the article points out. It recounts that in Pennsylvania, Wal-Mart hourly associates won a class action lawsuit in 2007, where The associates were awarded over $60 million in compensation. Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Vacates, Remands Bethel Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Kentucky vacated and remanded Bethel Fellowship, Inc.'s lawsuit, which involved asbestos abatement, against the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet. The case is styled Bethel Fellowship, Inc. (d/b/a Bethel Fellowship Christian Academy), Appellant, v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet, Appellee. Judges Henry, Stumbo, and Taylor entered judgment of Case No. 2006-CA-002423-MR on March 14, 2008. The Cabinet issued Bethel a notice of violation on Oct. 24, 2002, for failing to abate asbestos found in a school that it operated in Breckinridge County, Ky. Bethel failed to comply with the notice, and the Cabinet thereafter filed an administrative complaint against Bethel. Eventually, the secretary of the Cabinet issued an amended final order on July 27, 2006. It directed Bethel to correct all violations contained in the notice of violation and fined Bethel a civil penalty of US$10,000. On Aug. 23, 2006, Bethel filed an action in the Franklin Circuit Court seeking review of the Cabinet's decision. Bethel filed a document entitled "Complaint and Petition for Review" (complaint) and requested the Franklin Circuit Court Clerk to serve the complaint on Greg Stumbo, the Kentucky Attorney General, by certified mail. The clerk complied and mailed the complaint to the office of the Attorney General, which was received on Aug. 24, 2006. On Sept. 12, 2006, the Cabinet filed a motion to dismiss claiming that Bethel failed to serve the secretary of the Cabinet as mandated by Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 224.10-470. By order entered Nov. 7, 2006, the circuit court dismissed the instant action. Bethel contended the circuit court committed error by dismissing its action. Bethel argued that it substantially complied with the requirements of KRS 224.10-470 by serving the Attorney General and that the circuit court erred by concluding that strict compliance was required. Bethel brought this appeal from the Nov. 7, 2006 order of the circuit court dismissing its action seeking review of an adverse decision of the Cabinet. The Appeals Court viewed Bethel's remaining contentions to be moot or without merit. The order of the Franklin Circuit Court was vacated and this cause was remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Ronald E. Hines, Elizabethtown, Ky., represented Bethel Fellowship Christian Academy. Randall S. Royer, Jacquelyn A. Quarles, Frankfort, Ky., represented Commonwealth of Kentucky, Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenn. Court Favors Defendants in Woody Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Tennessee stated that the Circuit Court for Hamilton County erred in denying defendants' motions for summary judgment in an asbestos-related action filed by Wayne Woody and his wife Rebecca Woody. The case is styled Rebecca Woody v. A.W. Chesterton Company et al. Judges Andy D. Bennett, Herschel P. Franks, and Jon Kerry Blackwood entered judgment of Case No. M2007-01210-COA-R9-CV on March 13, 2008. Mr. Woody, a member of the Asbestos and Insulators Workers Union, and Mrs. Woody filed suit in federal district court in June 1979 against 25 corporations that allegedly "caused asbestos and asbestos insulation materials to be placed in the stream of interstate commerce." Mr. Woody had been diagnosed with asbestosis. He and Mrs. Woody sought damages for his asbestos-related illness, which they alleged to be caused by occupational exposure to the defendants' asbestos and insulation materials. They were represented by counsel and settled the lawsuit in September 1980 for a lump sum payment of US$35,000. As part of the settlement, Mr. Woody and his wife signed a Complete Release of All Claims, the effect of which is at issue in the present case. In September 2006, Mr. Woody was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma. The present lawsuit was filed by Mr. and Mrs. Woody in November 2006 shortly before his death as a result of mesothelioma. The complaint named 37 defendant corporations; only one of the corporations, CertainTeed Corporation, was a party to the 1979 lawsuit. According to the complaint, Mr. Woody was exposed, in both occupational and non-occupational settings, to "asbestos related materials and other asbestos containing products mined, or manufactured, processed, imported, converted, compounded, sold, distributed or installed" by the defendants. As a result of these exposures, the complaint alleges, Mr. Woody developed mesothelioma. Although the complaint does not specify exposure dates, Mr. Woody continued to work as an insulator after signing the 1980 release, and the plaintiff's claims are broad enough to include post-release exposures. Causes of action for negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, civil conspiracy, and loss of consortium are asserted. Mrs. Woody filed an amended complaint after her husband's death substituting herself as plaintiff, individually and as the surviving spouse of Wayne Woody. After filing answers pleading release as a defense, 27 of the defendants either filed or joined in motions for summary judgment, asserting that the 1980 release barred all of the Woodys' claims. On April 12, 2007, the trial court entered an order ruling on 21 motions for summary judgment. The court denied the other 20 motions for summary judgment based on its conclusion that "the prior release does not bar the Plaintiff's later claim based upon subsequently diagnosed mesothelioma." In agreed orders entered on May 7, 2007, the same ruling was applied to the other summary judgment motions. The Appeals Court granted the defendants' application for interlocutory appeal. In this interlocutory appeal, the Appeals Court was asked to determine whether the trial court erred in denying the defendants' motions for summary judgment. In conclusion, the 1980 release covered all claims arising out of Mr. Woody's exposure to asbestos before the signing of the release; this includes conditions, including mesothelioma, discovered after the signing of the release that resulted from pre-release asbestos exposure. The 1980 release did not, however, bar any claims related to asbestos exposure that occurred after the signing of the release. The Appeals Court has concluded that, except as to any claims arising from post-release asbestos exposure, the trial court erred in denying the motions for summary judgment. Dwight E. Tarwater, Thomas A. Bickers, John W. Elder, and Joshua R. Walker, Knoxville, Tenn., represented Bayer CropScience, Inc., CertainTeed Corporation, General Electric Company, Georgia-Pacific LLC, Industrial Holdings Corporation, and Union Carbide Corporation. Michael J. King and M. Denise Moretz, Knoxville, Tenn., represented National Service Industries, Inc., Mobil Corporation, and CBS Corporation. Jimmy F. Rodgers, Jr., Chattanooga, Tenn.; John E. "Rett" Guerry, III, and Robert J. Klug, Sr., Mt. Pleasant, S.C., represented Rebecca Woody. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bankruptcy Court to Issue Ruling on Sommer --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division, is to issue an order on Debtors Gary W. Sommer and Deborah L. Sommer's bankruptcy action, which involves asbestos. The case is styled In re Gary W. Sommer and Deborah L. Sommer, Debtors. Bankruptcy Judge Russ Kending entered judgment of Case No. 05- 67284 on March 14, 2008. The Sommers filed a joint Chapter 7 petition on Oct. 10, 2005. Prior to the filing, Mr. Sommer had been diagnosed with lung cancer. The Sommers received a discharge on Jan. 25, 2006. On Aug. 3, 2006, Mr. Sommer passed away, presumably as a result of asbestos- related lung cancer. Following Mr. Sommer's death, a probate case was opened. The probate estate initiated a personal injury and wrongful death suit and filed claims with multiple asbestos manufacturers. At the time of the bankruptcy filing, the actions and claims had not been filed and thus were not included in the Sommers' schedule of personal property, nor were any exemptions claimed. One of the asbestos claims was filed against the Manville Bankruptcy Trust. Manville offered to settle for US$2,000. According to chapter 7 trustee Anthony J. DeGirolamo, after the deduction of attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and fiduciary fees, US$982.02 remains for the estate, payable in a one-time lump sum payment. Mr. DeGirolamo sought Court approval of the proposed settlement and Mrs. Sommer objected. In this case, Mr. Sommer's asbestos exposure, leading to his development of lung cancer, was the prepetition providing the foundation for the wrongful death claim. As a result, the proceeds of the wrongful death claim were property of the estate. However, wrongful death proceeds may be exemptible under Ohio law. If the proceeds are exempt, Trustee's motion to compromise the claim is not well-taken. The Court provided the parties with additional time for further review of this issue. An order shall be issued immediately. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Solutia Inc. Exited Bankruptcy Last Feb. 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Solutia Inc. and its 14 U.S. Subsidiaries, on Feb. 28, 2008, consummated its reorganization under chapter 11 of title 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2008. The reorganization was consummated through a series of transactions contemplated by the Debtors' Fifth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization, which was confirmed by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on Nov. 29, 2007, and the Plan became effective. In accordance with the Plan, Monsanto Company, the Company and SFC LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a subsidiary of the Company (Funding Co.), entered into the an Amended and Restated Monsanto Settlement Agreement (Monsanto Settlement Agreement), and the Company also entered into an indemnification agreement with Pharmacia Corporation (Pharmacia Indemnity Agreement). Under the Monsanto Settlement Agreement, Monsanto has agreed, as between Solutia and itself, to assume financial responsibility for all litigation relating to property damage, personal injury, products liability or premises liability or other damages related to asbestos, PCB, dioxin, benzene, vinyl chloride and other chemicals manufactured before the Solutia Spin-off. Monsanto's funding of the environmental remediation activities and the resulting claim against Solutia, which Monsanto has asserted, inclusive of the non-qualified, unliquidated and contingent components of their claim, are being resolved through the Plan. Solutia will remain responsible for the environmental liabilities at sites that it owned or operated after its spin- off from Pharmacia on Sept. 1, 1997. St. Louis-based Solutia Inc. manufactures and markets high- performance chemical and engineered products that are used in consumer and industrial applications. The Company has 29 manufacturing facilities, eight technical centers and over 30 sales offices globally, including 20 facilities in the U.S. The Company employs about 6,000 individuals. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairfax Has $1.39B Claims Reserves at Dec. --------------------------------------------------------------- Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited's provision for asbestos claims and allocated loss adjustment expenses was a gross of US$1.386 billion (a net of US$755.9 million) at Dec. 31, 2007, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2008. At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's provision for asbestos claims and ALAE was a gross of US$1.443 billion (a net of US$756.2 million). The Company is aware of 24 mesothelioma trials concluded in the U.S. in 2007: (a) 14 plaintiffs' verdicts (58 percent), (b) seven defense verdicts (29 percent), and (c) three hung juries/mistrials (13 percent). The range of plaintiffs' verdicts was US$700,000 to US$35 million and the average was US$9.9 million. California continues to be the most active and challenging venue for defendants. Seventeen out of the 24 known mesothelioma trials in 2007 occurred in California. The Company's other U.S.-based insurers have asbestos exposure related mostly to less prominent or "peripheral" defendants, including a mix of manufacturers, distributors, and installers of asbestos-containing products, as well as premises owners. Toronto, Canada-based Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited is a financial services holding company whose corporate objective is to build long term shareholder value by achieving a high rate of compound growth in mark-to-market book value per share over the long term. The Company has been under present management since September 1985. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navistar Int'l. Subject to Exposure Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Navistar International Corporation is subject to claims related to illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from component parts found in older vehicles, although some claims relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in the Company's facilities. The asbestos related cases are subject to a variety of factors in that other vehicle manufacturers and various component suppliers are also named defendants. Historically, the Company's actual damages paid out to claimants have not been material. Company Profile: Navistar International Corporation 4201 Winfield Rd. Warrenville, Ill. 60555 United States Navistar International Corporation is an international manufacturer of class 4 through 8 trucks and buses and diesel engines, and a provider of proprietary and aftermarket parts for all-makes of trucks and trailers. The Company operates in four industry segments: Truck, Engine, Parts, and Financial Services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Quaker Unit ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inactive Quaker Chemical Corporation subsidiary, which was acquired in 1978 and sold certain products containing asbestos, is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos exposure. The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other than the proceeds from insurance settlements received in late 2005, late 2006 and in the second quarter of 2007. To date, the overwhelming majority of these claims have been disposed of without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against the subsidiary. It is projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for these claims is about US$13,800,000 (excluding costs of defense). These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the aggregate limits of the policies. A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary has challenged the applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response to this challenge, two of the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in late 2005 for US$15 million and in the first quarter of 2007 for US$20 million. The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement are structured to be received over a four-year period with annual installments of US$5 million, the first of which was received early in the second quarter of 2007. During the third quarter of 2007, the subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier will pay 27 percent of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims for a minimum of five years beginning July 1, 2007. At the end of the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose to again pursue its claim against this insurer regarding the application of the policy limits. Conshohocken, Pa.-based Quaker Chemical Corporation develops, produces, and markets formulated chemical specialty products for various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications and, in addition, offers and markets chemical management services (CMS). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Cases Still Ongoing v. Joy Global ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joy Global Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to face legal matters that arise in the normal course of operations, the most prevalent of which relate to product liability (including asbestos-related and silicosis liability), employment and commercial matters. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2008. Milwaukee-based Joy Global Inc. is a manufacturer and servicer of high productivity mining equipment for the extraction of coal and other minerals and ores. Its equipment is used in major mining regions throughout the world to mine coal, copper, iron ore, oil sands and other minerals. The Company operates in two business segments: underground mining machinery (Joy Mining Machinery) and surface mining equipment (P&H Mining Equipment). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Actions Ongoing v. Allis-Chalmers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Since its reorganization under the U.S. federal bankruptcy laws in 1988, Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc. has been named in products liability lawsuits primarily resulting from the manufacture of products containing asbestos. In connection with the Company's bankruptcy, a special products liability trust was established and funded to address products liability claims. The Company said it believes that claims against it are barred by applicable bankruptcy law, and that the products liability trust will continue to be responsible for products liability claims. Since 1988, no court has ruled that the Company is responsible for products liability claims. The Company has not manufactured products containing asbestos since its reorganization in 1988. Houston-based Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc. provides services and equipment to oil and natural gas exploration and production companies throughout the United States and internationally, primarily in Argentina and Mexico. The Company operates in six sectors: Rental Services; International Drilling; Directional Drilling; Tubular Services; Underbalanced Drilling and Production Services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gorman-Rupp, Units Still Face Injury Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Gorman-Rupp Company and three of its subsidiaries, particularly Patterson Pump Company, continue to face asbestos- related litigation, typically as one of hundreds of co- defendants in a particular proceeding. Numerous business entities in the pump and fluid-handling industries, as well as a multitude of companies in many other industries, continue to be targeted in a series of lawsuits in several jurisdictions by various individuals seeking redress to claimed injury as a result of the entities' alleged use of asbestos in their products. The allegations in the lawsuits involving the Company and its subsidiaries are vague, general and speculative, and most cases have not advanced beyond the early stage of discovery. In certain situations, the plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed the Company and its subsidiaries from some of the lawsuits after the plaintiffs have acknowledged that there is no basis for their claims. In other situations, the Company and its subsidiaries have been dismissed from some of the lawsuits as a result of court rulings in favor of motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. In 11 cases, the Company and its subsidiaries have entered into nominal economic settlements recommended and paid for by insurers, coupled with dismissal of the lawsuits. Insurers of the Company have engaged legal counsel to represent the Company and its subsidiaries and to protect their interests. Based in Mansfield, Ohio, The Gorman-Rupp Company designs, manufactures and sells pumps and related equipment (pump and motor controls) for use in water, wastewater, construction, industrial, petroleum, original equipment, agriculture, fire protection, heating, ventilating and air conditioning (�HVAC�), military and other liquid-handling applications. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR's Leslie Unit Has 707 Cases at Dec. --------------------------------------------------------------- CIRCOR International, Inc. states that, as of Dec. 31, 2007, its subsidiary Leslie Controls, Inc. was a named defendant in about 707 active, unresolved asbestos-related claims filed in California, Texas, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and 27 other states (excluding Mississippi). Leslie, which the Company acquired in 1989, has been and continues to be named as a defendant in product liability actions brought on behalf of individuals who seek compensation for their alleged exposure to airborne asbestos fibers. In some instances, the Company also have been named individually and as alleged successor in interest in these cases. Of these claims, about 338 involve claimants allegedly suffering from (or the estates of decedents who allegedly died from) mesothelioma. In addition, Leslie was also a named defendant in about 5,200 unresolved asbestos-related claims filed in Mississippi. During the Company's 2007 fiscal year, Leslie resolved a total of 267 asbestos cases for an aggregate indemnity amount of US$4.3 million, of which 71 percent or US$3.1 million was paid by insurance. In two cases in which Leslie has received an adverse verdict, Leslie has accrued US$3.8 million for such claims at the time the adverse verdict was rendered. Leslie also recorded an insurance receivable of US$2.7 million to be paid by its insurers for these adverse verdicts. In both cases, Leslie has appealed the judgment rendered against it and Leslie is not at this time able to determine when or if those accrued amounts ultimately will be paid or not. During the fourth quarter of 2007, Leslie recorded an additional liability of US$9 million for the estimated indemnity cost associated with resolution of its current open claims. Leslie expects that payment of the amounts accrued with respect to the open claims will be made by Leslie and its insurers over the next three years. The recording of this liability resulted in a pretax charge of US$2.6 million, net of insurance recoveries. As of Dec. 31, 2007, Leslie's existing claim indemnity liability was US$13,731,000, its incurred defense cost liability was US$3,028,000, and its insurance recoveries were US$11,899,000. As of Dec. 31, 2006, Leslie's incurred defense cost liability was US$1,026,000. Smaller numbers of asbestos-related claims have also been filed against two of the Company's other subsidiaries: Spence Engineering the stock of which it acquired in 1984; and Hoke, the stock of which it acquired in 1998. Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International, Inc. makes instrumentation and fluid regulation products, including precision valves, tube and pipe fittings, and regulators for hydraulic, pneumatic, cryogenic, and steam systems. The Company's remaining sales come from making valves and other products for the oil and gas industry. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces 8,335 Claims at Dec. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation recorded 8,335 open asbestos- related claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 9,442 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 March 10, 2008. The Company paid US$19,736,000 for gross settlement and defense costs for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$11,681,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company resolved 2,638 claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 8,866 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. Asbestos-related claims against the Company dropped to 8,274 during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, from 9,887 claims during the six months ended June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007) Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in some products of certain of the Company's operating subsidiaries (Asbestos Liability) and of an inactive subsidiary and another former division of the Company. Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the Company, are defendants (among a number of defendants, typically over 50) in cases filed in various state and federal courts. Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Company have an arrangement (Coverage Arrangement) with insurers responsible for historical primary and some umbrella insurance coverage for Asbestos Liability (Paying Insurers). Under the Coverage Arrangement, the Paying Insurers accept financial responsibility, subject to the limits of the policies and based on fixed defense percentages and specified indemnity allocation formulas, for a substantial majority of the pending claims for Asbestos Liability. In the fourth quarter of 2007, one Paying Insurer responsible for two years of primary coverage informed the Company that its policies had exhausted. Another Paying Insurer responsible for about two and a half years of primary coverage informed the Company that two of its policies would likely exhaust in the first quarter of 2008. In addition, the Paying Insurer responsible for some umbrella insurance coverage also informed the Company that about one half of its umbrella insurance coverage had exhausted at the end of the year. As a result, the Company will bear a portion of the defense and indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability. The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgment that Howden Buffalo, Inc., is entitled to coverage under policies covering Asbestos Liability, for claims arising out of the historical products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former subsidiary of the Company (Products). The Company recorded reserves at Dec. 31, 2006 for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013 of US$140 million, of which about 60 percent was attributable to settlement and defense costs for unasserted claims projected to be filed through 2013. The reserve at Dec. 31, 2007 was US$119.7 million. The Company recorded a receivable as at Dec. 31, 2006 of US$114.5 million (US$94.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2007) for insurance recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Company's Asbestos Liability reserve has been established. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, operating in two business units, manufactures metal products. Its forged and cast steel rolls unit makes hardened-steel rolls for the steel and aluminum industries. The air and liquid processing segment includes Buffalo Pumps, Aerofin, and Buffalo Air Handling. The Company is headquartered in Pittsburgh. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Liability Totals $99.72M -------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liability was US$99,723,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$128,015,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's current asbestos liability was US$20 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$10 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. Long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$84,548,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$102,848,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006. The current asbestos insurance receivable was US$10 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$11.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. Deferred income tax assets for asbestos-related liability were US$9,871,000 in 2007, compared with US$9,579,000 in 2006. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, operating in two business units, manufactures metal products. Its forged and cast steel rolls unit makes hardened-steel rolls for the steel and aluminum industries. The air and liquid processing segment includes Buffalo Pumps, Aerofin, and Buffalo Air Handling. The Company is headquartered in Pittsburgh. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FutureFuel Chemical May Face Asbestos Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- FutureFuel Corp.'s subsidiary, FutureFuel Chemical Company, and its operations may be parties to, or targets of, lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings, including asbestos. FutureFuel Chemical may also be party to actions on product liability, personal injury, patent and intellectual property, commercial, contract, environmental, antitrust, health and safety, and employment matters. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2008. Company Profile: FutureFuel Corp. 8235 Forsyth Boulevard, 4th Floor Clayton, Mo. 63105 Tel: 805.565.9800 http://www.futurefuelcorporation.com/ FutureFuel Corp. develops, manufactures, and markets products for two business units: Biofuels and Specialty Chemicals. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PMA Capital Has $25.7M Reserves at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- PMA Capital Corporation's gross reserves for asbestos-related losses for its continuing operations were US$25.7 million at Dec. 31, 2007, US$17.3 million at Dec. 31, 2006, and US$22.3 million at Dec. 31, 2005. The Company's net reserves for asbestos-related losses for its continuing operations were US$10.8 million at Dec. 31, 2007, US$9.8 million at Dec. 31, 2006, and US$12.6 million at Dec. 31, 2005. Of the net asbestos reserves, about US$2.2 million at Dec. 31, 2007 (US$$6.6 million at Dec. 31, 2006) related to incurred but not reported losses. The discontinued operations' gross reserves for asbestos-related losses were US$7.5 million at Dec. 31, 2007, US$5.9 million at Dec. 31, 2006, and US$4.6 million at Dec. 31, 2005. The discontinued operations' net reserves for asbestos-related losses were US$1.6 million at Dec. 31, 2007, US$825,000 at Dec. 31, 2006, and US$560,000 at Dec. 31, 2005. Of the net asbestos reserves, about US$350,000 at Dec. 31, 2007 (US$38,000 at Dec. 31, 2006) related to IBNR losses. Blue Bell, Pa.-based PMA Capital Corporation is a holding company whose operating subsidiaries provide insurance and fee- based services. The Company's insurance products include workers' compensation and other commercial property and casualty lines of insurance, which are marketed primarily in the eastern part of the United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Has $22.6M Liability at Dec. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s accrued asbestos liabilities were US$22,651,000 at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$20,828,000 at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2008. The Company's accrued asbestos liability amounted to US$22,682,000 at Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 9, 2007) The Company's deferred tax assets for accrued asbestos liabilities were US$9,501,000 at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$8,691,000 at Dec. 31, 2006. Earnings (loss) from discontinued operation, net of tax, reflects legal expenses associated with the Company's asbestos- related liability and adjustments thereto based on the information contained in an August 2007 actuarial study and all other available information considered by the Company. The Company recorded US$3.2 million as a loss, net of tax, from discontinued operation for 2007, compared with US$200,000 as income, net of tax, from discontinued operation for 2006. The loss for 2007 reflects a US$2.8 million pre-tax adjustment to increase the Company's indemnity liability in line with the August 2007 actuarial study, as well as legal fees incurred in litigation, whereas the income for 2006 reflects a US$3.4 million pre-tax adjustment to reduce the Company's indemnity liability in line with the August 2006 actuarial study, partially offset by legal fees incurred in litigation in 2006. Long Island, N.Y.-based Standard Motor Products, Inc. is a manufacturer, distributor and marketer of replacement parts for motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry, with an increasing focus on the original equipment and original equipment service markets. The Company is divided into two segments: Temperature Control and Engine Management. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Faces 3,430 Cases at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Motor Products, Inc., at Dec. 31, 2007, faces 3,430 asbestos-related cases, for which it was held responsible for any liabilities, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2008. At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company faced about 3,430 asbestos- related cases, compared with about 3,270 cases at Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007) In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a discontinued operation. When the Company originally acquired this brake business, it assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with the related purchase agreement, the Company agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after Sept. 1, 2001. The Company's ultimate exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against it on or after Sept. 1, 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and defense thereof. Since inception in September 2001 through Dec. 31, 2007, the amounts paid for settled claims are about US$6.1 million. In September 2007, the Company entered into an agreement with an insurance carrier to provide it with limited insurance coverage for the defense and indemnity costs associated with certain asbestos-related claims. The Company has submitted various asbestos-related claims to the insurance carrier for coverage under this agreement. The most recent actuarial study was performed as of Aug. 31, 2007. The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability for settlement payments, excluding legal costs, ranging from US$23.8 million to US$55.2 million for the period through 2050. The change from the prior year study was a US$1.7 million increase for the low end of the range and a US$1.3 million increase for the high end of the range. An incremental US$2.8 million provision in the Company's discontinued operation was added to the asbestos accrual increasing the reserve to about US$23.8 million. In the updated study, legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued operation in the accompanying statement of operations, are estimated to range from US$18.7 million to US$32.6 million during the same period. Long Island, N.Y.-based Standard Motor Products, Inc. is a manufacturer, distributor and marketer of replacement parts for motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry, with an increasing focus on the original equipment and original equipment service markets. The Company is divided into two segments: Temperature Control and Engine Management. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WVR Funding Faces Claims from Predecessors --------------------------------------------------------------- VWR Funding, Inc., from time to time, is named as a defendant in cases as a result of its distribution of laboratory supplies, including litigation resulting from the alleged prior distribution of products containing asbestos by certain of its predecessors or acquired companies. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2008. Company Profile: VWR Funding, Inc. 1310 Goshen Parkway PO. Box 2656 West Chester, Pa. Tel: (610) 431-1700 VWR Funding, Inc. provides distribution services by offering products to manufacturers to a large number of customers. Products the Company distributes include chemicals, glassware, equipment, instruments, protective clothing, production supplies and other assorted laboratory products. The Company maintains operations in more than 20 countries and process in excess of 50,000 order lines daily from 21 strategically located distribution centers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Commission's Ruling Upheld in Jones Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of North Carolina upheld the Industrial Commission's Feb. 2, 2007 ruling, which denied James Earnest Jones, Sr. workers' compensation benefits for temporary total disability due to asbestosis and pleural plaques. The case is styled James Earnest Jones, Sr., Employee, Plaintiff, v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Employer, and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, Carrier, Defendants. Judges Stroud, Tyson, and Jackson entered judgment of Case No. COA07-479 on March 18, 2008. Mr. Jones started working for E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, at the Company's Brevard, N.C., facility on Feb. 3, 1958. He was significantly exposed to asbestos in 1969 and occasionally exposed to asbestos at other times. In 1980, he began to be examined and x-rayed as part of a broad plan by DuPont to monitor possible development of asbestosis in its employees. Mr. Jones was still working at the DuPont facility in January 1987, when he suffered a heart attack and underwent quintuple cardiac bypass surgery. He returned to work in May 1987, working half days. After his return to work he experienced shortness of breath which inhibited his ability to walk and climb steps. His shortness of breath was attributed to his heart condition. Mr. Jones subsequently retired in October 1987. In 1991, he was found by the Social Security Administration to be disabled due to his heart condition. Subsequent to his retirement, Mr. Jones continued to be monitored by DuPont for asbestosis. After an "abnormal x-ray," he was sent on Nov. 8, 2001 to Dr. Prechter, a pulmonologist, by DuPont. Dr. Prechter opined that Mr. Jones' breathing problems were minimally related to asbestos exposure. Mr. Jones was seen by Dr. Schwartz, a pulmonologist, on Aug. 23, 2002. Dr. Schwartz diagnosed Mr. Jones "asbestosis and asbestos- induced pleural fibrosis" which caused restrictive lung function. In 2004, Mr. Jones was examined by Dr. Domby, also a pulmonologist, who concluded that Mr. Jones' December 2003 CT scan did show "significant amounts of asbestosis." On Nov. 12, 2002, Mr. Jones filed Form 18B with the Industrial Commission, seeking benefits for an occupational disease resulting from exposure to asbestos. Defendants denied that Mr. Jones was entitled to benefits, contending that he did not have a compensable occupational disease. The claim was initially heard before Deputy Commissioner Morgan S. Chapman on Dec. 1, 2004. By an Opinion and Award filed on July 29, 2005 (2005 Opinion and Award), Mr. Chapman concluded that Mr. Jones had "not proven temporary total disability" and that portion of the claim was therefore denied. However, Mr. Chapman added that Mr. Jones was entitled to US$40,000 and medical compensation for "permanent organ damage" to his lungs. Mr. Jones appealed the 2005 Opinion and Award to the Full Commission. The Full Commission reviewed Mr. Jones' claim on Jan. 12, 2006. In its Opinion and Award filed Feb. 2, 2007 (2007 Opinion and Award), the Commission reached the same conclusions as the 2005 Opinion and Award. Mr. Jones filed notice of appeal to the Appeals Court from the 2007 Opinion and Award. The Appeals Court concluded that the findings of the Industrial Commission were supported by competent evidence in the record, and its conclusions of law were supported by its findings of fact. Accordingly, the Appeals Court affirmed the Feb. 2, 2007 Opinion and Award of the Industrial Commission. Wallace and Graham, P.A., by Edward L. Pauley, represented James Earnest Jones, Sr. Lewis & Roberts, PLLC, by John D. Elvers and Sarah C. Blair, represented E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Consolidates Dana Bankruptcy Appeals --------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Corporation states that Judge Paul A. Crotty of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York orders the consolidation of the appeals filed by the Ad Hoc Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and Jose Angel Valdez. (Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 73; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McKinley, Everest Oppose Motions in Asarco --------------------------------------------------------------- Mt. McKinley Insurance Company and Everest Reinsurance Company oppose any procedure by which Asarco Incorporated's objections to asbestos-related claims would be filed under seal because there is no basis or common law to justify sealing the claims objections or the publicly filed proofs of claim. Tony L. Draper, at McClain & Patchin, P.C., in Houston, asserts that permitting Asarco Inc. to file objections under seal would run contrary to the strong public policy and common law presumption that all papers filed in a bankruptcy case are public records open to examination by any entity. In addition, Mr. Draper contends, the merits and viability of the asbestos-related claims promise to be significant issues for confirmation. Assuming the Debtors follow form with all other asbestos-related bankruptcy cases, the Debtors' plan of reorganization is expected to include a channeling injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code for all present and future asbestos claims, which claims will be addressed by a trust through trust distribution procedures as contemplated by Section 524(g)(2)(B)(ii)(V). Mr. Draper tells the Court that Mt. McKinley and Everest have a keen interest in the asbestos issue because it is typically the insurers who are looked to for payment of asbestos claims channeled to a Section 524(g) trust. To the extent Asarco Inc. is concerned about disclosure of Social Security Numbers, Mt. McKinley and Everest do not oppose to redacting those information to protect the claimants. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 69; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fitzgerald Orders NJDEP to Drop Grace Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Judith Fitzgerald, on April 1, 2008, ordered the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to drop a lawsuit filed against W.R. Grace & Co., The Associated Press reports. Judge Fitzgerald barred NJDEP from imposing a US$800 million fine against Grace for allegedly lying about asbestos contamination in the state. The lawsuit said Grace lied to the state about asbestos dangers at a Hamilton, N.J., plant where it processed vermiculite for more than 40 years. The vermiculite, from a mine in Libby, Mont., was found to have contained asbestos. When Grace closed the Hamilton plant in 1994, it submitted an environmental report to the NJDEP that said the vermiculite Grace processed did not contain harmful levels of asbestos, leading the state to conclude there was no need to test the soil or clean up the site. In 2000, however, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found high concentrations of asbestos. Grace filed for Chapter 11 protection April 2, 2001. Judge Fitzgerald said New Jersey's state court lawsuit against the company ran afoul of the shield that protects bankrupt companies from legal actions. New Jersey said its moves against Grace were exempt from the Chapter 11 shield as an exercise of its police or regulatory power. State regulators said they acted to protect the public health and safety from a company that allegedly filed false reports about the extent of asbestos contamination at a site in New Jersey. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Md. Supervisor Pleads Guilty to CAA Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Maryland local Charles Victoria, on March 31, 2008, pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the federal Clean Air Act over the removal of asbestos from the former Woodville State Hospital in Collier, Allegany County, Md., Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports. The 49-year-old Mr. Victoria, of Parkville, Md., entered the plea before U.S. District Judge Gary L. Lancaster in federal court in Pittsburgh. Mr. Victoria supervised the removal of asbestos from the hospital after it was decommissioned in 1998. However, numerous inspections by the Allegheny County Health Department and the Environmental Protection Agency found failure to properly contain the asbestos and to dispose it. EPA inspectors found that insulation containing asbestos fell into a ravine and was allowed to sit on the ground for nearly a year. Some of the asbestos eventually reached a creek in the ravine. Mr. Victoria's employer, Independent Enterprises and Industrial- Commercial Consulting International, pleaded guilty to a similar charge in August 2006 and was sentenced to three years probation and a US$300,000 fine. Mr. Victoria faces penalties of five years in prison, a fine of US$250,000 or both. Sentencing is scheduled for July 25, 2008. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit Filed v. 45 Firms in Ill. on March 26 --------------------------------------------------------------- The estate of Geraldine James, on March 26, 2008, filed an asbestos lawsuit in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., against 45 defendant corporations, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Defendants include Bondex International, Inc.; Garlock; Georgia- Pacific Corporation, John Crane Inc., Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Pneumo Abex; RPM International, Inc.; RPM Inc.; and Young Insulation Group. According to the complaint, Ms. James was employed from 1973 to 1997 as a secretary and school monitor at various locations throughout Illinois. Ms. James' estate claims that during the course of her employment and during home and automotive repairs she was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers emanating from certain products she was working with and around. Ms. James' estate claims the defendants knew or should have known that the asbestos fibers contained in their products had a toxic, poisonous and highly deleterious effect upon the health of people. According to Ms. James' estate, she first became aware that she suffered from mesothelioma on Nov. 7, 2007. Her estate alleges that the defendants included asbestos in their products even when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide any or adequate instructions concerning the safe methods of working with and around asbestos. The estate also claims that the defendants failed to require and advise employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home. As a result of the alleged negligence, the estate claims Ms. James was exposed to fibers containing asbestos and developed a disease caused only by asbestos which disabled and disfigured her. The estate seeks at least US$300,000 in damages for negligence and willful and wanton conduct. Ms. James' estate is represented by John Barnerd, Christopher Guinn and Perry Browder of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill. Case No. 08 L 253 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 45 More Exposure Cases Linked to Asbestos -------------------------------------------------------------- The ward office in Ota, Tokyo, on March 29, 2008, stated that 45 people more have been confirmed with health problems after exposure to asbestos from a former factory site, The Yomiuri Shimbun reports. The victims are all aged between 50 and 90 and have lived near the former Omori factory of asbestos-related products manufacturer Miyadera Insulation Corp., which is based in Shinagawa Ward, Tokyo. According to the ward office, one man in his 70s died in October 2007 of pericardial mesothelioma and seven other people developed health problems after inhaling asbestos. At least 10 people in the ward are believed to have been affected by airborne asbestos, but none of them came down with symptoms of asbestos-related conditions like pericardial mesothelioma. Asbestos-related health problems were detected in ward residents who live near the site, with one person dying and eight others being diagnosed with pleural effusion, also called water on the chest. This led the ward office to give free medical examinations to 916 residents and former residents who lived within one kilometer of the site. Three of the 45 newly found cases of health problems involved former employees of the factory and 29 were family members and associates of employees. A further three used to play on the site as children, while 10 said they had never entered the site. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Gov't. Study Finds No Health Risks ------------------------------------------------------------- Despite having tested for only one of the six types of asbestos, Japan's Environment Ministry, asserts that its nationwide examination of airborne asbestos levels had found no risk to human health, The Yomiuri Shimbun reports. Blue asbestos (crocidolite) and brown asbestos (amosite) are often used to manufacture partition walls in buildings and as material in vaulted ceilings, but they were not subject to the tests. The ministry began the examination after residents living near Kubota Corp.'s former factory in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture, were found to have suffered from health problems in 2005. In fiscal 2005, the ministry examined 361 locations across the country, including the area near the demolished factory, and 169 locations in fiscal 2006. It said none of the locations contained asbestos levels that posed a health risk. The examinations were conducted based on the Asbestos Monitoring Manual drawn up by the ministry. The ministry uses the Air Pollution Control Law as its standard, which requires the air around factories to contain fewer than 10 asbestos fibers per liter of air. This method for verifying whether air can be called clean was adopted in 1985 specifically to examine asbestos concentrations in the air around factories. In November 2006, samples taken near a demolition site in Yamaguchi were cleared of posing a health risk by the ministry, but were later found by another panel to contain 56 fibers of blue asbestos--five times the acceptable level. The carcinogenic properties of blue asbestos are stronger than those of white asbestos. Hiroshi Kosaka, a former researcher at the Hyogo Prefectural Institute of Public and Environmental Sciences who is a member of the ministry's panel, said a different method was used the second time. The ministry maintains that the six types of asbestos should be examined, but that the accuracy of methods used to examine all types of asbestos has yet to be proved. However, such methods have already been put into practical use in Britain and the United States. Mr. Kosaka said just examining asbestos concentrations in the air in areas around factories to draw conclusions about air quality generally is problematic. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs $11M Award in Garza Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 3, California, on March 28, 2008, upheld an award of more than US$11 million to a former Bay Area couple, Joseph and Mary Garza, for asbestosis Mr. Garza suffered after being exposed to asbestos in Navy shipyards in the 1940s and 1950s, San Francisco Chronicle reports. Now Colorado residents, the Garzas filed the suit against Asbestos Corp. Ltd. in 2005 after Mr. Garza was diagnosed with asbestosis. The 77-year-old Mr. Garza testified he needs an oxygen unit to breathe, can walk only half a block, and is losing his ability to care for his wife, who is almost completely dependent on him because of her own health problems. Mr. Garza joined the Navy at the age of 17 and worked for more than a decade on ships at the Hunters Point shipyard in San Francisco and elsewhere, using asbestos products to repair boilers without any warnings or protective gear, the court said, quoting trial testimony. Mr. Garza was also exposed to asbestos insulation in later jobs, but a San Francisco jury assigned 75 percent of the responsibility for his illness to Asbestos Corp., which made the sealant used by the Navy, the court said. In a July 2006 verdict, the jury awarded more than US$1.1 million to Mr. Garza for medical costs and emotional distress, US$400,000 to Mrs. Garza for loss of her husband's care and attention, and US$10 million in punitive damages against Asbestos Corp. Citing testimony that Asbestos Corp. had been aware of asbestos' dangers since the 1940s but sold it without warning labels until 1970, the three-judge panel said the company "intentionally marketed a defective product knowing that it might cause injury and death." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court to Choose Hardie Case Judge -------------------------------------------------------------- The New South Wales Supreme Court is in the process of selecting a judge to hear a lawsuit, against 10 former James Hardie Industries N.V. Directors and executives, which is due to start in September 2008, The Sydney Morning Herald reports. On March 28, 2008, the Supreme Court heard that the prospect of prominent Sydney lawyers being called as witnesses could influence the choice of a judge to hear the case against Hardie. Justice Ian Gzell topped the list of potential judges "because of his computer skills and his commercial expertise," the chief judge in equity, Justice Peter Young, said. However, another factor was whether any party would ask for the trial judge to be disqualified on the grounds of being "well acquainted" with lawyers listed to give evidence in the case, which relates to Hardie's now notorious mishandling of asbestos compensation in 2001. Justice Gzell, a tax specialist, spent two-thirds of his career at the Queensland bar but has worked in Sydney since 1991. Steven Finch, SC, representing Hardie's former chief executive Peter Macdonald, said his client did not object to Justice Gzell hearing the case "despite the fact that he undoubtedly knows some of the practitioners very well." The Australian Securities and Investments Commission's barrister, Robert Beech-Jones, SC, said the regulator knew of no reason why Justice Gzell should not hear the case. The only potential problem Justice Young identified for Justice Gzell was that "I strongly suspect he knew Sir Llew Edwards" from his time in Brisbane. Sir Llew, a former deputy premier of Queensland, is expected to be called as a witness because he was a Hardie director until February 2001, when he became chairman of the Medical Research and Compensation Foundation set up by Hardie to handle personal injury claims relating to asbestos exposure. Hardie's underfunding of the foundation, while assuring the sharemarket that it was "fully funded" and telling the court that the Company's October 2001 move to the Netherlands "will not affect the position regarding asbestos claims," is at the heart of the case. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Probing Disposal at Dublin Integrated -------------------------------------------------------------- South Australia's Environmental Protection Authority is investigating the disposal of uncovered asbestos at the Dublin Integrated Waste Service dump in mid-north South Australia, ABC News reports. Local residents are concerned the elevated site could pose a risk of asbestos dust being blown across the community and threatening the health of dump employees, locals and motorists on the highway. EPA waste resources manager Steve Sergi says asbestos should be wrapped in heavy duty plastic when dumped. Mr. Sergi said, "The EPA is concerned about that. What we're looking for is that if the asbestos has been suitably packaged at the site that it's removed from - when it's taken to a landfill to be disposed of we want it to remain within that packaging." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: South Africa Announces Total Asbestos Ban -------------------------------------------------------------- South Africa's Environmental Affairs Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk, on April 1, 2008, announced the total ban on the use, processing or manufacture of products containing asbestos, The Herald reports. However, the regulations will not prohibit the continued use of asbestos-containing materials, like asbestos-cement roof sheets or ceilings, already in place as the department "is satisfied that there is no undue risk to the occupants of houses that are fitted with these materials, but should over time be replaced with asbestos-free materials." Mr. Van Schalkwyk said that exposure to asbestos in the workplace � including, mining, industrial, commercial, retail and public workplaces, including maintenance of building materials � was still controlled by the Asbestos Regulations 2001 published by the labor department. These require employers to draw up a register of all asbestos- containing materials, conducts a risk assessment, educate and inform employees, protect employees from exposure to asbestos and conduct regular dust and health surveillance. The regulations will prohibit any asbestos or asbestos- containing product unless it can be proven that no suitable alternative exists, in which case a phase-out plan may be approved. Mr. Van Schalkwyk said a period of 120 days will be allowed to allow merchants dealing in asbestos or asbestos-containing materials to clear their stocks. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe Finds Fraud Evidence in Tersigni Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- In a report filed on March 26, 2008 with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Bridgeport, Conn., a probe on L. Tersigni Consulting has found evidence that the firm's now-deceased founder defrauded companies out of millions of dollars through overbilling, Associated Press reports. The investigator, Hugh Ray of the Andrews Kurth law firm in New York said overbilling by Loreto Tersigni caused "significant financial damage" to companies that were in bankruptcy because of asbestos-related liabilities. The companies included Federal Mogul Corp. and W.R. Grace & Co. Mr. Ray said the Tersigni firm's bills were padded by as much as 23 percent between 2002 and March 2007. He estimated companies could have overpaid between US$5.5 million and US$10.3 million. Mr. Ray said in the report, "These actions injured creditors by harming the ability of the company to continue its operations, thereby resulting in a complete liquidation and further loss." Anthony Tersigni, a lawyer who represents Loreto Tersigni's estate and his wife, Nancy, on March 27, 2008, denied that Loreto Tersigni defrauded the companies. Anthony Tersigni's firm also represented L. Tersigni before it filed for bankruptcy in November 2007. The Tersigni firm was an adviser to creditors who were pressing claims against bankrupt companies for asbestos-related injuries. Although the firm worked for the creditors, the companies were paying the bills. The firm, founded in 2001, earned US$45 million in gross revenue over its six-year lifespan, according to the report. During that time, Loreto Tersigni pocketed about 65 percent of that money, or nearly US$30 million, as salary, 401(k) contributions and year-end profit distributions. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Welder's Son Sues 25 Firms in W.Va. Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Jennings Bartlett, of Barbour County, W.Va., and his wife, Beulah, on Feb. 20, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 25 companies in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Mr. Bartlett claims he was exposed to asbestos as a child, when his father came home from work with the dusts on his clothing. One of the defendants is United States Steel Corporation, where his father worked. According to the suit, Mr. Bartlett was exposed to asbestos as a child. The suit says his father worked as a welder at U.S. Steel. Mr. Bartlett claims his father carried the asbestos home on his clothing and his person. In addition to his childhood exposure, Mr. Bartlett worked at various automobile dealerships, garages and other similar locations, performing mechanical repair work. Due to his repeated asbestos exposure, Mr. Bartlett now has asbestosis and mesothelioma. In the 12-count suit, Mr. Bartlett specifically claims Unarco Industries, Inc.; Johns Manville Corporation, Raybestos, Manhattan, H.K. Porter, American Asbestos Textile Corp., Asten Hill Manufacturing Co., and Pneumo Abex Corporation, Friction Products Division and its predecessors, including American Brake Block, were part of a conspiracy to suppress the harmful effects of asbestos. Mrs. Bartlett claims she suffered loss of general services, companionship and society of her husband. Together, the Bartletts' seek compensatory and punitive damages for their injuries. Attorney David P. Chervenick represents the Barletts. The case will be assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Carpenter's Death to Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest heard that the death of 69-year-old carpenter Robert Leslie Burgess was linked to asbestos, Bucks Free Press reports. Mr. Burgess, of Sawpit Hill, Hazlemere, England, died on Jan. 3, 2008 from mesothelioma. The inquest heard that Mr. Burgess had been exposed to asbestos on a number of occasions throughout his career in the building trade, when the material was still thought to be safe. Mr. Burgess, who left widow Margaret, sons Desmond and Darren, and daughter Deana, had worked as a carpenter since his apprenticeship in 1953. The inquest heard that he had worked for several different employers throughout his career. Mr. Burgess would often use hand tools, such as saws and drills, on materials containing asbestos before the dangers of the material were known. This meant he would frequently be exposed to the dangerous particles of dust. Coroner Richard Hulett recorded a verdict of death by industrial disease. He said, "There is an abundance of evidence that he was associated with asbestos. This enables me to record it as an industrial disease rather than an open verdict." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong's Cash Flow Rises Due to Refunds --------------------------------------------------------------- Armstrong World Industries, Inc., in a press release dated Feb. 29, 2008, recorded an increase in free cash flow, from US$247 million in the fourth quarter of 2007 to US$85 million in 2006, primarily due to about US$180 million in refunds of federal income taxes paid over the preceding 10 years. The refunds result from the carry back of a portion of tax net operating losses created by funding of the Asbestos Trust under AWI's Plan of Reorganization in October 2006. 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: Maricopa Defendants Cleared in Covell Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, D. Arizona, cleared the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Maricopa County, in a pro se action involving asbestos filed by Frederick W. Covell. However, another defendant, Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, must answer Mr. Covell's Second Amended Complaint. The case is styled Frederick W. Covell, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants. District Judge David G. Campbell entered judgment of Case No. CV 07-2213-PHX-DGC (DKD) on March 14, 2008. On Nov. 14, 2007, Mr. Covell, who is confined in the Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint. In a Nov. 30, 2007 Order, the Court dismissed the Complaint because Mr. Covell had failed to state a claim. On Dec. 31, 2007, Mr. Covell filed a First Amended Complaint. In a Jan. 18, 2008 Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint because Mr. Covell had failed to allege a proper jurisdictional basis for the First Amended Complaint. On Feb. 27, 2008, Mr. Covell filed a Second Amended Complaint. In his Second Amended Complaint, Mr. Covell sued Mr. Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, and Maricopa County. In Count One, Mr. Covell alleged a violation of his due process rights because Mr. Arpaio, who forms Jail policies, was aware of asbestos and lead contaminants in the Jails, and, with deliberate indifference to Mr. Covell's health and safety, placed Mr. Covell in contaminated living areas and did not remove the contaminants. In his Request for Relief, Mr. Covell sought injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief, and compensatory and punitive damages. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Sparkses in Metalclad Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 5, California, reversed the order of the San Francisco County Superior Court, which granted summary judgment to Metalclad Insulation Corporation, in an asbestos case filed by Stanley Sparks and Linda Sparks. The case is styled Stanley Sparks and Linda Sparks, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Metalclad Insulation Corporation, Defendant and Respondent. Judges Needham, Simons, and Stevens entered judgment on Case No. A117838 on March 21, 2008. In June 2005, the Sparkses filed a lawsuit against Metalclad and others, seeking damages for asbestos-related personal injuries and loss of consortium. Essentially, they contended that Mr. Sparks was exposed to asbestos-containing thermal insulation materials supplied by Metalclad and others to the Long Beach Naval Shipyard (LBNS), where he worked between 1964 and 1974. Mr. Sparks was diagnosed with lung cancer in or around January 2005. Metalclad sought summary judgment on the ground that the Sparkses could not prove causation, because there was no evidence that Mr. Sparks was exposed to any asbestos-containing product for which Metalclad was responsible. Metalclad provided to Mr. Sparks' counsel a proposed order. Mr. Sparks' counsel approved the form of the order. The court entered the order, which stated that Metalclad had demonstrated there was no triable issue of material fact as to Mr. Sparks' inability to prove causation. The order explained that the Sparkses had failed to create a triable issue of fact due to "insufficient competent evidence" and advised that "Metalclad's evidentiary objections to the declarations of Charles Ay and Kenneth Cohen are sustained." Judgment was entered in favor of Metalclad. This appeal followed. The Sparkses contended that the trial court erred in sustaining Metalclad's objections to declarations they filed in opposition to the motion and in concluding that they failed to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact. The Appeals Court reversed the summary judgment order and vacated the judgment. Gary Lynn Brayton, Lloyd F. LeRoy, Novato, Calif., represented Stanley Sparks and Linda Sparks. Daniel Brent Hoye, Lisa L. Oberg, McKenna, Long & Aldridge LLP, San Francisco, represented Metalclad Insulation Corporation. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Campaigner Loses 6th Kin Member to Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- Raven Thundersky of Manitoba, Canada, who has been campaigning against the federal government for using Zonolite insulation, has lost a sixth family member, Rita Swain, to mesothelioma, The Expositor reports. The 50-something Ms. Swain, who was Ms. Thundersky's half- sister, had been diagnosed with mesothelioma more than three years ago. Ms. Swain was exposed as a child growing up in a home with Zonolite insulation in Berens River, Man. Ms. ThunderSky has asbestos-related lung disease. Both of her parents, and four of her sisters have died of asbestos-related illnesses. Five had mesothelioma, and one had asbestosis. Most of them were exposed at the family's home in Poplar River, Man. Ms. Swain is the first in the family whose exposure came from a different location. Winnipeg NDP MP Pat Martin, who has been pushing Ottawa to help Canadians get the product out of their homes, said on Feb. 28, 2008 he was saddened by the latest death in the ThunderSky family. The Canadian government had recommended that homeowners use Zonolite, and even provided grants for its installation under the Canadian Home Insulation Program between 1977 and 1984. An estimated 200,000 to 300,000 homeowners took the government up on the offer. Canada also paid for it to be installed on First Nations and in military housing. An estimated 300,000 homes in Canada have the product in their attics. Mr. Martin said the federal government has a responsibility to help Canadians get rid of the insulation because the government recommended its use. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chandler Steps Up Fight for Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Brigitte Chandler, a solicitor for Charles, Lucas and Marshall, in Old Town, Swindon, U.K., has been lobbying with trade unions, MPs and charities to overturn a House of Lords ruling, which prevents people with pleural plaques from claiming compensation, This is Wiltshire.co.uk reports. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in response to a question from north east Labour MP Stephen Henchard, has now indicated the Government is looking at the issue and intends to publish a consultation document and take action. The Government move follows a decision by the Scottish Executive that people with pleural plaques can sue employers if they develop the condition due to exposure to asbestos at work. Ms. Chandler has represented dozens of people who used to work at Swindon's railway works and she helped found the charity, Swindon and South West Asbestos Group, which supports sufferers and their families. While pleural plaques do not cause symptoms, they signal the presence of asbestos fibers that could trigger life-threatening conditions like mesothelioma or asbestosis. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Launches Campaign in North West England ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Health and Safety Executive has launched, in North West England, its latest asbestos campaign, entitled "Asbestos the hidden killer!" The number of asbestos related deaths in the North West is a reflection of the region's industrial heritage, with four local authorities included in the top 20 for male and female deaths from the deadly disease. Steve Coldrick, Head of HSE's Disease Reduction Programme said, "The 'Asbestos the hidden killer!' campaign is specifically aimed at young tradesman such as plumbers, electricians and joiners after research highlighted that while they recognized the dangers of asbestos, they didn't believe they were personally at risk." Every week 20 tradesmen die simply because they have breathed in asbestos fibers during the course of their work. Between 1985 and 2004, there were 3,097 asbestos related deaths due to past exposure in the North West. In Lancashire, there were 598 deaths. By proportion to population, the statistics show that Barrow in Furness (158) had the highest number of male deaths in the country. Crewe and Nantwich (103) was in 16th place. Blackburn with Darwen had the fifth highest number of female deaths (28) and South Ribble had the 14 highest numbers of female deaths (14). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 122 Lawsuits Pending v. IntriCon at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- IntriCon Corporation is a defendant in about 122 asbestos lawsuits as of both Dec. 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2008. The suits allege that plaintiffs have or may have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more named defendants. These lawsuits relate to the discontinued Heat Technologies segment which was sold in March 2005 and is now classified as discontinued operations. Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the primary policies for the period Aug. 1, 1970-1973, have been exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide a defense under those policies. The Company has requested that the carriers substantiate this situation. The Company said it believes it has additional policies available for other years which have been ignored by the carriers. As of June 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, the Company faced about 122 asbestos-related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007) Arden Hills, Minn.-based IntriCon Corporation (f/k/a Selas Corporation of America) is an international firm engaged in the designing, developing, engineering and manufacturing of body- worn devices. The Company has facilities in Minnesota, California, Maine, Singapore and Germany, and operates through subsidiaries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3,027 Actions Pending v. Graybar at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- About 3,027 individual asbestos cases and 168 asbestos class actions, as of Dec. 31, 2007, are pending against Graybar Electric Company, Inc. These cases allege actual or potential asbestos-related injuries resulting from the use of or exposure to products sold by the Company. More claims will likely be filed against the Company in the future. The Company's insurance carriers have historically borne all costs and liability with respect to this litigation and are continuing to do so. Accordingly, the Company's future liability with respect to pending and unasserted claims is dependent on the continued solvency of its insurance carriers. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company faced about 3,109 pending individual cases and 188 pending class actions related to asbestos. (Class Action Reporter, March 30, 2007) St. Louis-based Graybar Electric Company, Inc. is engaged in the distribution of electrical, telecommunications and networking products and the provision of related supply chain management and logistics services, primarily to construction contractors, industrial plants, telephone companies, power utilities, federal, state and local governments and commercial users in North America. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alamo Reserves $325T for Possible Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alamo Group Inc. has a reserve of US$325,000 concerning a potential asbestos issue at its Gradall facility, in New Philadelphia, Ohio, that continues to be evaluated. Certain other assets of the Company contain asbestos that may have to be abated in the future, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2008. The Company had identified and established a reserve of US$331,000 over a potential asbestos issue at the Gradall facility, which is being evaluated. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 23, 2007) Seguin, Tex.-based Alamo Group Inc. designs, manufactures, distributes and services equipment for right-of-way maintenance and agriculture. The Company's products include tractor-mounted mowing and other vegetation maintenance equipment, street sweepers, excavators, vacuum trucks, snow removal equipment, pothole patchers, agricultural implements and related aftermarket parts and services. The Company has 2,347 employees and operates a total of 16 plants in North America, Europe and Australia. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Baldor Electric ---------------------------------------------------------------- Baldor Electric Company continues to defend against lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components of Company products many years ago. Currently, there are hundreds of claimants in lawsuits that name the Company as a defendant, together with hundreds of other companies. However, most of the complaints do not identify any of the Company's products or specify which of these claimants, if any, were exposed to asbestos attributable to the Company's products. Past experience has shown that most of the claimants will never identify any of the Company's products. For those claimants who do show that they worked with the Company's products, the Company said it believes it has meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the lack of asbestos in the Company's products, the integrity of its products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants. Fort Smith, Ark.-based Baldor Electric Company is a marketer, designer, and manufacturer of industrial electric motors, power transmission products, drives, and generators, currently supplying over 9,500 customers in more than 160 industries. Products are sold to original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and distributors serving markets in the U.S. and throughout the world. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Still Faces Exposure Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., or its predecessor companies, continue to face lawsuits filed by certain individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos during work at formerly owned facilities. The Company anticipates that additional claims like those received may be asserted in the future, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2008. Houston-based CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. owns and operates natural gas distribution systems in six states. Its reportable business segments are Natural Gas Distribution, Competitive Natural Gas Sales and Services, Interstate Pipelines, Field Services and Other Operations. The Company is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy, Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hexion Still Involved In Liability Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. continues to be involved in actions that allege harm caused by products the Company has allegedly made or used, containing asbestos, silica, and vinyl chloride monomer. No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2008. Columbus, Ohio-based Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of thermosetting resins, or thermosets. Thermosets are used in paints, coatings, glues and other adhesives produced for consumer or industrial uses. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind.'s Coverage Action Ongoing in Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- NL Industries, Inc.'s comprehensive action, which involves asbestos, filed against insurance companies is ongoing in Texas, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2008. These insurance companies issued policies to the Company that could potentially provide insurance for lead pigment actions and asbestos actions asserted against the Company. Filed in April 2006, the case is styled NL Industries, Inc. v. American Re Insurance Company, et al. (Dallas County Court at Law, Tex., Case No. CC-06-04523-E). In this action, the Company asserts that defendants have breached their contractual obligations to the Company under such insurance policies with respect to lead pigment and asbestos claims. The Company seeks a declaration as to the rights and obligations of each insurance company with respect to such claims. Dallas-based NL Industries, Inc. is primarily a holding company. The Company operates in the component products industry through its majority-owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. The Company operates in the chemicals industry through its non- controlling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 470 Injury Actions Still Pending v. NL Ind. ---------------------------------------------------------------- NL Industries Inc. continues to face about 470 pending cases, including asbestos, involving a total of about 7,000 plaintiffs and their spouses, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2008. The Company has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by the Company's former operations containing asbestos, silica and mixed dust. In addition, the claims of about 3,300 former plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed from Ohio State Courts. The Company does not expect these claims to be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for asbestos- related claims. The Company has not accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if any. To date, the Company has not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters. Asbestos-related cases against the Company total about 470, in which these cases involve a total of about 7,000 plaintiffs and their spouses. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 23, 2007) Dallas-based NL Industries, Inc. is primarily a holding company. The Company operates in the component products industry through its majority-owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. The Company operates in the chemicals industry through its non- controlling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc. ********* 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, 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 * * *