/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080418.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 18, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 77 Headlines 3M CO: Minnesota Court Certifies Age Discrimination Lawsuit BEAR STEARNS: Faces Suits in N.Y., Del. Over JPMorgan Chase Deal BEAR STEARNS: Faces Several N.Y. Suits Alleging ERISA Violations BEAR STEARNS: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y. CELLCYTE GENETICS: Faces Multiple Shareholder Lawsuits in Wash. CHANNELLOCK INC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Alleged False Claims CHEVY CHASE: Accused of Overcharging Minorities in Calif. Suit CLEAN HARBORS: Settles Louisiana Suits Over Plaquemine Facility COPART INC: Reaches Settlement in Ga. Lawsuit Over Storage Liens COPART INC: La. Court Dismisses Claims in FCS Antitrust Lawsuit COTT CORP: High Court Rejects Appeal on Dismissal of Fees Suit ELI LILLY: Judge Says He May Not Certify Zyprexa Classes FORD MOTOR: 1991-2001 Explorer Lawsuit Settlement Approved FREMONT-RIDEOUT HEALTH: Faces CA Suit Over Labor Code Violations ILLINOIS: ISTHA Faces Lawsuit Over Bungled Toll System KADANT INC: Faces Litigation in Mass. Over Defective Products MEEKER COUNTY: Woman Sues Over Strip Searches in Jail MODTECH HOLDINGS: Calif. Court Mulls Certification of Labor Suit TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Faces Del. Suit Over Electronic Arts Offer TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: GTA Suit Settlement Hearing Slated for May TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Seeks to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Lawsuit TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of Retirees' N.Y. Suit THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.M. TRIBUNE CO: 7th Circuit Dismisses Two Class Action Suits WORKSTREAM INC: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in Securities Lawsuit New Securities Fraud Cases BLACKSTONE GROUP: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Suit in New York FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Saxena White Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit GLOBAL CASH: Holzer & Fistel Commences NY Securities Lawsuit HARMONY GOLD: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Fraud Suit INVERNESS MEDICAL: Federman Files Massachusetts Securities Suit ISTAR FINANCIAL: Schatz Nobel Initiates Securities Suit in NY MONEYGRAM INTL: Federman Files Securities Lawsuit in Minnesota SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit VERTEX PHARMA: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing WALGREEN: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Illinois WALGREEN CO: Schatz Nobel Files Illinios Securities Fraud Suit Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chase Facing 1 Inactive Injury Suit in Ohio ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Majestic Star to Perform Pa. Site Abatement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 38 Cases Pending Against Met-Pro at Jan. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briefing on 2 Dana Holding Appeals Ongoing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 41T Claims Pending v. Dana Holding at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Records $18M Receivable for CCR Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Still Faces 385 Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NYMAGIC Inc. in Arbitration with Equitas ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NYMAGIC Has $52.4M A&E Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Houston Wire Continues to Face Injury Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Great Lakes Dredge Has No Active Open Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Getty Realty, Unit Face Suit in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DXP Ent. Finalizing Remaining Settlements ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chemtura Still Subject to Liability Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Accrues $2.8M for Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Orion Marine Subject to Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Pending v. Domtar Ind. in U.S. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sears Holdings Subject to Exposure Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 114 Actions Pending v. IPALCO Unit at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Current Obligations Total $101M at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Records 9,500 Exposure Claims at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Ventures LLC Records 15 Active Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $41.3M Reorganization Charges ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Cites $31.2M Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,360 Claims at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Liabilities Total $12.6M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ING Groep Has EUR66M Balance for A&E Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian Pacific Adjusts Liability Estimate ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArcelorMittal Has 449 Pending French Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArcelorMittal USA May Spend $8MM in 2008 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Summary Judgment Bid in Hauman Suit Okayed ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Court Affirms Hendleys' Remand Motion ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Feldman Mall Incurs $1.4M for Abatement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EMC Insurance Incurs $511T Losses at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EMC Insurance Has $7.4M for Claims at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Inc. Records 169 Claims at Feb. 29 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 25 Claims Pending v. Ameron Int'l. at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reading Int'l. Incurs $7.1M for Remediation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oxford Residential Uses $807T for Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Boss Holdings Inc. Facing Exposure Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NTS Comms Incurs $31T for Tex. Site in 2007 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Committee Moves to End G-I Holdings' Stay ASBESTOS LITIGATION: G-I Holdings Inc. Faces 3 Building Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amerex Cleanup at Okla. Site Ended on Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Seeks High Court Review on Libby Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Va. Man's Estate Sues 10 Firms in Illinois ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk MP Campaigns v. Law Lords Decision ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADAO Files Suit v. CBS Corp. Over CSI Toys ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Pensioner's Death to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Couple to Pay $2,000 Over MassDEP Breaches ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Railway Board Worker's Widow Seeks Payout ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Links Sailor's Death to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pig Shelter Exposure Led to Farmer's Death ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Color Stillman Gets GBP65T in Compensation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Town Worker Fired for "Whistleblowing" ASBESTOS ALERT: Total Environmental Fined $12T for Mishandling ********* 3M CO: Minnesota Court Certifies Age Discrimination Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Chief Judge of Ramsey County, Minnesota has ruled that an age discrimination suit filed by five 3M employees may proceed as a class action on behalf of about 6,000 Minnesota-based current and former 3M salaried employees over the age of 45. On December 2004, a current and a former employee of the company filed a purported class action, seeking to represent a class of all current and certain former salaried employees employed by 3M Co. in Minnesota below a certain salary grade who were aged 46 or older at any time during the applicable period to be determined by the court (Class Action Reporter, Nob. 7, 2007). The plaintiffs in the case are Clifford Whitaker, 60, and Michael Mucci, 55. According to the lawsuit, since at least 2001, the company acted "to elevate younger employees to the company's leadership and to remove employees over the age of 45 -- perceived as less able or willing to accept and apply new business methodologies adopted by the company." The suit also alleges that the company disproportionately selects younger employees for a leadership-training program called "Six Sigma." The complaint asserts that the plaintiffs suffered various forms of employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and seeks injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory damages (which they seek to treble under the statute), including back and front pay, punitive damages (limited by statute to $8,500 per claimant) and attorneys' fees. In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join four additional named plaintiffs. This motion was unopposed by the Company and the four plaintiffs were joined in the case, although one claim has been dismissed following an individual settlement. The class certification hearing was held in December 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 21, 2008). The District Court of Ramsey County in Minnesota recently granted certification to a class of about 6,000 Minnesota-based current and former 3M salaried employees over the age of 45. According to Susan Coler, Esq., a partner at Sprenger + Lang and one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, "Almost all age discrimination class and collective actions have alleged discrimination in termination decisions, and the remainder of the cases have alleged discrimination in hiring." "3M's overt statements about its preference for younger employees in decisions such as selections for leadership training and promotions led us to make challenges beyond discriminatory terminations," Ms. Coler adds. In addition to a court order requiring 3M to change business practices, the suit seeks millions of dollars in damages to compensate class members for the pay and benefits they should have received. The suit also seeks up to three times the economic losses suffered by class members, punitive damages to deter 3M from engaging in similar conduct in the future, and to send the message to other employers that age discrimination will not be tolerated. The plaintiffs' lawyers also are actively exploring a parallel suit on behalf of non-Minnesota employees. "3M's practices and attitudes that we allege resulted in systemic discrimination in Minnesota applied across the country. We are developing a nationwide case to allow non-Minnesota salaried employees to recover as well," said Thomas J. Henderson, Esq., another Sprenger + Lang partner and attorney for the plaintiffs. 3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com-- is a diversified technology company with a global presence in various businesses, including industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics, consumer and office, safety, security and protection services, and electro and communications. BEAR STEARNS: Faces Suits in N.Y., Del. Over JPMorgan Chase Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. is facing purported class actions in New York and Delaware over a proposed merger agreement entered into between the Company and JPMorgan Chase & Co., according to Bear Stearns' April 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008. Beginning March 17, 2008, various stockholders of the Company filed several purported class action lawsuits against it, its board of directors, and certain of its present and former executive officers. Among other things, these actions allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and obligations to the Bear Stearns stockholders by agreeing to the proposed merger. Five of these actions have been filed with the Supreme Court of the State of New York and consolidated under the caption, "In re Bear Stearns Litigation." Two actions have been filed with the Delaware Court of Chancery where the plaintiffs have filed a motion to consolidate their cases in Delaware. JPMorgan Chase is named as a defendant in certain of these cases. In each of these actions, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the proposed merger and enjoin JPMorgan Chase from voting the 95 million shares acquired pursuant to a Share Exchange Agreement, other injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of compensatory damages. On April 9, 2008, the Delaware Chancery Court granted JPMorgan Chase's and Bear Stearns' motion to stay the Delaware action in favor of the New York action, at least until the preliminary injunction motion is resolved. The Delaware court also granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate their cases. The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. -- http://www.bearstearns.com/ -- is a holding company. The Company through its broker-dealer and international bank subsidiaries, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc.; Bear Stearns Securities Corp.; Bear Stearns International Limited; Bear Stearns Bank plc; Bear Stearns Global Lending Limited; Custodial Trust Company; Bear Stearns Financial Products Inc.; Bear Stearns Capital Markets Inc.; Bear Stearns Credit Products Inc.; Bear Stearns Forex Inc.; EMC Mortgage Corporation; Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage, Inc.; Bear Stearns Investment Products Inc. and Bear Energy L.P is an investment banking, securities and derivatives trading, clearance and brokerage firm serving corporations, governments, institutional and individual investors globally. The segments of the Company are capital markets, global clearing services and wealth management. BEAR STEARNS: Faces Several N.Y. Suits Alleging ERISA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors face several putative class actions commenced with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York purporting to represent the interests of participants in the Company's Employee Stock Ownership Plan during the time period of December 2006 through the present, according to the company's April 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008. These actions allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs and to the other participants and beneficiaries of the ESOP by: -- failing to prudently manage the ESOP's investment in Company securities; -- failing to communicate fully and accurately about the risks of the ESOP's investment in the Company's stock; -- failing to to avoid or address alleged conflicts of interest; and -- failing to monitor those who managed and administered the ESOP. In connection with these allegations, each plaintiff asserts claims for violations under various sections of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and seeks reimbursement to the ESOP for all losses, an unspecified amount of monetary damages and imposition of a constructive trust. The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. -- http://www.bearstearns.com/ -- is a holding company. The Company through its broker-dealer and international bank subsidiaries, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc.; Bear Stearns Securities Corp.; Bear Stearns International Limited; Bear Stearns Bank plc; Bear Stearns Global Lending Limited; Custodial Trust Company; Bear Stearns Financial Products Inc.; Bear Stearns Capital Markets Inc.; Bear Stearns Credit Products Inc.; Bear Stearns Forex Inc.; EMC Mortgage Corporation; Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage, Inc.; Bear Stearns Investment Products Inc. and Bear Energy L.P is an investment banking, securities and derivatives trading, clearance and brokerage firm serving corporations, governments, institutional and individual investors globally. The segments of the Company are capital markets, global clearing services and wealth management. BEAR STEARNS: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors are facing three purported securities fraud class action suits in New York, according to the company's April 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008. Various shareholders of the Company have commenced purported class actions against it on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the Company between Dec. 14, 2006, and March 14, 2008. The three actions, commenced with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, allege that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results and that as a result of those false statements, the Company's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. In connection with these allegations, the Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. -- http://www.bearstearns.com/ -- is a holding company. The Company through its broker-dealer and international bank subsidiaries, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc.; Bear Stearns Securities Corp.; Bear Stearns International Limited; Bear Stearns Bank plc; Bear Stearns Global Lending Limited; Custodial Trust Company; Bear Stearns Financial Products Inc.; Bear Stearns Capital Markets Inc.; Bear Stearns Credit Products Inc.; Bear Stearns Forex Inc.; EMC Mortgage Corporation; Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage, Inc.; Bear Stearns Investment Products Inc. and Bear Energy L.P is an investment banking, securities and derivatives trading, clearance and brokerage firm serving corporations, governments, institutional and individual investors globally. The segments of the Company are capital markets, global clearing services and wealth management. CELLCYTE GENETICS: Faces Multiple Shareholder Lawsuits in Wash. --------------------------------------------------------------- CellCyte Genetics Corporation, formerly Shepard Inc., is facing three shareholder lawsuits that were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, according to the company's April 11, 2008 Form 10KSB filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suits are: 1. "Armbruster v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. al, No. C08-0047," 2. "Tolerico v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. al., No. C08-0163," and 3. "Pruitt v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. al., No. C08-0178." The three lawsuits are virtually identical and allege, inter alia, that the Company and its officers and directors filed misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the Company's products, and that the Company posted misleading information regarding an officer on its Web site. The lawsuits claim that investors purchased the company's stock based on the alleged misleading statements and the plaintiffs are seeking monetary relief. None of the lawsuits has been certified for class-action status. CellCyte Genetics Corp. -- http://www.cellcyte.com-- formerly Shepard Inc., is a development-stage company. The company is developing clinical-stage therapeutic agents and treatments for oncology, diabetes, heart, liver, lung and kidney diseases, as well as for stem cell bone marrow and organ transplants. CHANNELLOCK INC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Alleged False Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Channellock, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint filed on April 15, 2008, with the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, alleging it sells tools by falsely claiming they were "Made in the USA," CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Blake R. Stewart brings this action on behalf of all purchasers of defendant's tool products, including the "Channellock 8" Retaining Ring Pliers, that were manufactured, distributed, marketed, and sold by Channellock to California consumers. The plaintiff asks the court for: -- judgment declaring this action to be a proper class action; -- damages according to proof; -- an order declaring that Channellock violated the provisions of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.; -- an order, pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Section 17204 and pursuant to the equitable powers of the court, enjoining Channellock, its subsidiaries, affiliates, and successors, agents, servants, officer, directors, employees, and all persons, acting in concert with them, directly or indirectly, from engaging in conduct violative of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.; -- an oder, pursuant to Business & Professions Code section 17204, requiring Channellock to provide restitution to compensate, and to restore all persons in interest, including all class members, with all monies acquired by means of defendant's unfair competition to the extent permitted by California law; -- a declaration that Channellock violated Business & Professions Code Section 17533.7; -- a declaration that Channellock violated the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and that plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, are entitled to actual damages pursuant to Civil Code Section 1780; -- punitive damages to the extent permitted by law pursuant to Civil Code Section 1780(a)(4); -- plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees as it relates to all three causes of action pursuant to Civil Code Section 1780 as it relates to the first cause of action and pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 as it relates to the second and third causes of action; -- costs of suit incurred; -- prejudgment interest as allowed by law; and -- such other and further relief as the court finds just, equitable and proper, including, but not limited to, the remedy of disgorgement. The suit is "Blake R. Stewart et al. v. Channellock, Inc. et al., Case No. 37-2008-00081963-CU-BT-CTL," filed with the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. Representing the plaintiffs are: John H. Donboli, Esq. JL Sean Slattery Del Mar Law Group, LLP 322 8th Street, Suite 105 Del Mar, CA 92014 Phone: (858) 793-6244 Fax: (858) 793-6005 CHEVY CHASE: Accused of Overcharging Minorities in Calif. Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Chevy Chase Bank and BF Saul Wholesale Lending are facing a class-action complaint filed on April 15, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that the companies charge minority homebuyers higher fees and interest than they charge white people, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Washington H. Cobb seeks redress for racially discriminatory lending practices under the Equal Opportunity Act, 15 USC Section 1691, et seq. and the Fair Housing Act, 42 USC Section 3601 et seq. This class action challenges the defendants' racially discriminatory mortgage lending practices. According to the complaint, the defendants established a specific, identifiable and uniform credit pricing system, a component of which, referred to as the "Discretionary Pricing Policy," authorized an unchecked, subjective surcharge of additional points and fees to an otherwise objective risk-based financing rate. These subjective, additional finance charges directly lead to minorities receiving home loans with higher interest rates and higher fees and costs than similarly situated non-minority borrowers. This class action is brought pursuant to the ECOA and the FHA on behalf of all minority borrowers who entered into residential mortgage loan contracts that were originated, financed or purchased by defendants, and who were harmed by defendants' discriminatory conduct. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) the nature and scope of defendants' policies and procedures concerning the assessment of yield spread premiums and other discretionary fees on mortgage loans they fund; (b) whether defendants are creditors under the ECOA because, in the ordinary course of business, they participate in the decision of whether or not to extend credit to consumers; (c) whether defendants' policies and procedures regarding yield spread premiums and other discretionary fees are a facially neutral credit pricing system that has effected racial discrimination in violation of the ECOA; (d) whether there are statistically significant disparities between the amount of the discretionary charges imposed on minorities and the amount of the discretionary charges imposed on Caucasians that are unrelated to creditworthiness; (e) whether defendants have any legitimate business justification for their policies and procedures; (f) whether there is a less discriminatory alternative to these policies and procedures; (g) whether the court can enter declaratory and injunctive relief; and (h) the proper measure of disgorgement or monetary relief. The plaintiff asks the court for: -- an order determining that the action is a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- a judgment awarding plaintiff and the class costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs; -- a judgment granting extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, including rescission, restitution, reformation, attaching, impounding, or imposing a constructive trust upon, or otherwise restricting, the proceeds of defendants' ill-gotten funds to ensure that plaintiff and the class have an effective remedy; -- a judgment awarding plaintiff and the class compensatory damages according to proof; -- a judgment awarding punitive damages to plaintiff and the class; -- a judgment granting declaratory and injunctive relief and all relief that flows from such an injunctive and declaratory relief; and -- a judgment or other order granting such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. The suit is "Washington H. Cobb et al. v. Chevy Chase Bank et al., Case No. CV08-02474," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing the plaintiffs are: Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@bffb.com) Wendy J. Harrison, Esq. (wharrison@bffb.com) Bonnet, Fairbourn, Friedman, & Balint, PC 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 1000 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Phone: (602) 274-1100 CLEAN HARBORS: Settles Louisiana Suits Over Plaquemine Facility --------------------------------------------------------------- A tentative deal was reached for the settlement of several purported class actions filed in Louisiana against a subsidiary of Clean Harbors, Inc., according to the company's March 10, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. In September 2002, various plaintiffs filed five lawsuits based in part upon allegations relating to ownership and operation of a deep injection well facility near Plaquemine, Louisiana, by Clean Harbors Plaquemine, LLC, one of the Company's subsidiaries. The plaintiffs seek an order declaring the facility to be located within the banks or boundaries of a body of surface water under state law, payment of civil penalties of $27,500 per violation per day from and after Nov. 17, 2003, and an additional penalty of $1.0 million for damages to the environment, plus interest. The plaintiffs also seek an order requiring the facility to remove all waste disposed of since September of 2002, and in general, to conduct an investigation into and remediate the alleged contamination at the facility, as well as damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage, natural resources damages, costs of litigation, and attorney's fees. On Oct. 17, 2006, CH Plaquemine (which operated at a loss during the past two years prior to that date) ceased operations and filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts. On Dec. 28, 2006, the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court transferred the venue of the CH Plaquemine bankruptcy case to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Louisiana,where such case is now pending. The Company believes that the filing of that Chapter 11 petition by CH Plaquemine will have no adverse effect on the Company's other operations. On Sept. 13, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court approved a global settlement of the five lawsuits, pursuant to which CH Plaquemine has conditionally agreed to settle all of the pending lawsuits, subject to certain contingencies and court proceedings which must still take place before the settlement can be consummated. Among the conditions to the settlement is that the Bankruptcy Court approve as fair and reasonable a class action settlement of one of the five lawsuits which was filed as a class action, and that CH Plaquemine successfully confirm a plan of reorganization that incorporates the terms of the settlement. A motion to approve the class action settlement documents was filed on Nov. 28, 2007, and a fairness hearing was held on April 14, 2008. Clean Harbors, Inc. -- http://www.cleanharbors.com/-- through its subsidiaries, is a provider of environmental services and an operator of non-nuclear hazardous waste treatment facilities in North America. The Company performs environmental services for over 45,000 customers, including more than 325 Fortune 500 companies, in the U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico and Mexico. It performs environmental services through a network of more than 100 service locations, and operates six incineration facilities, nine commercial landfills, six wastewater treatment operations, and 20 transportation, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs), as well as six polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) management facilities, and two oil and used oil products recycling facilities. Clean Harbors operates in two segments: Technical Services and Site Services. COPART INC: Reaches Settlement in Ga. Lawsuit Over Storage Liens ---------------------------------------------------------------- Copart, Inc., settled a lawsuit filed with the State Court for the County of Chatham, Georgia over allegations that the company charges unreasonable amounts for storage liens. On Sept. 16, 2005, Richard M. Gray filed the suit seeking relief, including class certification, damages, fees, costs and expenses. The company's motion for summary judgment was heard on Jan. 31, 2007, and was denied. Subsequent thereto, the parties agreed to settle the case without any admission of liability or wrongdoing and a dismissal with prejudice was filed on Jan. 23, 2008, according to the company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan 31, 2008. Copart, Inc. -- http://www.copart.com/-- is a provider of salvage vehicle sales services in the U.S. It also provides vehicle suppliers, primarily insurance companies with a range of services to process and sell salvage vehicles over the Internet through its virtual bidding second-generation (VB2) Internet auction technology. COPART INC: La. Court Dismisses Claims in FCS Antitrust Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana dismisses several claims in a purported antitrust class action suit filed against Copart, Inc., according to the company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan 31, 2008. On July 28, 2006, Foreign Car Sales and Service LLC filed the suit against Copart with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, originally alleging antitrust violations and unfair trade practices. Relief sought originally included class certification based on both unfair trade practices and Sherman Act violations, damages, fees, costs and expenses. On Jan. 5, 2007, the Magistrate required FCS to amend its complaint. A First Amended Complaint was rejected, and a Second Amended Complaint was submitted Feb. 16, 2007, in which FCS abandoned its unfair trade practices claims, and now relies simply on breach of contract claims. On Aug. 23, 2007, Copart filed: -- a motion to dismiss claims for improper venue; -- a motion to dismiss for failure to join persons needed for just adjudication; -- a motion to dismiss for lack of diversity jurisdiction; -- a motion to dismiss load out fee class action for failure to state claim; and -- a motion to dismiss load out fee class action for lack of diversity jurisdiction. On Feb. 22, 2008, the court granted the motions to dismiss with regard to all claims, leaving only the anti-trust claim pending. The suit is "F.C.S. L.L.C. v. Copart Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv- 00535-FJP-SCR," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, Judge Frank J. Polozola presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Kimuel Wayne Lee, Esq. 16137 Berryhill Drive Baton Rouge, LA 70817 Phone: 225-751-3775 Representing the defendants is: Charles A. Schutte, Jr., Esq. (cschutte@gmstl.com) Guglielmo, Marks, Schutte, Terhoeve & Love 320 Somerulos Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Phone: 225-387-6966 Fax: 225-387-8230 COTT CORP: High Court Rejects Appeal on Dismissal of Fees Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Canada rejected an appeal in connection with the dismissal of a lawsuit alleging improper use and collection of deposits and container recycling fees by beverage companies, including Cott Corp., in British Columbia, according to Cott's March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007. In January 2005, Cott was named as one of many defendants in the action captioned "The Consumers' Association of Canada and Bruce Cran v. Coca-Cola Bottling Ltd. et al.," filed with the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Canada (Class Action Reporter, March 15, 2007). This claim has been brought under the British Columbia Class Proceedings Act as a class action, but has not been certified as a class action yet. The plaintiffs are suing over 30 defendants, consisting of beverage manufacturers, retailers and Encorp Pacific (Canada), the government-approved steward of British Columbia's container deposit program, alleging the improper use and collection by the defendants of deposits and container recycling fees pursuant to the British Columbia container recycling program. The relief sought by the plaintiffs includes a declaration that CDN$70 million in container deposits were unlawfully converted by the defendants and are held on constructive trust for consumers and the repayment of CDN$60 million collected as container recycling fees. The defendants, including Cott, brought and argued a summary trial application in January 2006. On June 2, 2006, the British Columbia Supreme Court granted the summary trial application, which resulted in the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action against the company and the other defendants. On June 26, 2006, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the action to the British Columbia Court of Appeals. The appeal was denied. A subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was also rejected on Dec. 20, 2007. In February 2005, similar class action claims were filed in a number of other Canadian provinces. Claims filed in Quebec have since been discontinued, but is unclear how the dismissal of the British Columbia case will impact the other cases. Cott Corp. -- http://www.cott.com/-- is a non-alcoholic beverage company and a provider of retailer brand soft drink. In addition to carbonated soft drinks, the Company's product lines include clear, still, and sparkling flavored waters, juice-based products, bottled water, energy drinks and ready-to- drink teas. The Company operates its business in North America through its indirect wholly owned subsidiary, Cott Beverages Inc., in the U.S. and through Cott Corp. in Canada. The Company operates its International business through several subsidiaries, including its indirect wholly owned subsidiary, Cott Beverages Ltd., in the U.K., and Europe, and through an indirect 90% owned subsidiary, Cott Embotelladores de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., in Mexico. ELI LILLY: Judge Says He May Not Certify Zyprexa Classes -------------------------------------------------------- A district judge says he probably won't give class-action status to patients and insurers who paid for Zyprexa for FDA-approved uses, FiercePharma reports. According to Judge Jack Weinstein, he does not expect the plaintiffs to be able to claim punitive damages. The case "ought to be settled," he said. "I really think that we're not dealing with very much money." FiercePharma notes, however, that Judge Weinstein also said he might reconsider his position before his final ruling. He did say he would consider certifying a class of off-label purchasers. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 31, 2008, Eli Lilly and Co. is facing several purported federal class action suits in New York over the side effects and improper promotion of the drug, Zyprexa. The CAR recounted that two lawsuits were filed in 2005 with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York purporting to be nationwide class actions on behalf of all consumers and third-party payors, excluding governmental entities, which have made or will make payments for their members or insured patients being prescribed Zyprexa. These actions have been consolidated into a single lawsuit, which is brought under certain state consumer protection statutes, the federal civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) statute, and common law theories, seeking a refund of the cost of Zyprexa, treble damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. Two additional lawsuits were then filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in 2006 on similar grounds. As with the product liability suits, these lawsuits allege that the company inadequately tested for and warned about side effects of Zyprexa and improperly promoted the drug. Eli Lilly and Co. -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers, develops, manufactures and sells products in one business segment, pharmaceutical products. The Company also has an animal health business segment. It manufactures and distributes its products through owned or leased facilities in the U.S., Puerto Rico and 25 other countries. Eli Lilly and Company's products are sold in approximately 135 countries. The Company also conducts research to find products to treat diseases in animals and to increase the efficiency of animal food production. FORD MOTOR: 1991-2001 Explorer Lawsuit Settlement Approved ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge David De Alba of the Superior Court of California, Sacramento County, ended seven years of litigation on April 15, 2008, when he approved the Ford Explorer class action settlement and found that it was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The class action was brought on behalf of all people and entities residing in California who bought, owned or leased, a new or used 1991-2001 model year Ford Explorer in California between 1990 and August 9, 2000, and who either still own their Explorer or who sold, ended their lease, or otherwise disposed of it after August 9, 2000. Filed in 2003, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed that defendant, Ford Motor Co., violated California's statutory Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. According to the report, the claim stems from a class action suit filed on behalf of more than 414,000 Californians who bought Explorers and later claimed they had lost resale and trade-in value because of reports about rollover accidents and a nationwide recall of Explorer Firestone tires in 2000. The plaintiffs say that Ford knew about a dangerous design flaw that made the Explorer unsafe and too likely to roll over, yet concealed it, and instead marketed and sold the Explorer as a safe vehicle. The plaintiffs want class members to get compensation from Ford for the excess money they say they paid for their Explorers, as well as money from the profits Ford earned on California Explorer sales, and other legal costs. Earlier, the Center for Auto Safety, a Ralph Nader-founded group based in Washington, D.C. filed a legal challenge with the Sacramento Superior Court (Calif.) to the settlement of the massive Ford Explorer lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, April 10, 2008). The Settlement The Associated Press learned from a New Jersey attorney and co- counsel for the SUV owners who brought the lawsuit that the settlement applies to about one million people in California, Connecticut, Illinois and Texas. It will allow vehicle owners to apply for $500 vouchers to buy new Explorers or $300 vouchers to buy other Ford or Lincoln Mercury products, Kevin P. Rodd said. The settlements apply to Explorers from model years 1991 through 2001, he said. Filed less than two weeks before the scheduled hearing, the consumer group claims the deal approved in December rewards lawyers in the case with $25 million in fees but provides Explorer owners with "no real benefits." A new ford Explorer lists for about $25,000 to $30,000. Superior Court of California's Approval Judge David De Alba of the Superior Court of California's recent approval means that California, Illinois, Connecticut, and Texas consumers who bought, owned or leased 1991-2001 model year Ford Explorers can get benefits from the settlement. Consumers must act by April 29, 2008, to get benefits, which include discount certificates worth $500 toward the purchase or lease of a new Ford Explorer or $300 toward the purchase or lease of any other new Ford, Lincoln, or Mercury. See Ford Explorer Cases on the net: http://www.explorercasuit.com/ The case is "Ford Explorer Cases, JCCP Nos. 4226 and 4270." Representing the plaintiffs is: Henry Rossbacher, Esq. (hhr@rossbacher.xhost.com) The Rossbacher Firm 611 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1650 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 895-6500 Fax: (213) 895-6161 Web site: http://www.rossbacherlaw.com FREMONT-RIDEOUT HEALTH: Faces CA Suit Over Labor Code Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fremont-Rideout Health Group is facing a class-action complaint filed on April 23, 2008, with the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Yuba alleging it cheated 500 nurses, technicians and therapists of overtime on 12-hour shifts and violated other sections of the Labor Code, CourtHouse News Service reports. This is a class action brought by DAvid Cooke and Glenn Green pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 382 on behalf of all non-exempt, hourly California employees of Fremont-Rideout who were employed as Registered Nurses or Licensed Vocational nurses or Monitor Technicians or Respiratory Therapists who worked 12-hour workdays during the period March 28, 2004, to the date the class may be certified and notice given. This class action complaint asserts claims for relief under California wage and hour law for the defendants: (1) failure to provide meal periods in compliance with governing wage and hour law; (2) failure to provide a third rest break for employees who worked 12-hour shifts; (3) failure to pay overtime at one and one half the hourly rate for schedules requiring them to work 12 hours; (4) failure to provide an accurate itemized statement of the hours and wages earned by employees working 12-hour shifts; (5) failure to pay the amount due to employee class members who quit or were discharged; and (6) for defendant's unlawful, unfair and fraudulent conduct in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants violated California wage and hour law by implementing null and void alternative week schedules and then failing to pay class members overtime wages that were due in violation of California Labor Code sections 510, 511, 1194 and applicable Wage Order regulations; (b) whether defendants violated California wage and hour law by means of relief protocols and other systematic practices that had the effect of denying class members compliant meal periods within the first five hours of their shifts in violation of California Labor Code sections 512, 226.7 and applicable Wage Order regulations; (c) whether defendants had a policy or practice to violate California wage and hour laws and regulations by directing class members to inaccurately or improperly report meal periods in violation of California Labor Code applicable Wage Order regulations; (d) whether defendants violated California wage and hour law by their systematic failure to authorize and permit class members to take paid third rest breaks in violation of California Labor Code section 226.7 and applicable Wage Order regulations; (e) whether defendants violated California wage and hour law by failing to itemize the automatic computer deductions and by misreporting actual gross pay and net pay in violation of California Labor Code section 226 and applicable Wage Order regulations; (f) whether defendants' failure to pay overtime due resulted in a failure to timely pay wages upon separation in violation of California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203 and applicable Wage Order regulations; (g) whether the alleged violations of wage and hour statutes and regulations are unlawful business practices under California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.; (h) whether the alleged violations of wage and hour law are unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Codes Section 17200, et seq.; (i) whether the alleged violations of wage and hour law were likely to deceive plaintiffs and were therefore, fraudulent under California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.; (j) whether class members are entitle to mandatory interest on unpaid wages as provided for in California labor Code Section 218.6 and whether such interest is due at a rate of 10% or some other rate; and (k) whether class members are entitle to restitution or other equitable relief, including injunctive relief. The plaintiffs ask the court: -- for compensatory damages; -- for restitution of all monies due to plaintiffs, and disgorged profits from the unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices of defendants; -- for statutory damages and/or penalties as allowed by California wage and hour statutes and regulations; -- for interest accrued to date; -- for costs of suit and expenses incurred; -- for reasonable attorney's fees; -- for punitive and exemplary damages in an amount commensurate with defendants' ability to pay and sufficient to deter such conduct in the future; -- for injunctive relief; and -- for all such other and further relief that the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "David Cooke et al. v. Fremont-Rideout Health Group, et al., Case No. 08-0000278," filed with the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Yuba. Representing the plaintiffs are: William A. Kershaw, Esq. Lyle W. Cook, Esq. Kershaw W. Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 Phone: (916) 448-9800 Fax: (916) 669-4499 ILLINOIS: ISTHA Faces Lawsuit Over Bungled Toll System ------------------------------------------------------ The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority is facing a class- action complaint filed on April 15, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging it bungled its I-Pass transponder system, which issues 85,000 notices of toll violations each day -- many of them erroneous -- and makes it impossible to contest them, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Marvin Kushner brings this action to secure redress for the improper and unconstitutional practices of the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority in sending violation notices. Mr. Kushner brings this suit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) on behalf of all persons issued notice of violation who did not either receive a hearing or have their violations canceled as a result of communication with ISTHA. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether notices in the form represented violate due process; and (b) whether notices in the form represented comply with Illinois law governing such notices. Mr. Kushner asks the court for: -- a declaration in the form represented are violative of due process; -- an injunction restraining defendants from taking any action against customers based on such notices; -- damages including a refund of all fines imposed pursuant to such notices, except pursuant to a judgment of a court; -- punitive damages; -- attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit; -- such other or further relief as the court deems proper. The suit is "Marvin Kushner et al v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, et al., Case No. 08CV2148," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Representing the plaintiff are: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq. Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC 120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603 Phone: (312) 739-4200 Fax: (312) 419-0379 KADANT INC: Faces Litigation in Mass. Over Defective Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Kadant, Inc., is facing a purported class action that was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of a putative class of consumers who purchased defective decking and railing products manufactured by its discontinued operation. Specifically, the company was named as a co-defendant in a consumer class action brought by Terrence Fisher, Joseph Jennings, Paula Moore, and Larry Boylen on behalf of a putative class of individuals who own GeoDeck(TM) decking or railing products manufactured by Composites LLC between April 2002 and October 2003. The complaint was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under Docket Number 1:07-CV-12375- JLT, on Dec. 27, 2007, and notice was served on the Company on Jan. 7, 2008. Other defendants are Kadant Composites LLC and Liberty Diversified Industries, Inc. The complaint in this matter purports to assert, among other things, causes of action for unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraud, negligence, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment, and it seeks unspecified compensatory damages and punitive damages under various state consumer protection statutes. In subsequent disclosures filed with this litigation, the plaintiffs claim that such damages exceed $50 million, according to the company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007. The suit is "Fisher et al v. Liberty Diversified Industries, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:07-CV-12375-JLT," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Judge Joseph L. Tauro presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. (nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP 35 E. State Street Media, PA 19063 Phone: 610-891-9880 Fax: 610-891-9883 - and - Kristen Marquis Fritz, Esq. (kfritz@tenlaw.com) Thornton & Naumes LLP 30th Floor 100 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-720-1333 Fax: 617-720-2445 Representing the plaintiffs are: John G. Fabiano, Esq. (john.fabiano@wilmerhale.com) WilmerHale LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-742-9100 Fax: 617-526-5000 - and - Edward William Little, Jr., Esq. (elittle@mccarter.com) McCarter & English, LLP 225 Franklin street Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-345-7018 Fax: 617-204-8018 MEEKER COUNTY: Woman Sues Over Strip Searches in Jail ----------------------------------------------------- Meeker County and Sheriff Mike Hirman are facing a federal class-action lawsuit filed by a Big Lake resident with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Hutchinson Leader reports. The lawsuit alleges that 23-year-old Gail Lynn Simpson was subjected to strip searches on different occasions prior to being admitted to the Meeker County Jail, including one instance of booking photographs taken of her bare breasts. The complaint alleges that Ms. Simpson was arrested on four different occasions from September 2004 to April 2005. Each of the arrests involved misdemeanor charges ranging from driving after revocation to theft. In each case, Ms. Simpson was taken to the jail, where she was instructed to remove all her clothing, and while standing naked was told to stand with her feet wide apart with her hands over her head. She was told to squat and turn around, then her hair was searched. Ms. Simpson, Hutchinson Leader recounts, was booked into the Meeker County Jail a fifth time on Nov. 28, 2007, after reporting to the jail on her own to serve time for a failure to pay child support, another misdemeanor. On that occasion, she was asked if she had any body piercings, and she told the officer she had breast piercings. She was asked to show her breasts to the booking officer, who photographed them. She then was strip searched by the officer in the same manner as the previous four arrests. The report relates that the complaint challenges the county's strip-search policy, saying it violates the Fourth and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. The suit "seeks redress for the defendants' unlawful and unconstitutional policy, custom and/or practice of strip searching all arrestees brought to the Meeker County Jail." Ms. Simpson is seeking in excess of $75,000. She is represented by Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi of Minneapolis. Jon K. Iverson, Esq., of Iverson Reuvers Attorneys at Law, in Bloomington, Minn., who was hired through the Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust to represent the county, told Hutchinson Leader that the county acted within guidelines established by the legal system. "We will evaluate the facts and circumstances (of the lawsuit)," Mr. Iverson said, but Meeker County's strip-search policy "comports with the Fourth Amendment search and seizure law." MODTECH HOLDINGS: Calif. Court Mulls Certification of Labor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The California Superior Court for Alameda County has yet to certify a class in a lawsuit against Modtech Holdings, Inc., alleging labor violations. On Jan. 25, 2006, TRICO Pipes, Aram Hodess, Micah Long and the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union No. 159 on behalf of those persons the company employed on California public work projects from Jan. 25, 2002, up to the filing of the complaint, commenced a class action suit against the company and Bayside Solutions, Inc. The complaint alleges that Modtech failed to pay these individuals general prevailing wage rates, overtime rates, and required rates for holiday work. The suit also alleges that the company failed to employ registered apprentices, thereby denying such apprentices the opportunity to earn wages. Bayside Solutions is a temporary labor service used by the company and TRICO Pipes is a joint labor management committee in the plumbing and pipe fitting industry in Contra Costa County. The complaint seeks restitution for all underpayments of wages, attorneys' fees and costs. The court has not yet certified the class. The company reported no development in the matter in its April 14, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Modtech Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.modtech.com/-- designs, manufactures, markets and installs modular and relocatable classrooms and commercial and light industrial modular buildings. The Company is a provider of modular classrooms in California and Florida and is a provider of commercial and light industrial modular buildings in California, Florida, Arizona, Nevada and other neighboring states. The Company's modular classrooms include standardized units prefabricated at its manufacturing facilities, as well as customized units that are modular in design but constructed on site using components it manufactures. The Company also designs and manufactures modular, portable buildings to customer specifications for an array of uses, including governmental, healthcare, educational, airport and correctional facilities; office and retail space; daycare centers, libraries, churches, construction trailers, golf clubhouses, police stations, convenience stores, fast food restaurants, and sales offices. TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Faces Del. Suit Over Electronic Arts Offer ---------------------------------------------------------------- Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., is facing a purported class action suit in Delaware over offers by Electronic Arts, Inc., to acquire all of the Company's shares. On March 7, 2008, Patrick Solomon, a stockholder of the Company, filed a purported class action complaint with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the company and certain of its officers and directors. The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, allegedly refusing to explore premium offers by Electronic Arts, Inc., to acquire all of the Company's shares, enacting a bylaw amendment allegedly designed to entrench the current board by preventing stockholders from nominating and electing alternative directors, agreeing to an amendment to a management agreement with ZelnickMedia and issuing a proxy statement for the 2008 Annual Meeting that allegedly contains misleading and incomplete information. The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, rescissory and other equitable relief and damages, according to Take-Two's March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008. New York-based Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. -- http://www.take2games.com/-- is a global publisher, developer and distributor of interactive entertainment software, hardware and accessories. The Company operates in two segments: publishing and distribution. The publishing segment consists of Rockstar Games, 2K Games, 2K Sports and 2K Play publishing labels. The Company develops, markets and publishes software titles for gaming and entertainment hardware platforms, including Sony's PLAYSTATION3 and PlayStation2 computer entertainment systems; Sony's PSP (PlayStationPortable) system; Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Xbox video game and entertainment systems; Nintendo's Wii, GameCube, DS and Game Boy Advance, and for the personal computers and Games for Windows. The Company's distribution segment, which includes its Jack of All Games subsidiary, distributes its products, as well as software, hardware and accessories produced by others to retail outlets in North America. TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: GTA Suit Settlement Hearing Slated for May ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a fairness hearing in May 2008 for the proposed settlement in the matter, "In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK." Case Background In July 2005, the defendants -- Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., and its subsidiary Rockstar Games � were subjects of four purported class actions. Two of the four complaints were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, one was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the other was filed with the Circuit Court in St. Clair County, Illinois (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 11, 2008). The plaintiffs, alleged purchasers of the defendants' Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas First Edition game manufactured before July 20, 2005, assert that the company engaged in consumer deception, false advertising and breached an implied warranty of merchantability and were unjustly enriched as a result of the company's alleged failure to disclose that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas contained "hidden" content, which resulted in the game receiving a Mature 17+ (M) rating from the Entertainment Software Rating Board rather than an Adults Only 18+ rating. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation later transferred all the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which consolidated them under the caption, "In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation (No. II), 06-MD-1739 (SWK)(MHD)." Settlement In the last half of 2007, the defendants reached a settlement in the matter. Under the terms of the settlement, class members will be able to claim benefits if they swear that they: (a) bought a copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas before July 20, 2005; (b) were offended and upset by the ability of consumers to modify and alter the game's content using the third- party Hot Coffee modification; (c) would not have bought the game had they known that consumers could modify and alter the game's content using the third-party Hot Coffee modification; and (d) would have returned the game, upon learning the game could be modified and altered, if they thought this possible. Settlement class members who attest to these facts may apply for benefits that range from an exchange of the game disk for an edited copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to a cash payment of up to $35 for consumers who submit detailed proofs of purchase. The actual value of all cash payments under the settlement will depend on the number of class members that apply for benefits. Take-Two has committed to spend at least $1.025 million on settlement benefits, and the settlement generally caps the defendants' out-of-pocket costs at no more than $2.75 million, in addition to the costs of providing notice to class members and paying a fee to plaintiffs' counsel. In November 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the foregoing consumer class actions and set a date for a hearing on final approval in May 2008, according to Take-Two's March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008. A copy of the settlement notice is available at: http://gtasettlement.com/Default.htm The suit is "In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shirley Wohl Kram presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Locks Law Firm PLLC 110 East 55th St. New York, NY 10022 Phone: (888) 8LLF NYC Representing the company is: Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq. Debevoise & Plimpton LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 909-6000 TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Seeks to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule on motions seeking for the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Take- Two Interactive Software, Inc. In February and March 2006, four purported class action complaints were filed against the company, its former chief executive officer, its former chief financial officer, its former chief global operating officer, and four of its former directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. A fourth complaint brought in Michigan was voluntarily dismissed. The complaints allege that the company violated Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making or causing the company to make untrue statements or failing to disclose in certain press releases and SEC periodic reports that, among other things, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas contained "hidden"content which should have resulted in the game receiving an "AO" rating from the ESRB rather than an "M" rating. The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages and their costs. In July 2006, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. In September 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint which included claims regarding Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas as well as claims relating to the backdating of stock options. This complaint was filed against the company, its former CEO, its former CFO, its former Chairman of the Board, and two officers of its Rockstar Games subsidiary. On April 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which included additional allegations based on an investigation conducted by the Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors, currently comprised of Strauss Zelnick, John Levy and Grover Brown (Special Litigation Committee), of options backdating and the Company�s restatement of financial statements relating to options backdating. This complaint was filed against the company, its former Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former Chairman of the Board, two of its directors and one former director, its Rockstar Games subsidiary, and one officer and one former officer of Rockstar Games. On June 25, 2007, the company, and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated second amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to these motions to dismiss on Sept. 4, 2007, and reply briefs were filed on Oct. 4, 2007. Now that briefing on the motions to dismiss is complete, the company is awaiting a decision by the Court. The company reported no development in the matter in its March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008. The suit is "In Re Take-Two Interactive Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-00803-SWK," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shirley Wohl Kram presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@lerachlaw.com) Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 Representing the defendants is: Molly S. Boast, Esq. (msboast@debevoise.com) Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212 909-6000 Fax: 212 909-6836 TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of Retirees' N.Y. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants in the suit captioned "St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement System v. Eibeler, et al., Case No. 1:06- cv-00688-MBM" -- which includes Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. -- are seeking for either the dismissal of the matter or consolidation with another case. On Jan. 30, 2006, the St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement System filed a suit against the company, as nominal defendant, and certain of the its officers and directors and certain former officers and directors with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The factual allegations in this action are similar to the allegations contained in the federal securities class actions pending in New York captioned, "In Re Take-Two Interactive Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-00803-SWK." The plaintiff asserts that certain defendants breached their fiduciary duty by selling company stock while in possession of certain material non-public information and breached their fiduciary duty and violated Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 of the U.S. Exchange Act by failing to disclose material facts in the company's 2003, 2004 and 2005 proxy statements in which the company solicited approval to increase share availability under its 2002 Stock Option Plan. The plaintiff seeks the return of all profits from the alleged insider trading conducted by the individual defendants who sold company stock, unspecified compensatory damages with interest and their costs in the action. A motion to stay the action pending the determination of an investigation by the Special Committee was filed with the court. On Oct. 4, 2006, the court issued an order granting the motion and staying the proceedings for a period of 150 days from the date of the order. On Jan. 17, 2007, the plaintiffs moved for an order granting limited relief from the court's Oct. 4, 2006 stay of the proceedings in order to file an amended derivative and class action complaint. On Feb. 22, 2007, the counsel for the Special Litigation Committee advised the Court that the Special Litigation Committee had completed its investigation and rendered a report. On March 23, 2007, counsel for the Special Litigation Committee moved to dismiss the complaint based on, among other things, its conclusion that "future pursuit of this action is not in the best interests of Take-Two or its shareholders." The plaintiff subsequently conducted discovery concerning the Special Litigation Committee's motion to dismiss. On Aug. 24, 2007, the plaintiff filed an Amended Derivative and Class Action Complaint. The Amended Derivative and Class Action Complaint alleges among other things that defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the issuance of proxy statements in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. On Sept. 24, 2007, the Special Litigation Committee moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint or to consolidate certain of its claims with "In Re Take-Two Interactive Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-00803-SWK." The company reported no development in the matter in its March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008. The suit is "St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement System v. Eibeler, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00688-MBM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Michael B. Mukasey presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: James Joseph Sabella, Esq. (jsabella@gelaw.com) Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. 45 Rockefeller Center, 630 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10111 Phone: 646-722-8520 Fax: 212-755-6503 Representing the defendants is: Leonard D. Steinman, Esq. (lsteinman@blankrome.com) Blank Rome, LLP The Chrysler Building, 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174 Phone: 212-885-5524 Fax: 917 332-3746 THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.M. ------------------------------------------------------------- Thornburg Mortgage, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities fraud class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, according to the company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On Aug. 21, 2007, a securities class action complaint, entitled "Slater v. Thornburg, et al.," was filed with the District Court for the District of New Mexico against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. Subsequently, three similar class action complaints were filed in the Southern District of New York, and one more was filed in the District of New Mexico. All five complaints allege that the Company and the other named defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements in financial reports filed with the SEC, press releases and other public statements, which resulted in artificially inflated market prices of the Company�s common stock, and that the named plaintiff and members of the putative class purchased common stock at these artificially inflated market prices. Two complaints allege a class period running from Oct. 6, 2005, through Aug. 17, 2007, one alleges a class period running from Oct. 6, 2005 through Aug. 20, 2007, and two more allege a class period running from April 19, 2007, through Aug. 14, 2007. Each complaint seeks unspecified money damages. The five actions have been formally consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, and will be litigated as a single proceeding The Company believes the allegations are without merit, and intends to defend against them vigorously. The suit is "Slater v. Thornburg et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00815- JB-WDS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, Judge James O. Browning presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Richard A. Sandoval, Esq. (rsandoval@branchlawfirm.com) Branch Law Firm 2025 Rio Grande Blvd NW Albuquerque, NM 87104 Phone: 505-243-3500 Fax: 505-243-3534 Stuart L. Berman, Esq. (sberman@sbtklaw.com) Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7056 Fax: 610-667-7706 - and - Frederic S. Fox, Esq. Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox 850 Third Avenue 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 687-1980 Representing the defendants is: Robert Badal, Esq. (robert.badal@hellerehrman.com) Heller Ehrman LLP 333 South Hope Street 39th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3043 Phone: (213) 689-0200 Fax: (213) 614-1868 TRIBUNE CO: 7th Circuit Dismisses Two Class Action Suits -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a securities class action and an Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action brought in the wake of the circulation scandal at two of the Tribune Co.'s New York newspapers, Securities Law360 reports. The court ruled on April 2 that the inflated circulation figures at Newsday and Hoy may not have been so obvious to Tribune's senior management and that the plaintiffs failed to allege any unusual or suspicious trading of stock during the class period. The Seventh Circuit also pointed out that Tribune began an internal investigation directly after the first lawsuits came in and that it was entitled to a "reasonable amount of time to investigate until it had a full story to disclose." "In sum, the plaintiffs fail to establish the primary liability of any individual defendant, and the alleged misconduct is not imputable to Tribune by the doctrine of respondeat superior," Judge Terence T. Evans wrote. The court also dismissed the ERISA lawsuit for similar reasons, pointing out that the retirement plan fiduciaries did not actually know about the circulation fraud being perpetrated by Newsday and Hoy employees. The first case is "Kenneth Pugh et al. v. Tribune Co. et al., Case No. 06-3898." As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 4, 2007, the first case was filed in February 2004 as a purported class action with the New York Federal Court by certain advertisers of Newsday and Hoy, alleging that they were overcharged for advertising as a result of inflated circulation numbers at these two publications. The purported class action also alleges that entities that paid a Newsday subsidiary to deliver advertising flyers were overcharged. The second case is "City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement et al. v. Tribune Co. et al., Case No. 06-3909." The CAR reported on Oct. 3, 2007, that several class actions were filed against Tribune and certain of its current and former directors and officers as a result of the circulation misstatements at Newsday and Hoy. These suits, which were subsequently consolidated, alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and other managerial and director failings under the federal securities laws and ERISA. The securities class action lawsuit and the consolidated ERISA class action lawsuit were both dismissed with prejudice on Sept. 29, 2006. WORKSTREAM INC: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York certified as a class action a securities fraud lawsuit filed against Workstream, Inc., its chief executive officer, and former chief financial officer. The class action suit was filed on Aug. 10, 2005, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common shares during the period from Jan. 14, 2005, to and including April 14, 2005. The suit alleges, among other things, that management provided the market misleading guidance as to anticipated revenues for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2005, and failed to correct this guidance on a timely basis. The action claims violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act, and seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount as well as the award of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees and costs. In December 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added additional plaintiffs and sought to elaborate on the allegations contained in the complaint. The defendant's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was denied. The defendants have answered the amended complaint, denying its material allegations. The Court has certified the case as a class action and has approved notice to the class. The defendants contend that the deadline for taking discovery has expired, but the plaintiffs have asked the Court for additional time to pursue discovery. The Company and the individual defendants have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, based upon a recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiffs have responded to that motion, which was argued on Sept. 28, 2007, and is awaiting court decision. The court has certified the case as a class action, according to Workstream's April 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008. The suit is "Schottenfeld Qualified Associates LP et al. v. Workstream, Inc. et al., Case No. 7:05-cv-07092-CLB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Charles L. Brieant presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ronen Sarraf, Esq. (ronen@sarrafgentile.com) Sarraf Gentile, LLP 485 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 868-3610 Fax: (212) 918-7967 - and - Ralph M. Stone, Esq. (rstone@lawssb.com) Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 239-4340 Fax: (212) 239-4310 Representing the defendants is: David M. Doret, Esq. H. Robert Fiebach, Esq. Cozen and O'Connor 45 Broadway Atrium New York, NY 10006-3792 Phone: 212-509-9400 New Securities Fraud Cases BLACKSTONE GROUP: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, filed a lawsuit seeking class action status with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of The Blackstone Group L.P. pursuant and traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or about June 25, 2007. The Complaint charges that Blackstone and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Blackstone, through its subsidiaries, provides alternative asset management and financial advisory services worldwide. According to the Complaint, on or about June 21, 2007, Blackstone filed with the SEC a Form S-1/A Registration Statement for the IPO. On or about June 25, 2007, the Prospectus with respect to the IPO, which forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective and, including the exercise of the over-allotment, more than 133 million shares of Blackstone's common stock were sold to the public at $31 per share, thereby raising more than $4 billion. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement failed to disclose that certain of the Company's portfolio companies were not performing well and were of declining value and, as a result, Blackstone's equity investment was impaired and the Company would not generate anticipated performance fees on those investments or would have fees "clawed-back" by limited partners in its funds. On March 10, 2008, Blackstone issued a press release announcing its financial results for the full year of 2007 and the fourth quarter of 2007, the periods ending December 31, 2007. Among other disclosures, Blackstone announced that it was writing down its investment in Financial Guaranty Insurance Company by $122 million. As of April 15, 2008, Blackstone common stock traded in a range of $17-$17.50 per share, approximately 45% below the IPO price of $31.00 per share. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 16, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. 20 Church Street, Suite 1700 Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@snilaw.com Web site: http://www.snilaw.com FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Saxena White Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. has filed a lawsuit on behalf of shareholders of The First Marblehead Corporation with the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint, filed on behalf of Sheetmetal Workers Local 28 Pension Fund, seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased First Marblehead securities between August 10, 2006, through April 7, 2008, inclusive. First Marblehead provides outsourcing services for private education lending in the United States. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants reported quarter after quarter of seemingly strong financial results and touted the Company's ability to complete additional securitizations despite a difficult operating environment in the lending industry. As a result of Defendants' statements, the stock traded as high as $57.56 per share during the Class Period. The veracity of defendants' Class Period statements was first called into question on November 26, 2007. At that time, Friedman, Billings, Ramsey downgraded First Marblehead to under- perform from market-perform, citing an increased risk that loss reserves associated with securitization might not be sufficient. This meant that the previously reported value of First Marblehead's back-end rights and all management-supplied estimates of future earnings were in jeopardy. On December 4, 2007, Moody's Investors Service announced that it was performing a review of the Company and that it might lower ratings on $822 million of securities created by First Marblehead from 2003 through 2007. Subsequently, on March 26, 2008, Moody's downgraded 18 classes of notes in 11 First Marblehead student loan securitizations, affecting approximately $1.09 billion of the Company's asset-backed securities. On April 8, 2008, First Marblehead lost over a third of its value after The Education Resources Institute, Inc., the Company's guarantor of private student loans, filed for bankruptcy protection. As a result, the Company may incur substantial losses arising from defaults on its student loans. After the TERI bankruptcy announcement, First Marblehead's stock sank to $4.89, a decline of 36.5% from the day before. The Company's stock had already fallen 50 percent in the several months since the truth of its precarious financial position was finally revealed. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 9, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Joseph White, Esq. Greg Stone, Esq. Saxena White P.A. 2424 North Federal Highway Suite 257 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 394-3399 Fax: (561) 394-3382 Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com/ GLOBAL CASH: Holzer & Fistel Commences NY Securities Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC discloses that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc. and various individuals and other entities on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired shares of Global common stock pursuant to or traceable to the Company's September 22, 2005 Initial Public Offering, and who held such shares of Global common stock until November 14, 2007. The lawsuit alleges that the Company, certain of its current and former directors, as well as certain of its controlling shareholders and underwriters, violated the Securities Act of 1933 by, among other things, maintaining deficient internal controls, improperly computing commissions the Company was required to pay to many of its customers, and understating the Company's expenses during 2005, resulting in an overstatement of the Company's gross profit margins and net income. The complaint alleges the disclosure of the forgoing resulted in a decline in the value of the Company's common stock price, which caused damages to the Class. For more information, contact: Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC 1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107 Atlanta, Georgia 30338 Phone: (770) 392-0090 Fax: (770) 392-0029 Toll-Free: (888) 508-6832 Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com/ HARMONY GOLD: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of American Depository Receipts and call options and sellers of put options of Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited (NYSE/Nasdaq: HMY) between April 2, 2007 and August 7, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges Harmony Gold and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Harmony Gold is a gold producer that operates 22 individual mines and projects across the world. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company's costs had significantly increased throughout 2007; (2) that the Company had underreported these increased costs in its previously issued financial statements; (3) that the Company had experienced a significant decrease in gold production for the third quarter 2007 due to production problems at various sites, which had already materialized at the time its Class Period statements were made; (4) that the Company had failed to disclose the full impact that these production problems would have on the Company's financial and operational results; (5) that, as a result of the Company's understatement of its costs and its lower production for the quarter, the Company had understated its operating costs and overstated its net profit for the third quarter; (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times; (7) that the Company would be forced to take substantial charges in the fourth quarter 2007 to remedy such failures, causing the Company to report a net loss for the quarter; (8) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (9) that, as a result of the above, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On August 6, 2007, Harmony Gold reported preliminary financial and operational results for its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2007 (ended June 30, 2007). The Company warned that its financial results for the quarter were "expected to differ significantly from those of the three previous quarters as well as from the analysts' consensus." For the fourth quarter, the Company stated that it expected to report a headline loss of between 130 and 160 SA cents per share, compared with a headline profit of 58 SA cents per share for the third quarter. This quarterly loss was primarily the result of the Company recording significantly higher costs for the quarter, and included a 25 to 28 percent increase in the Company's total cash operating costs as a result of "the newly installed accounting software system that resulted in some of the March quarter's costs being captured in the June 2007 quarter." Thus, the Company had substantially understated its costs in previous quarters and was forced to take substantial charges in the fourth quarter to remedy such underreported costs. Additionally, the Company reported that its cost base had increased by 8 to 12 percent from the previous six months. Finally, the Company announced that its Chief Executive Officer had resigned, "with immediate effect." On this news, the Company's shares fell $2.45 per share, or over 18 percent, to close on August 6, 2007, at $11.02 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. The following day, the Company's shares declined an additional $1.57 per share, or over 14 percent, to close on August 7, 2007, at $9.45 per share, again on heavy trading volume. This closing price on August 7, 2007 represented a two-day decline in the Company's shares of $4.02 per share, or 29.8 percent, and a cumulative decline of $7.25 per share, or over 43.4 percent, from the value of the Company's shares at their Class Period high of $16.70 on April 25, 2007. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 16, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) 1-610-667-7706 e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com INVERNESS MEDICAL: Federman Files Massachusetts Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood discloses that on April 10, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed with the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Inverness Medical Innovations Inc. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from the date of the Company's secondary public offering on or about November 14, 2007, through April 10, 2008. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. For more information, contact: K. Lynn Nunn, Esq. (kln@federmanlaw.com) Federman & Sherwood 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com ISTAR FINANCIAL: Schatz Nobel Initiates Securities Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, filed a lawsuit seeking class action status with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of iStar Financial Inc. pursuant or traceable to the Company's secondary public offering on or about December 13, 2007. The Complaint charges that iStar, a finance company focusing on the commercial real estate industry, and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, on or about October 9, 2007, iStar filed a Form S-3 Shelf Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. On or about December 13, 2007, iStar filed a Prospectus Supplement to the Shelf Registration Statement (the Registration Statement) with respect to the Secondary Offering, which forms part of the Registration Statement, and more than 8 million shares of iStar common stock were sold to the public at $28.41 per share, thereby raising more than $227 million. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement negligently failed to disclose that iStar was then being negatively impacted by the adverse conditions in the credit markets and was failing to recognize more than $200 million of losses on its corporate loan and debt portfolio. On February 28, 2008, iStar announced its financial results for the fourth quarter of 2007 and fiscal year 2007. For the fourth quarter, the Company reported a loss of $78.7 million or $0.62 per share. iStar further reported that its fourth quarter financial results were impacted by $134.9 million of charges associated with the "impairment of two credits" and that the Company had increased its loan loss provisions by $113 million. In response to this announcement and subsequent analyst downgrades, iStar stock declined from $22.85 per share on February 27, 2008, to $13.98 per share on March 6, 2008. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 13, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. 20 Church Street, Suite 1700 Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@snilaw.com Web site: http://www.snilaw.com MONEYGRAM INTL: Federman Files Securities Lawsuit in Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood discloses that on March 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed with the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against MoneyGram International, Inc. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from January 24, 2007, through January 14, 2008. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. For more information, contact: K. Lynn Nunn, Esq. (kln@federmanlaw.com) Federman & Sherwood 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of any class of the Schwab YieldPlus Fund (NASDAQ SYMBOLS: SWYPX for the Investor Shares Class and SWYSX for the Select Shares Class) from March 17, 2005, through March 18, 2008, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants solicited investors to purchase shares of the Schwab YieldPlus Fund by making statements in their prospectuses and other sales literature that described the YieldPlus Fund as a safe alternative to money market funds. As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because defendants did not adequately disclose the risks associated with investing in the Fund, including for example, that the Fund was heavily invested in high-risk mortgage-backed securities and that the duration of a material part of the Fund's portfolio was greater than two years. During the course of the Class Period, the price of YieldPlus Fund shares dropped precipitously from approximately $9.67 per share to $6.80 per share, a 29.7% decrease. In ignorance of the materially incorrect and misleading statements contained in the prospectuses and other sales literature and described in the complaint, plaintiffs and the other members of the Class relied on these statements and purchased Schwab YieldPlus Fund securities. Had plaintiffs and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said securities, or would not have purchased them at the prices that were paid. Interested parties may move the court no later than May 19, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Robert B. Weintraub, Esq. Derek Behnke Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 Phone: (800) 575-0735 e-mail: classmember@whafh.com Web site: http://www.whafh.com VERTEX PHARMA: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated during the period between June 12, 2007, and November 2, 2007. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating the price of Vertex. For more information, contact: Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. Brodsky & Smith, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 WALGREEN: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP has commenced a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of an institutional investor and other purchasers of Walgreen Co. common stock during the period between June 25, 2007, and November 29, 2007. The complaint charges Walgreen and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Walgreen operates a chain of drugstores in the United States. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Walgreen was experiencing a steady decline in the growth of its core business -- filling retail drug prescriptions. Throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose declining growth rates for the Company's generic prescription business and misled investors concerning the sustainability of Walgreen's profits and sales. According to the complaint, unbeknownst to Walgreen's public shareholders, underlying the erosion of Walgreen's earnings was a material contract dispute with one of the nation's largest third-party providers of prescription drug benefits - CVS Caremark. During 2007, Walgreen disputed Caremark's reimbursement rates for a number of prescription drug plans located primarily in the upper Midwestern U.S., which were negatively impacting the Company's earnings. On October 1, 2007, prior to the market opening, Walgreen issued a press release announcing its financial results for its fourth fiscal quarter and fiscal year 2006. For the fourth quarter, the Company reported net income of $0.40 per share -- far below analysts' earnings expectations of $0.47 per share. In response to the announcement, the price of Walgreen stock declined from $47.00 per share to $39.96 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume. Then, on November 29, 2007, Walgreen announced that "after many months" of dispute with Caremark over the reimbursement rates for four prescription plans, Walgreen withdrew as a pharmacy provider from the plans. Following this announcement, shares of Walgreen common stock declined to a new three-year low of $36.59 per share at the close of trading on November 30, 2007. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Walgreen common stock during the Class Period. For more information, contact: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 800-449-4900 e-mail: djr@csgrr.com WALGREEN CO: Schatz Nobel Files Illinios Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, has filed a lawsuit seeking class action status with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Walgreen Co. between June 25, 2007, and November 29, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges that Walgreen and certain of its officers violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Walgreen was experiencing a steady decline in the growth of its core business -- filling retail drug prescriptions. Throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose declining growth rates for the Company's generic prescription business and misled investors concerning the sustainability of Walgreen's profits and sales. According to the Complaint, underlying the erosion of Walgreen's earnings was a material contract dispute with one of the nation's largest third-party providers of prescription drug benefits -- CVS Caremark. During 2007, Walgreen disputed Caremark's reimbursement rates for a number of prescription drug plans located primarily in the upper Midwestern U.S., which were negatively impacting the Company's earnings. On October 1, 2007, prior to the market opening, Walgreen issued a press release announcing its financial results for its fourth fiscal quarter and fiscal year 2006. For the fourth quarter, the Company reported net income of $0.40 per share -- far below analysts' earnings expectations of $0.47 per share. On this news, the price of Walgreen stock declined from $47.00 per share to $39.96 per share. Then, on November 29, 2007, Walgreen announced that "after many months" of dispute with Caremark over the reimbursement rates for four prescription plans, Walgreen withdrew as a pharmacy provider from the plans. Following this announcement, shares of Walgreen common stock declined to a new three-year low of $36.59 per share at the close of trading on November 30, 2007. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 16, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. 20 Church Street, Suite 1700 Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@snilaw.com Web site: http://www.snilaw.com Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chase Facing 1 Inactive Injury Suit in Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chase Corporation is still party to an inactive asbestos-related lawsuit filed in Ohio, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2008. The Company is one of over 100 defendants in a personal injury lawsuit, pending in Ohio, which alleges personal injury from exposure to asbestos contained in certain Chase products. The plaintiff in the case issued discovery requests to the Company in August 2005, to which it timely responded in September 2005. The trial had initially been scheduled to begin on April 30, 2007. However, that date has since been postponed and no new trial date has been set. Since that time, the Ohio lawsuit has been inactive with respect to the Company. Bridgewater, Mass.-based Chase Corporation makes tapes and protective coatings used by the electronic, public utility, and oil industries. Products include insulating and conducting materials for electrical wire; electrical repair tapes; protective pipe coatings; thermoelectric insulation for electrical equipment; and moisture protective coatings for electronics. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Majestic Star to Perform Pa. Site Abatement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Majestic Star Casino, LLC is to perform asbestos abatement in the 302 Carson Street office building in Pittsburgh, under the terms of a lease agreement. The Company will perform the abatement and be reimbursed by the landlord for all direct and indirect costs not to exceed US$400,000. On March 31, 2008, the Company entered into a lease with an affiliate for office space. The Lease has an initial term of five years and six months (Initial Term) and allows for one five-year extension under substantially similar terms as the Initial Term. The Lease will commence upon receipt of a temporary certificate of occupancy and abatement of asbestos to the area being occupied by the Company (Premises). Additionally, the Company has made general improvements (Tenant Improvements) to the Premises and will receive from the landlord a credit of US$500,000. The Company will be reimbursed for the asbestos abatement and Tenant Improvements through rent offset. Company Profile: The Majestic Star Casino, LLC 301 Freemont St., 12th Fl. Las Vegas, Nev. 89101 United States The Majestic Star Casino, LLC owns and operates four casino properties, two located in Gary, Ind., and one each in Tunica County, Miss., and Black Hawk, Colo. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's properties collectively contain 4,492 slot machines, 110 table games, 21 poker tables and 806 hotel rooms. The Company is wholly owned by Majestic Holdco, LLC. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 38 Cases Pending Against Met-Pro at Jan. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Met-Pro Corporation recorded a total of 38 asbestos-related cases pending against it as of Jan. 31, 2008, compared with 37 cases as of Jan. 31, 2007, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 11, 2008. The Company recorded a total of 39 pending asbestos cases filed against it as of Oct. 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 7, 2007) Beginning in 2002, the Company and one of its divisions began to be named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits filed predominantly in Mississippi on a mass basis by plaintiffs against industrial companies including those in the pump and fluid handling industries. More recently, the Company and this division have been named as one of many pump and fluid handling defendants in asbestos- related lawsuits filed in New York and Maryland by individual plaintiffs, sometimes husband and wife. To a lesser extent, the Company and this division have also been named together with many other pump and fluid handling defendants in these type of cases in other states as well. The complaints filed against the Company and this division have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that the Company and the division, along with the numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries and loss to the plaintiffs. The Company and the division have been dismissed from or settled a number of these cases. The sum total of payments made through Jan. 31, 2008 to settle these cases is US$355,000, all of which have been paid by the Company's insurers including legal expenses, except for corporate counsel expenses, with an average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, of about US$24,000. During the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008, 18 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from or settled 17 cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although several cases are on schedules leading to trial. Harleysville, Pa.-based Met-Pro Corporation manufactures and sells product recovery and pollution control equipment for purification of air and liquids, fluid handling equipment for corrosive, abrasive and high temperature liquids, and filtration and purification products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briefing on 2 Dana Holding Appeals Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Briefing on two of Dana Holding Corporation's bankruptcy asbestos-related appeals are ongoing, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2008. On Jan. 3, 2008, an Ad Hoc Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants filed a notice of appeal of the Confirmation Order (District Court Case No. 08-CV-01037). On Jan. 4, 2008, an asbestos claimant, Jose Angel Valdez, filed a notice of appeal of the Confirmation Order (District Court Case No. 08-CV-01038). On Feb. 5, 2008, Prior Dana (Dana Corporation) and the other post-emergence Debtors (collectively, the "Reorganized Debtors") filed a motion seeking to consolidate the two appeals. Briefing on the appeals are ongoing and the Reorganized Debtors are moving to have the appeals dismissed. Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Holding Corporation is a supplier of axle, driveshaft, structural, sealing and thermal products for global vehicle manufacturers. The Company employs about 35,000 people in 26 countries and the Company operates 113 major facilities worldwide. As a result of Dana Corporation's emergence from bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on Jan. 31, 2008, the Company is the successor registrant to Dana Corporation. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 41T Claims Pending v. Dana Holding at Dec. --------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Holding Corporation had about 41,000 active pending asbestos personal injury liability claims at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 73,000 at Dec. 31, 2006, including about 6,000 claims that were settled but awaiting final documentation and payment. The number of active pending claims has been reduced for two reasons. First, the dismissal of about 17,500 cases in the State of Mississippi reported in the third quarter of 2007. Second, updates of the Company's data on asbestos claims during the bankruptcy process disclosed that about 13,000 additional claims were inactive. These claims were filed in jurisdictions with inactive dockets or medical criteria that renders them unlikely to become active. The Company had accrued US$136 million for indemnity and defense costs for pending and future claims at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$141 million at Dec. 31, 2006. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's liability for future demands under prior commutations was US$12 million, bringing its total recorded liability for asbestos personal injury claims to US$148 million. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had recorded US$69 million as an asset for probable recovery from its insurers for pending and projected asbestos personal injury claims compared with US$72 million recorded at Dec. 31, 2006. In addition, the Company had a net amount receivable from its insurers and others of US$17 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$14 million at Dec. 31, 2006. Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Holding Corporation is a supplier of axle, driveshaft, structural, sealing and thermal products for global vehicle manufacturers. The Company employs about 35,000 people in 26 countries and the Company operates 113 major facilities worldwide. As a result of Dana Corporation's emergence from bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on Jan. 31, 2008, the Company is the successor registrant to Dana Corporation. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Records $18M Receivable for CCR Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Holding Corporation, at Dec. 31, 2007, had an asbestos- related receivable of US$18 million that it expects to recover from available insurance and surety bonds relating to Center for Claims Resolution (CCR) claims. After the CCR discontinued negotiating shared settlements for asbestos claims for its member companies in 2001, some former CCR members defaulted on the payment of their shares of some settlements and some settling claimants sought payment of the unpaid shares from other members of the CCR at the time of the settlements, including from the Company. The Company has been working with the CCR, other former CCR members, its insurers and the claimants over a period of several years in an effort to resolve these issues. Through Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had paid US$47 million to claimants and collected US$29 million from its insurance carriers with respect to these claims. The Company is continuing to pursue insurance collections with respect to claims paid prior to March 3, 2006 bankruptcy Filing Date. Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Holding Corporation is a supplier of axle, driveshaft, structural, sealing and thermal products for global vehicle manufacturers. The Company employs about 35,000 people in 26 countries and the Company operates 113 major facilities worldwide. As a result of Dana Corporation's emergence from bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on Jan. 31, 2008, the Company is the successor registrant to Dana Corporation. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Still Faces 385 Cases at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., at Dec. 31, 2007, continues to face about 385 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 8,500 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2008. At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had about 385 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 8,500 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. (Nov. 30, 2007) These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. In every asbestos case in which the Company is named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. There are four asbestos cases, involving 21 plaintiffs, that plead specified damages. In each of the four cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of US$3 million for four separate causes of action and US$1 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of US$10 million. In another case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of US$20 million for three separate causes of action and US$5 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of US$20 million. Historically, the Company has been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of the Company's subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by the Company or its subsidiaries. Cleveland-based Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., primarily through the subsidiaries owned by its direct subsidiary, Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., is an industrial supply chain logistics and diversified manufacturing business operating in three segments: Supply Technologies, Aluminum Products and Manufactured Products. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company employed about 3,700 persons. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NYMAGIC Inc. in Arbitration with Equitas ------------------------------------------------------------- NYMAGIC, INC. is engaged in an arbitration proceeding with Equitas, a Lloyd's company, to collect about US$6.2 million of recoverables ceded to them covering various asbestos claims, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2008. Equitas was established to settle claims for underwriting years 1992 and prior. On March 30, 2007, Equitas completed a reinsurance transaction with National Indemnity Company, a member of the Berkshire Hathaway group of insurance companies. As a result, National Indemnity now reinsures all Equitas' liabilities by providing an additional US$5.7 billion of reinsurance cover to Equitas. Equitas has contested coverage and has not paid the US$6.2 million to the Company. New York-based NYMAGIC, INC. is a holding company that owns and operates insurance companies, risk bearing entities and insurance underwriters and managers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NYMAGIC Has $52.4M A&E Reserves at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- NYMAGIC, INC.'s gross loss and loss adjustment reserves for asbestos/environmental policies were US$52.4 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$55.4 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's ceded loss and LAE reserves for A&E policies were US$41.5 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$43.2 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's net loss and LAE for A&E policies were US$10.9 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$12.2 million at Dec. 31, 2006. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had reported 74 claims, had 91 claims settled/dismissed or otherwise resolved, and had 384 claims pending. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had reported 80 claims, had 148 claims settled/dismissed or otherwise resolved, and had 401 claims pending. New York-based NYMAGIC, INC. is a holding company that owns and operates insurance companies, risk bearing entities and insurance underwriters and managers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Houston Wire Continues to Face Injury Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Houston Wire & Cable Company continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits in the state courts of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2008. The suits allege that certain wire and cable which may have contained asbestos caused injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable. These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy. It is not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the wire and cable in question or whether the Company distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any injuries. In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the wire and cable at issue, and it would rely on any warranties from the manufacturers of such cable if it were determined that any of the wire or cable that it distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these plaintiffs. In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages associated with these claims that the Company believes it could enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate. The Company maintains general liability insurance that has applied to these claims. To date, all costs associated with these claims have been covered by the applicable insurance policies and all defense of these claims has been handled by the applicable insurance companies. Houston Wire & Cable Company is a distributor of specialty wire and cable and related services to the U.S. electrical distribution market. During 2007, the Company served over 2,800 customers, including virtually all of the top 200 electrical distributors in the U.S. During 2007, the Company distributed about 23,000 SKUs (stock-keeping units) to over 8,200 customer locations nationwide from 11 distribution centers in 10 states. The Company is Houston-based. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Great Lakes Dredge Has No Active Open Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation states that there are no active pending asbestos-related cases against it or its former subsidiary, NATCO Limited Partnership, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2008. The Company, or NATCO, is named as a defendant in about 263 lawsuits, the majority of which were filed between 1989 and 2000. In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege personal injury, primarily fibrosis or asbestosis, from exposure to asbestos on the Company's vessels. Most of these lawsuits have been filed in the Northern District of Ohio and a few in the Eastern District of Michigan. All of the cases filed against the Company prior to 1996 were administratively dismissed in May 1996 and any cases filed since that time have similarly been administratively transferred to the inactive docket. No additional cases have been filed against the Company since 2002. Plaintiffs in these cases could seek to reinstate the cases at a future date without being barred by the statute of limitations. However, to date, no plaintiffs with claims against the Company have sought reinstatement. Oak Brook, Ill.-based Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation provides dredging services around the world. The Company's services include beach improvement or renourishment, rock dredging, harbor excavation, land reclamation, demolition, and restoration of aquatic and wetland habitats. Among the Company's projects are maintenance dredging at the Miami Harbor, nourishing San Diego beaches, and expanding Pier J in Long Beach, Calif. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Getty Realty, Unit Face Suit in Ill. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Getty Realty Corp. and its subsidiary, since August 2006, have been facing an asbestos-related action filed in the Circuit Court, Madison County, Ill., according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2008. The suit seeks a recovery of damages arising out of the death of a person allegedly exposed to asbestos at the subsidiary's premises. Jericho, N.Y.-based Getty Realty Corp. is a publicly-traded real estate investment trust (REIT) specializing in the ownership and leasing of retail motor fuel and convenience store properties and petroleum distribution terminals. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company owned eight hundred eighty properties and leased 203 additional properties. Its properties are located in the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic regions in the United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DXP Ent. Finalizing Remaining Settlements -------------------------------------------------------------- DXP Enterprises, Inc. states that all asbestos cases filed against it are all dismissed or dormant pending remaining settlements, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2008. In 2003, the Company was notified that it had been sued in various state courts in Nueces County, Tex. The 12 suits allege personal injury resulting from products containing asbestos allegedly sold by the Company. The suits do not specify what products or the dates the Company allegedly sold the products. The plaintiffs' attorney has agreed to a global settlement of all suits for a nominal amount to be paid by the Company's insurance carriers. Settlement has been consummated as to 116 of the 133 plaintiffs, and the remaining settlements are in process. Houston-based DXP Enterprises, Inc. distributes maintenance, repair, and operating (MRO) equipment and products, primarily to the oil and gas, petrochemical, and wood products industries. The Company also distributes centrifugal pumps, rotary gear pumps, plunger pumps, and other fluid-handling equipment as well as bearings and power transmission equipment, general mill (cutting tools) and safety supplies, and electrical products (wire conduit). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chemtura Still Subject to Liability Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chemtura Corporation is routinely subject to product liability claims, including claims related to its current products and asbestos-related claims concerning premises and historic products of its corporate affiliates and predecessors. No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2008. Middlebury, Conn.-based Chemtura Corporation is a publicly- traded specialty chemical company operating in the United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Accrues $2.8M for Cleanup ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Properties Group, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, has accrued a total of US$2.8 million (US$2.6 million relates to City National Plaza and US$200,000 relates to Brookhollow) for estimated future costs of asbestos removal. With respect to asbestos-containing materials present at the Company's City National Plaza and Brookhollow properties, these materials have been removed or abated from certain tenant and common areas of the building structures. The Company continues to remove or abate asbestos-containing materials from various areas of the building structures. As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company accrued USS$2.6 million for future asbestos-related removal costs. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 16, 2007) Los Angeles-based Thomas Properties Group, Inc. is a full- service real estate company that owns, acquires, develops and manages primarily office, as well as mixed-use and residential properties on a nationwide basis. Properties are located in Southern California and Sacramento, Calif.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Northern Virginia; Houston, Tex.; and Austin, Tex. As of March 14, 2008, the Company had about 180 employees. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Orion Marine Subject to Liability Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Orion Marine Group, Inc. has been and may from time to time be named as a defendant in legal actions (including asbestos- related lawsuits) claiming damages in connection with marine infrastructure projects and other matters. These are typically claims that arise in the normal course of business, including employment-related claims and contractual disputes or claims for personal injury (including asbestos- related lawsuits) or property damage which occurs in connection with services performed relating to project or construction sites. No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2007. Company Profile: Orion Marine Group, Inc. 12550 Fuqua Street Houston, Tex. 77034 Phone: (713) 852-6500 The Company is a marine specialty contractor serving the heavy civil marine infrastructure market. The Company provides marine construction services on, over and under the water along the Gulf Coast, the Atlantic Seaboard and in the Caribbean Basin. Customers are federal, state and municipal governments as well as private commercial and industrial enterprises. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Pending v. Domtar Ind. in U.S. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Domtar Corporation said that several asbestos-related personal injury claims have been filed in U.S. state and federal courts against Domtar Industries Inc. and certain other affiliates of the Company. These claims were filed in connection with alleged exposure by people to products or premises containing asbestos. Quebec, Canada-based Domtar Corporation is an integrated manufacturer and marketer of uncoated freesheet paper in North America. Through its subsidiaries, the Company designs, manufactures, market and distributes paper products for customers, including merchants, retail outlets, stationers, printers, publishers, converters and end-users. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sears Holdings Subject to Exposure Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Sears Holdings Corporation is subject to various legal and governmental proceedings, many involving litigation incidental to the Company's businesses. Some matters contain environmental and asbestos exposure allegations, class action allegations, and other consumer-based claims, each of which may seek compensatory, punitive or treble damage claims (potentially in large amounts) or as well as other types of relief. No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2008. Hoffman Estates, Ill.-based Sears Holdings Corporation is a retailer with 2,317 full-line and 1,150 specialty retail stores in the United States operating through Kmart and Sears and 380 full-line and specialty retail stores in Canada operating through Sears Canada Inc., a 70 percent-owned subsidiary. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 114 Actions Pending v. IPALCO Unit at Dec. --------------------------------------------------------------- IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s subsidiary Indianapolis Power & Light Company, as of Dec. 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, was a defendant in about 114 pending asbestos lawsuits, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2008. IPL faced about 115 pending asbestos-related lawsuits as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 23, 2007) These suits allege personal injury or wrongful death stemming from exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing products formerly located in IPL power plants. IPL has been named as a "premises defendant" in that IPL did not mine, manufacture, distribute or install asbestos or asbestos containing products. These suits have been brought on behalf of persons who worked for contractors or subcontractors hired by IPL. IPL has insurance which may cover some portions of these claims. These cases are being defended by counsel retained by various insurers who wrote policies applicable to the period of time during which much of the exposure has been alleged. Indianapolis-based IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s principal subsidiary is Indianapolis Power & Light Company, a regulated electric utility with its customer base concentrated in Indianapolis. Substantially all of the Company's business consists of the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electric energy conducted through IPL. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Current Obligations Total $101M at Dec. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABB Ltd's current asbestos obligations were US$101 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$150 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2008. The Company's Combustion Engineering, Inc. subsidiary had been a co-defendant in a large number of lawsuits claiming damage for personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos. A smaller number of claims had also been brought against the Company's former Lummus subsidiary as well as against other entities of the Company. A Master Settlement Agreement was entered into that involved the establishment of the CE Settlement Trust to resolve asbestos related personal injury claims of certain settling claimants who had lodged their claims before Nov. 14, 2002 and to provide partial payment of those claims. Separate plans of reorganization for CE and Lummus, as amended, were filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The CE plan of reorganization became effective on April 21, 2006 and the Lummus plan of reorganization became effective on Aug. 31, 2006. Under the Plans, separate personal injury trusts were created and are being funded to settle future asbestos related claims against CE and Lummus and on the respective Plan effective dates, channeling injunctions were issued under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code under which all present and future asbestos-related personal injury claims filed against the Company and its affiliates and certain other entities that relate to the operations of CE and Lummus are channeled to the CE Asbestos PI Trust or the Lummus Asbestos PI Trust, respectively. Funding of the CE Asbestos PI Trust has been made on certain scheduled payment dates. In addition, US$204 million was paid to this Trust on Nov. 14, 2007, as required in conjunction with the sale of Lummus which occurred on Nov. 16, 2007. Funding of the Lummus Asbestos PI Trust was completed on May 2, 2007 upon the payment to that Trust of US$28 million. The asbestos obligations relating to the CE Plan as reflected in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements are payable pursuant to a non-interest bearing promissory note (the ABB Promissory Note). The Company is also liable on a contingent basis under the Promissory Note for two additional payments of US$25 million each. One additional payment of US$25 million is payable in 2010 or 2011 if the Company attains an earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) margin of nine percent for 2009 or 14 percent in 2010. The other additional payment of US$25 million is payable in 2011 if the Company attains an EBIT margin of 9.5 percent in 2010. These two US$25 million contingent payments are not included in the provisions for asbestos obligations. If the Company is found by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to have defaulted on its payment obligations under the ABB Promissory Note, the CE Asbestos PI Trust may petition the Bankruptcy Court to terminate the CE channeling injunction and the protections afforded by that injunction to the Company and other ABB entities as well as certain other entities, including Alstom SA. Zurich, Switzerland-based ABB Ltd provides power and automation technologies to utility, industrial, and commercial customers. The Company, which operates in about 100 countries, has divested a number of its businesses to focus on its two core operational areas. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Records 9,500 Exposure Claims at Dec. -------------------------------------------------------------- ABB Ltd states that there were about 9,500 asbestos-related claims outstanding against Company entities other than Combustion Engineering, Inc. and Lummus Global at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 12,100 claims at Dec. 31, 2006. ABB entities that are subject to such claims will continue to resolve them in the tort system, or otherwise. The Company generally seeks dismissals from claims where there is no apparent linkage between the plaintiff's claimed exposure and a product of the Company. Zurich, Switzerland-based ABB Ltd provides power and automation technologies to utility, industrial, and commercial customers. The Company, which operates in about 100 countries, has divested a number of its businesses to focus on its two core operational areas. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Ventures LLC Records 15 Active Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kaiser Ventures LLC states that about 15 active suits are pending, primarily bodily injury, against Kaiser LLC and Kaiser Steel Corporation (the bankruptcy estate of Kaiser Steel Corporation is embodied in KSC Recovery, Inc.). The Company faced about nine active asbestos-related injury claims. (Class Action Reporter, April 13, 2007) Many of the plaintiffs allege that they or their family members were aboard Kaiser ships or worked in shipyards in the Oakland/San Francisco, Calif., area or Vancouver, Wash., area in the 1940s and that the Company and/or KSC Recovery were in some manner associated with one or more shipyards or has successor liability. However, there is an increasing number of claims related to other facilities such as the former Kaiser Steel Mill Site Property. Most of these lawsuits are third party premises claims alleging injury resulting from exposure to asbestos or asbestos containing products and involve multiple defendants. The Company anticipates that it, often along with KSC Recovery, will be named as a defendant in additional asbestos lawsuits. A number of large manufacturers and/or installers of asbestos and asbestos containing products have filed for bankruptcy over the past several years, increasing the likelihood that additional suits will be filed against the Company. In addition, the trend has been toward increasing trial damages and settlement demands. Of the claims resolved to date, about 75 percent have been resolved without payment to the plaintiffs. Ontario, Calif.-based Kaiser Ventures LLC oversees recycling and solid waste investments. The Company's holdings include an 82.5 percent stake in Mine Reclamation Corporation and a 50 percent stake in West Valley Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station, which separates waste materials for recycling or storage. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $41.3M Reorganization Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Congoleum Corporation, for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, recorded US$41,315,000 as asbestos-related reorganization charges, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2008. In September 2007, the Company filed the Third Amended Complaint in an Omnibus Adversary Proceeding adding new counts that encompass the subject matter and relief requested in the Omnibus Objection. The Third Amended Complaint remains pending. In October 2007, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment in the Omnibus Adversary Proceeding seeking a ruling that all pre-petition settlement agreements, including a Claimant Agreement, were null and void or should be rescinded. Argument on the summary judgment motion was heard in November 2007 and by opinion dated Dec. 28, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion for summary judgment. The Company and the Bondholders' Committee have filed notice of appeal from this decision to the U.S. District Court. The second phase of the Coverage Action trial will address all coverage issues, including but not limited to whether certain other trial listed settlements were fair, reasonable and negotiated in good faith and covered by insurance as well as trigger and allocation of asbestos losses to insurance policies. In February 2008, the State Court expanded the scope of Phase 2 of the Coverage Action to include obligations of insurers with respect to the settlement agreement in the Joint Plan with respect to the Avoidance Actions. The State Court has entered a new case management order scheduling further discovery. The Company sought to stay Phase 2 of the Coverage Action because of the pendency of the solicitation and balloting and scheduled confirmation hearing on the Joint Plan, but the Bankruptcy Court denied the stay motion, which decision is being appealed to the District Court. The third and final phase of the Coverage Action will address bad faith punitive damages, if appropriate. Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corporation produces both sheet and tile floor covering products. The Company also produces through-chip-inlaid sheet products for both residential and commercial markets. The Company's products serve both the residential and commercial hard-surface flooring markets, and are used in remodeling, manufactured housing, new construction and commercial applications. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Cites $31.2M Liability at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Congoleum Corporation's current asbestos-related liabilities were US$31,207,000 at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$13,950,000 at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2008. The Company is a party to a significant number of lawsuits stemming from its manufacture of asbestos-containing products. During 2007, the Company paid US$13.0 million in fees and expenses related to implementation of its planned reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and litigation with certain insurance companies. Based on the Joint Plan, the Company has made provision in its financial statements for the minimum estimated cost to effect its plan to settle asbestos liabilities through confirmation of a plan that complies with section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Company recorded charges aggregating about US$51.3 million in prior years. Based on the terms of the Joint Plan, in the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company recorded an additional US$41.3 million charge. Of this charge, US$14.9 million related to the write-off of certain insurance litigation costs receivable that will not be collected under the terms of the Joint Plan and US$26.4 million was an additional provision for estimated costs for the reorganization proceedings and coverage litigation. In the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company also recorded a US$41 million interest expense credit to reverse post-petition interest accrued on its Senior Notes. In anticipation of its commencement of the Chapter 11 cases, the Company entered into a Claimant Agreement, which provides for an aggregate settlement value of at least US$466 million as well as an additional number of individually negotiated trial listed settlements with an aggregate value of about US$25 million, for total settlements in excess of US$491 million. Participants in the Claimant Agreement signed releases limiting their recourse against the Company to what they would receive from the Plan Trust and the Company has therefore estimated its liability under the Claimant Agreement as the cost of effecting the settlement through confirmation of a plan of reorganization. In addition, as a result of tabulating ballots on the Fourth Plan, the Company is also aware of claims by claimants whose claims were not determined under the Claimant Agreement but who have submitted claims with a value of about US$512 million based on the settlement values applicable in the Sixth Plan. It is also likely that additional new claims will be asserted in connection with solicitation of acceptances of the Joint Plan. The Company's asbestos product liability receivable was US$10.5 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$21.8 million at Dec. 31, 2006. Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corporation produces both sheet and tile floor covering products. The Company also produces through-chip-inlaid sheet products for both residential and commercial markets. The Company's products serve both the residential and commercial hard-surface flooring markets, and are used in remodeling, manufactured housing, new construction and commercial applications. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,360 Claims at Dec. --------------------------------------------------------------- American Biltrite Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, is a co-defendant with many other manufacturers and distributors of asbestos- containing products in about 1,360 pending claims involving about 1,946 individuals, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2008. The Company, as of Sept. 30, 2007, is a co-defendant with other manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products in about 1,363 pending claims involving about 1,949 individuals. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 7, 2007) These claims relate to products of the Company's former Tile Division, which the Company contributed to Congoleum Corporation. The claimants allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The estimated range of liability for settlement of current claims pending and claims anticipated to be filed through 2013 was US$12.6 million to US$41.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2007. The Company said it believes no amount within this range is more likely than any other and, accordingly, has recorded a liability of US$12.6 million in its financial statements, which represents the minimum probable and reasonably estimable amount for the future liability at the present time. The Company said it believes that based on this liability estimate, the corresponding amount of insurance probable of recovery is US$11.1 million at Dec. 31, 2007, which has been included in other assets. Defense costs historically paid by the Company's carriers have been about 156 percent of the related indemnity costs. Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc.'s tape division manufactures adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes and films used to protect materials during handling and storage, as well as for applications in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), automotive, and electrical industries. The Company's Congoleum unit, which makes resilient sheet and tile flooring, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection amidst a large number of asbestos-related lawsuits. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Liabilities Total $12.6M --------------------------------------------------------------- American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$12.6 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$10.3 million at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2008. The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities totaled US$10.66 milion at Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 7, 2007) The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos-related claims was US$11.14 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$9.32 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos-related liabilities totaled US$9.32 million at Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 7, 2008) Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc.'s tape division manufactures adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes and films used to protect materials during handling and storage, as well as for applications in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), automotive, and electrical industries. The Company's Congoleum unit, which makes resilient sheet and tile flooring, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection amidst a large number of asbestos-related lawsuits. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ING Groep Has EUR66M Balance for A&E Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- ING Groep N.V. had an outstanding balance of EUR66 million at Dec. 31, 2007 (EUR66 million at Dec. 31, 2006) relating to environmental and asbestos claims of the insurance operations, according to the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2008. In establishing the liability for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expenses related to asbestos related illness and toxic waste clean up, the management of ING Groep considers facts currently known and the current state of the law and coverage litigation. Liabilities are recognized for IBNR claims and for known claims (including the costs of related litigation) when sufficient information has been developed to indicate the involvement of a specific insurance policy, and management can reasonably estimate its liability. In addition, liabilities are reviewed and updated regularly. Company Profile: ING Groep N.V. ING House Amstelveenseweg 500 1081 KL Amsterdam The Netherlands An insurance and financial services company, ING Groep N.V.'s operations are focused on its home market of Benelux, as well as Asia/Pacific, Europe, and North America. Key products include life and non-life insurance, pensions, and retirement services. Banking operations include wholesale and retail banking and mortgage lending. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian Pacific Adjusts Liability Estimate ---------------------------------------------------------------- Canadian Pacific Railway Limited states that adjustments to the 2006 and 2007 asbestos-related liability were not significant, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2008. In 2005, the Company conducted a study to better measure the level of accruals for asbestos claims from retired U.S. employees, and to better calibrate the case-by-case accruals for other U.S. employee claims to recent safety and other experience trends. The result of the study was to increase the Company's liability accrual for such claims by US$4.1 million with a corresponding charge to operating expense. These studies are now being conducted on an annual basis. Calgary, Canada-based Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, with operations stretching from Vancouver to New York, Canadian Pacific Railway hauls freight over a 13,300-mile network in Canada and the U.S. Its system includes about 9,000 miles of Company-owned track and another 4,200 miles of track that is jointly owned, leased, or operated under trackage rights. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArcelorMittal Has 449 Pending French Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- ArcelorMittal states that the number of claims outstanding for asbestos exposure was 449 at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 421 at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2008. Various retired or present employees of certain French subsidiaries of the former Arcelor S.A. have initiated lawsuits to obtain compensation for asbestos exposure in excess of the amounts paid by French social security. Asbestos claims in France initially are made by way of a declaration of a work-related illness by the claimant to the Social Security authorities resulting in an investigation and a level of compensation paid by Social Security. Once the work-related illness is recognized by the Social Security authorities, the claimant, depending on the circumstances, can also claim in an action for "faute inexcusable" (inexcusable negligence) additional compensation from the Company before a special tribunal. Where procedural errors are made by Social Security, it is required to assume full payment of damages awarded to the claimants. This has generally been the case to date. The range of amounts claimed for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007 was EUR7,500 to EUR615,000 (about US$11,000 to US$905,000). The aggregate costs for the five month period ended Dec. 31, 2006 were EUR230,000 (about US$300,000). The aggregate costs were EUR350,141 (about US$515,000) for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Settlements were EUR1,200 (about US$2,000) for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 191 claims filed and 163 claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 17 claims filed and 32 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Based in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, ArcelorMittal was formed in 2004 when Ispat International purchased LNM Holdings for US$13 billion. The combined entity stood as the largest steel company in the world, with annual steel production of 50 million tons. The Company manufactures flat rolled and long steel products using direct-reduced iron. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArcelorMittal USA May Spend $8MM in 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------- ArcelorMittal's subsidiary, ArcelorMittal USA Inc., anticipates spending about US$8 million during 2008, about US$80 million over the next 40 years, to address the removal and disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) equipment and asbestos material encountered during the operation of its facilities. Based in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, ArcelorMittal was formed in 2004 when Ispat International purchased LNM Holdings for US$13 billion. The combined entity stood as the largest steel company in the world, with annual steel production of 50 million tons. The Company manufactures flat rolled and long steel products using direct-reduced iron. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Summary Judgment Bid in Hauman Suit Okayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, granted defendants' summary judgment motion in a case involving asbestos filed by Darin Lee Hauman. The case is styled Darin Lee Hauman, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey Beard, et al., Defendants. District Judge Kim R. Gibson and Magistrate Judge Keith A. entered judgment of Case No. 3:05-cv-439-KRG-KAP on March 26, 2008. Mr. Hauman, incarcerated at S.C.I. Laurel Highlands, filed a complaint and an amended complaint alleging that defendants, who are employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment, under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. s 12101, et seq., and under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. s 701, et seq. Although Mr. Hauman also complained that his mail has been improperly opened by Pennsylvania Department of Corrections personnel, the heart of his complaint is that his pulmonary ailments have been caused or aggravated by his exposure to a variety of environmental pollutants, including emissions from the coal fired power plant, dust and asbestos from pipe insulation in buildings and from the mechanical buffing of floor tiles, and second-hand tobacco smoke. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the merits of both claims. Mr. Hauman also believed that he was exposed to friable asbestos. Defendants aver that on the one occasion in April 2006 there was a release of asbestos including friable asbestos from the mechanical room in the Maintenance Annex but that Mr. Hauman was not in the work crew assigned to the building nor present in the building. Mr. Hauman admitted he was not directly exposed to asbestos in the April 2006 incident but averred that he suffered second-hand exposure from fellow inmates who were exposed and carried fibers back to the housing unit. Mr. Hauman asserted that he was also exposed to friable asbestos in May 2005 while on a work project at the Officers Dining Room. He disbelieved that the defendants' denial that there was any friable asbestos released in the May 2005 incident because Mr. Hauman averred no testing of these materials was done. Defendants did not claim that any testing was done. They admitted that that there are asbestos containing materials in that building. This matter was referred to Judge Pesto for pretrial proceedings. On Feb. 22, 2008, Judge Pesto filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants be granted except as to one claim, and that Mr. Hauman's motions for summary judgment be denied. The parties were notified that they had 10 days to serve and file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. Mr. Hauman filed timely objections, which were meritless. On March 26, 2008, it was ordered that defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted except for the claim for injunctive relief based on the allegation that Mr. Hauman was exposed to asbestos in May 2005 and April 2006. Mr. Hauman's motions for summary judgment were denied. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Court Affirms Hendleys' Remand Motion -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah Division, granted Harold Hendley and Linda Hendley's motion to remand, in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed against American Standard, Inc. and other defendants. The case is styled Harold Hendley and Linda Hendley, Plaintiffs v. American Standard, Inc., et al., Defendants. District Judge Thomas B. Russell entered judgment of Case No. 5:07CV-208-R on March 26, 2008. The Hendleys initiated this action by filing a complaint on Nov. 21, 2007, in Graves County Circuit Court. Mr. Hendley claimed that he was injured by exposure to asbestos while working at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, which was operated by Defendant Union Carbide Corporation. Union Carbide removed the action. The Hendleys filed a motion to remand on Jan. 15, 2008. The District Court granted the Hendleys' motion on March 26, 2008. Donald R. Green, Jr., James W. Owens, Chartered, James W. Owens, Paducah, Ky., Ethan A. Flint, Richard L. Saville, Jr., Robert J. Evola, Saville, Evola & Flint LLC, Alton, Ill., represented Harold Hendley and Linda Hendley. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Feldman Mall Incurs $1.4M for Abatement ------------------------------------------------------------ Feldman Mall Properties, Inc. incurred about US$1.4 million of asbestos abatement in connection with the demolition of the JCPenney building at Northgate Mall, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2008. The Company acquired the JCPenney building in July 2007. The Company accrued about US$1,711,000 for the cost of asbestos remediation for a parcel of land it acquired in July 2007, of which amount was added to the book value of the land. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 28, 2007) Great Neck, N.Y.-based Feldman Mall Properties, Inc. is a real estate investment trust, or REIT, formed in July 2004 to continue the business of Feldman Equities of Arizona to acquire, renovate and reposition retail shopping malls. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EMC Insurance Incurs $511T Losses at Dec. -------------------------------------------------------------- EMC Insurance Group Inc.'s incurred asbestos-related losses and settlement expenses were US$511,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$945,000 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 14, 2008. The Company's reserves for asbestos-related loss and settlement expense were US$5,266,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$5,182,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental-related claims associated with the insurance business written by parties to the pooling agreement and the reinsurance business assumed from Employers Mutual Casualty Company by the reinsurance subsidiary. With regard to the assumed reinsurance business, however, all asbestos and environmental exposures related to 1980 and prior accident years are retained by Employers Mutual. During 2006, the Company elected to strengthen direct asbestos IBNR loss and settlement expense reserves to the middle scenario of an independent actuarial review conducted during the year. Des Moines, Iowa-based EMC Insurance Group Inc. conducts operations in property and casualty insurance and reinsurance through its subsidiaries. The Company focuses on the sale of commercial lines of property and casualty insurance to small and medium-sized businesses. While the Company markets its insurance products in 41 states, most of its business is marketed and generated in the Midwest. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EMC Insurance Has $7.4M for Claims at Dec. --------------------------------------------------------------- EMC Insurance Group Inc.'s reserves for asbestos- and environmental-related claims for direct insurance and assumed reinsurance business totaled US$7,433,535 (US$7,400,162 net of reinsurance) at Dec. 31, 2007 and US$7,288,116 (US$7,288,116 net of reinsurance) at Dec. 31, 2006. The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental related claims associated with the insurance business written by parties to the pooling agreement and the reinsurance business assumed from Employers Mutual Casualty Company by the reinsurance subsidiary. Asbestos and environmental losses paid by the Company have averaged US$424,258 per year over the past five years. At present, the Company is defending about 600 asbestos bodily injury lawsuits, some of which involve multiple plaintiffs. Four former policyholders and one current policyholder dominate the Company's asbestos claims. During 2003, the Company was presented with several hundred lawsuits (primarily multi-plaintiff lawsuits) filed against three former policyholders representing about 66,500 claims related to exposure to asbestos or products containing asbestos. During 2006 and 2007, several of the multi-plaintiff lawsuits (including the vast majority of those associated with one former policyholder) were dismissed. As of Dec. 31, 2007, about 5,000 of the claims remained open. During 2006, the Company received notice that another former insured was a named defendant in about 33,000 claims nationwide. As of Dec. 31, 2007, about 27,000 of these claims remained open. To date, actual losses paid have been minimal due to the plaintiffs� failure to identify an exposure to any asbestos- containing product associated with the Company's policyholders. Des Moines, Iowa-based EMC Insurance Group Inc. conducts operations in property and casualty insurance and reinsurance through its subsidiaries. The Company focuses on the sale of commercial lines of property and casualty insurance to small and medium-sized businesses. While the Company markets its insurance products in 41 states, most of its business is marketed and generated in the Midwest. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Inc. Records 169 Claims at Feb. 29 --------------------------------------------------------------- GenCorp Inc. faced 169 pending asbestos-related cases as of Feb. 29, 2008, and 160 claims as of Nov. 30, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26, 2008. The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing operations. Most of the cases have been filed in Madison County, Ill. and San Francisco, Calif. During the three months ended Feb. 29, 2008, the Company noted 17 claims filed, seven claims dismissed, and one claim settled. The aggregate settlement costs were US$95,000 and the average settlement costs were US$95,000. During the year ended Nov. 30, 2007, the Company noted 57 claims filed, 43 claims dismissed, and eight claims settled. The aggregate settlement costs were US$72,000 and the average settlement costs were US$9,000. Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for the first quarter of fiscal 2008 were US$200,000. Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases were US$900,000 for fiscal year 2007 and US$500,000 for fiscal year 2006. Sacramento, Calif.-based GenCorp Inc. is a manufacturer of aerospace and defense systems with a real estate segment that includes activities related to the entitlement, sale, and leasing of its excess real estate assets. The Company's continuing operations are organized into two segments: Aerospace and Defense and Real Estate. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 25 Claims Pending v. Ameron Int'l. at March ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ameron International Corporation, as of March 2, 2008, was a defendant in asbestos-related cases involving 25 claimants, compared with 60 claimants as of Nov. 30, 2007. The Company is one of numerous defendants in various asbestos- related personal injury lawsuits. These cases seek unspecified damages for asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by the Company and others. At this time the Company is generally not aware of the extent of injuries allegedly suffered by the individuals or the facts supporting the claim that injuries were caused by the Company's products. For the quarter ended March 2, 2008, there were new claims involving three claimants, dismissals and settlements involving 38 claimants and no judgments. No net costs or expenses were incurred by the Company for the quarter ended March 2, 2008 in connection with asbestos-related claims. Pasadena, Calif.-based Ameron International Corporation is a multinational manufacturer of highly-engineered products and materials for the chemical, industrial, energy, transportation and infrastructure markets. The Company is a producer of water transmission lines; fiberglass-composite pipe for transporting oil, chemicals and corrosive fluids and specialized materials and products used in infrastructure projects. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reading Int'l. Incurs $7.1M for Remediation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reading International, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, had incurred a total of US$7.1 million (AUD8.1 million) of asbestos and environmental costs of its 50-acre Burwood site in Melbourne, Australia, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2008. The Company is in the process of remediating certain environmental issues with respect to Burwood. That property was at one time used as a brickwork, and the Company has discovered petroleum and asbestos at the site. During 2007, the Company developed a plan for the remediation of these materials, in some cases through removal and in other cases through encapsulation. The total site preparation costs associated with the removal of this contaminated soil is estimated to be US$7.9 million (AUD9 million). From time to time, the Company has claims brought against it relating to the exposure of former employees of its railroad operations to asbestos and coal dust. These are generally covered by an insurance settlement reached in September 1990 with the Company's insurance carriers. However, this insurance settlement does not cover litigation by people who were not Company employees and who may claim second hand exposure to asbestos, coal dust and other chemicals or elements now recognized as potentially causing cancer in humans. Commerce, Calif.-based Reading International, Inc. owns more than 50 theaters in Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S. The Company also owns three Off-Broadway-style theaters in New York and one live theater complex in Chicago. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oxford Residential Uses $807T for Cleanup -------------------------------------------------------------- Oxford Residential Properties I Limited Partnership, for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, incurred cleanup expenses, primarily related to asbestos removal, of about US$807,000, according to the Company's annual report, on Form 10-KSB, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2008. During June 2007, one of the Partnership's investment properties, Raven Hill Apartments, incurred damages as a result of a fire. The preliminary estimates of building damages were about US$2,796,000 and lost rents were about US$215,000. All of the asbestos related work was completed in 2007. Greenville, S.C.-based Oxford Residential Properties I Limited Partnership was formed on Jan. 19, 1984 to acquire, own and operate residential properties. The General Partners of the Partnership are Oxford Residential Properties I Corporation and Oxford Fund I Limited Partnership. Oxford Residential Properties I Corporation serves as the managing general partner and Oxford Fund I Limited Partnership serves as the Associated General Partner. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Boss Holdings Inc. Facing Exposure Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Boss Holdings, Inc. continues to face lawsuits alleging past exposure to asbestos contained in gloves manufactured or sold by one of the Company's predecessors-in-interest. All actions are being defended by one or more of the Company's products liability insurers. No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2008. Kewanee, Ill.-based Boss Holdings, Inc. operates primarily in the work gloves and protective wear business segment. In addition, the Company conducts operations in the pet supplies business segment and promotional and specialty products segments. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NTS Comms Incurs $31T for Tex. Site in 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Xfone, Inc.'s subsidiary, NTS Communications, Inc., during 2007, incurred about US$31,000 expenses related to the encapsulation of asbestos insulation. The insulation was located on certain of the basement piping and basement boiler jacket of the Metro Tower, a property owned in Lubbock, Tex. The expenses were also incurred in connection with the replacement of the roof of the building to remediate a potential interior mold problem with originated from a roof leak. NTS will from time to time incur additional similar expenses in the future to monitor and encapsulate, where necessary, isolated areas of asbestos. On March 21, 2008, NTS received notice that the remediation project at Metro Tower had been completed. Flowood, Miss.-based Xfone, Inc. is a holding and managing company providing international voice, video and data communications services with operations in the United States, the United Kingdom and Israel. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Committee Moves to End G-I Holdings' Stay -------------------------------------------------------------- Building Materials Corporation of America, by notices dated Feb. 1, 2008, the creditors' committee and legal representative of present and future holders of asbestos-related demands elected to terminate the stay of proceedings in the G-I Holdings bankruptcy and related litigation. The parties continue to participate in mediation. G-I Holdings Inc. is the indirect parent of the Company. In connection with its formation, the Company contractually assumed and agreed to pay the first US$204.4 million of liabilities for asbestos-related bodily injury claims relating to the inhalation of asbestos fiber (Asbestos Claims) of the Company's indirect parent, G-I Holdings. As of March 30, 1997, the Company had paid all of its assumed liabilities for Asbestos Claims. G-I Holdings has agreed to indemnify the Company against any other existing or future claims related to asbestos-related liabilities if asserted against the Company. In January 2001, G-I Holdings filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code due to Asbestos Claims. Most Asbestos Claims do not specify the amount of damages sought and the value of the Asbestos Claims asserted against G-I Holdings is a contested issue in that bankruptcy which remains pending. Claimants in the G-I Holdings bankruptcy, including judgment creditors, might seek to satisfy their claims by asking the Bankruptcy Court to require the sale of G-I Holdings' assets, including its holdings of BMCA Holdings Corporation's common stock and its indirect holdings of the Company's common stock. In addition, those creditors may attempt to assert Asbestos Claims against the Company. (About 1,900 Asbestos Claims were filed against the Company prior to Feb. 2, 2001.) On Feb. 2, 2001, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order enjoining any existing or future claimant from bringing or prosecuting an Asbestos Claim against the Company. By oral opinion on June 22, 2001, and written order entered Feb. 22, 2002, the Bankruptcy Court converted the temporary restraints into a preliminary injunction prohibiting the bringing or prosecution of any such Asbestos Claims against the Company. On Feb. 7, 2001, G-I Holdings filed an action in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey seeking a declaratory judgment that the Company has no successor liability for Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings and that it is not the alter ego of G-I Holdings (BMCA Action). One of the parties to this matter, the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants (creditors' committee), subsequently filed a counterclaim against the Company seeking a declaration that the Company has successor liability for Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings and that it is the alter ego of G-I Holdings. On May 13, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey overseeing the G-I Holdings' Bankruptcy Court withdrew the reference of the BMCA Action from the Bankruptcy Court, and this matter will therefore be heard by the District Court. In March 2007, after participating in a mediation which resulted in the parties agreeing to an outline of the principal terms of a settlement of the G-I Holdings bankruptcy and all related litigations, the parties agreed to a stay of proceedings pending the completion of their negotiations. The judges presiding over the G-I Holdings bankruptcy proceeding and the related litigations, including the BMCA Action and a fraudulent conveyance action, each entered stipulated orders dated March 22, 2007, March 23, 2007 and April 4, 2007, respectively, implementing the stay. Wayne, N.J.-based Building Materials Corporation of America is a manufacturer and marketer of asphalt and polymer-based roofing products and accessories for the residential and commercial roofing markets. The Company also manufactures specialty building products and accessories for the professional and do- it-yourself remodeling and residential construction industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: G-I Holdings Inc. Faces 3 Building Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Building Materials Corporation of America's indirect parent, G-I Holdings Inc., is a defendant in three remaining asbestos- related Building Claims, one of which has been dormant, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2008. G-I Holdings has been named as a defendant in asbestos-in- buildings cases for economic and property damage or other injuries based upon an alleged present or future need to remove asbestos-containing materials from public and private buildings (Building Claims). Most Building Claims do not seek to recover an amount of specific damages. Since these actions were first initiated about 20 years ago, G-I Holdings has successfully disposed of about 145 of these cases. The three actions have been stayed as to G-I Holdings under the G-I Holdings' bankruptcy case. No new Building Claims were filed in 2007. The Company has not assumed any liabilities with respect to Building Claims. Wayne, N.J.-based Building Materials Corporation of America is a manufacturer and marketer of asphalt and polymer-based roofing products and accessories for the residential and commercial roofing markets. The Company also manufactures specialty building products and accessories for the professional and do- it-yourself remodeling and residential construction industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amerex Cleanup at Okla. Site Ended on Sept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amerex Group Inc. says that asbestos removal at its Pryor, Okla., site was completed in September 2007, according to the Company's annual report, on Form 10-KSB, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2008. In February 2006, Amerex Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned Company subsidiary, acquired about 168 acres of heavily developed industrial property in Pryor, Okla., from Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation in consideration for US$700,000 which amount was paid in cash at closing. The Company also delivered to them an irrevocable letter of credit with JP Morgan Chase Bank to provide financial assurance for the removal of all asbestos and asbestos containing materials from the property within 18 months following closing. The Company received clearance by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation instructed JPMorgan Chase Bank to release the letter of credit. The proceeds from the release of the cash collateralized letter of credit were deployed in accordance with the Company's agreements with Asbestos Handlers, Inc. and X Interchange, Inc. Asbestos Handlers, Inc. is an asbestos abatement contractor based in Tulsa, Okla. The Company engaged Asbestos Handlers to remove the asbestos from the Pryor facility. X Interchange, Inc. is an intermodal transportation logistics company based in Lealand, Kans. The Company engaged X Interchange to manage the demolition and scrap metal salvage at the Pryor facility. New York-based Amerex Group Inc. makes outerwear for men, women, and children. Founded in 1946, the Company has licensing agreements with brands like Jones New York, London Fog, OshKosh, and Mudd. The Company also sells outerwear under its own labels (Static and Weather Tamer) and sports-oriented outdoor wear through subsidiary Gerry (Bombshell and Mambosok). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Seeks High Court Review on Libby Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Grace & Co. urges the U.S. Supreme Court to review pretrial rulings in the Government's case charging Grace with trying hide health risks associated with its vermiculite mine in Libby, Mont., Great Falls Tribune reports. Grace filed a petition asking the high court to evaluate a decision by a federal appeals court involving the type of asbestos found at the Libby mine. Grace attorneys argue that when the Company operated the mine, minerals that made up the asbestos found there � winchite and richterite � were not regulated by the federal government. They say the Company therefore cannot be prosecuted for them under the Clean Air Act. U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy of Missoula, Mont., agreed with the Company but was overturned by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Grace is now asking the Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court's decision. According to the Company's petition, the government "is trying to convict defendants of violating the Clean Air Act by releasing substances that the government itself has excluded from the list of substances covered by the act." The government has 30 days to file a response. Following that, the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case. If the high court declines, the 9th Circuit's rulings will stand, potentially clearing the way for the criminal trial to get under way in Missoula. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear its final cases of the 2008 term. If it accepts the Grace petition, the earliest it would hear oral arguments would be on October 2008. A 2005 indictment charged Grace and seven of its former managers with conspiring to hide health risks associated with its Libby vermiculite mine, which closed in 1990. The Company has denied any criminal wrongdoing. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Va. Man's Estate Sues 10 Firms in Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- The estate of William Pierce, of Virginia, on April 10, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 10 corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. The suit was the 300th civil suit seeking damages in excess of US$50,000 and the 165th asbestos case filed in Madison County Circuit Court so far in 2008. According to the complaint, Mr. Pierce was employed from 1940 to 1984 as a welder and assembly line worker at various locations. Mr. Pierce's estate claims that during the course of his employment and during home and automotive repairs he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers emanating from certain products he was working with and around. The complaint names Atlas Asbestos Company, Bell Asbestos Mines, Bondex International, Foseco plc, Georgia-Pacific Corp., John Crane Inc., Pneumo Abex Corp., RPM International Inc., RPM Inc., and T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition LLC. Mr. Pierce's 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 Mr. Pierce's estate, he first became aware that she suffered from mesothelioma on Oct. 15, 2002, and subsequently died on Nov. 10, 2003. Mr. Pierce's 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 suit 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 Mr. Pierce was exposed to fibers containing asbestos and developed a disease caused only by asbestos which disabled and disfigured him. The estate claims that prior to his death, Mr. Pierce suffered great physical pain and mental anguish, and also was hindered and prevented from pursuing his normal course of employment, thereby losing large sums of money. The estate seeks at least US$200,000 in damages for negligence and willful and wanton conduct. John Barnerd, Robert Phillips and Perry Browder of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Pierce's estate. Case No. 08 L 300 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk MP Campaigns v. Law Lords Decision --------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Ian Gibson, MP for Norwich North, in Norfolk, England, has launched a campaign to get compensation for people who are affected by asbestosis, BBC News reports. In October 2007, the Law Lords decided that scarring of the lungs should no longer be a compensatory illness. Dr. Gibson campaigns to overturn that decision. The eastern region has one of the highest rates of death from the disease in the country, and that number is expected to peak by 2020. Dr. Gibson said the figures were particularly high in the East because of the nature of the region's industries and the amount of asbestos involved. Dr. Gibson said, "Council houses had it, some of the factories used asbestos to prevent fires and also in the products they made, and of course there's been ship building. And the families at home who washed the clothes the people used in the factories have also developed the lung cancer, called mesothelioma." Dr. Gibson said he was confident the campaign could overturn the decision. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADAO Files Suit v. CBS Corp. Over CSI Toys --------------------------------------------------------------- A California asbestos victims advocacy group, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, on April 11, 2008, sued CBS Corporation; toy maker Planet Toys, Inc.; and several retailer over the sale of CSI Fingerprint Examination Kit, which contains asbestos, NEWSInferno.com reports. The toy was based on the CBS series "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation." ADAO said laboratory tests confirmed the CSI Fingerprint Examination Kit contained asbestos in a powder used for fingerprint dusting. Planet Toys removed the toys from the market late in 2007. However, it maintains that multiple tests did not reveal asbestos. Filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, the suit said tests showed the kits' fingerprint powder contained "substantial quantities of tremolite asbestos," which it described as "one of the most lethal forms of asbestos." On its Web site, Planet Toys indicated it issued a "stop sale" on all "'CSI Fingerprint Kits' until further information can be ascertained as to the discrepancy between our respective test findings." ADAO wants to stop sales of the kits unless they carry a hazardous material warning and is seeking full refund for return of the kits. In December 2007, the Department of Consumer Protection stopped the sale of the CSI Fingerprint Examination Kit in Connecticut. Consumer Protection Commissioner Jerry Farrell, Jr. said, "With the success of crime shows like CSI, it's no surprise that kids want to get in on the excitement by pretending to be crime scene investigators, but our own investigation of the CSI Fingerprint Examination Kit identified a real-life culprit that must be promptly eliminated. We are immediately embargoing and recalling this item in Connecticut." The Department purchased the toys and Mr. Farrell contacted the Department of Public Health to request testing. Meanwhile, ADAO conducted a study with three independent labs and revealed in December 2007 that the CSI Fingerprint Examination Kit contained two types of asbestos. However, kits remained on the shelves for weeks in Connecticut and continued to be sold elsewhere. According to the study, the CSI Fingerprint Examination Kit contained high levels, five percent were found in the powder of two asbestos types. Department inspectors embargoed the product statewide and contacted the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. In late December 2007, Planet Toys finally asked stores to pull its product from their shelves. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Pensioner's Death to Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest heard that the death of Olive Brown, a pensioner from Sassoon Walk, Marlborough, England, was linked to asbestos, This Is Wiltshire.co.uk reports. Mrs. Brown died 45 years after she used to wash her husband's asbestos-covered work overalls. She was diagnosed with mesothelioma in April 2007 and died in September 2007. The inquest heard that she washed her husband Eric Brown's overalls weekly for nine months in 1962. At the time, the now 77-year-old Mr. Brown worked for a builders' merchant. There Mr. Brown came into direct contact with asbestos products used for insulation. He said he never knew of the dangers of asbestos and how it could have affected his wife's health in years to come. In the hardware store where Mr. Brown worked, they would frequently sell asbestos products such as asbestos stove mats. David Ridley, the Deputy Wiltshire Coroner, who presided over the case, recorded a narrative verdict. He said, "Her husband didn't wash his hands and instead rubbed them into his overalls. This was then handled and washed by Olive on a weekly basis." Mr. Ridley said Mrs. Brown died from the industrial disease mesothelioma, when she was exposed with contact of her husband's work clothing. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Couple to Pay $2,000 Over MassDEP Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel and Jacqueline Rutowicz, of Holliston, Mass., are to pay the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a US$2,000 penalty for violations of the Department of Environmental Protection's (MassDEP) asbestos regulations, The MetroWest Daily News reports. According to a MassDEP press release, the violations occurred during the removal of asbestos-containing transite roofing materials from the Rutowiczes residential property located at 667 Highland Street in Holliston. During an inspection of the property, MassDEP personnel found that the roofing materials had been removed by a roofing contractor, hired by the Rutowiczes, without having provided prior notification to MassDEP and without following the required handling, packaging and disposal procedures. Dry, uncontained pieces of asbestos-containing materials were observed on the ground at the property. Upon discovery of the violations, the Rutowiczes were required to hire a Massachusetts Division of Occupational Safety licensed asbestos contractor to properly handle, package and dispose of all the asbestos-containing waste materials, and to decontaminate all impacted areas of the property. Under the terms of the negotiated settlement, MassDEP assessed a penalty of US$27,620 and suspended all but US$2,000 of the penalty amount provided there is no repeat of the violations for one year. MassDEP regulations require asbestos-containing transite materials to be removed wet, in a manner that minimizes breakage, and then carefully lowered to the ground. The regulations also mandate that asbestos waste be sealed, while wet, into leak tight containers that have the appropriate asbestos warning labels affixed to them. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Railway Board Worker's Widow Seeks Payout -------------------------------------------------------------- Evelyn Holmes, the widow of Leonard Holmes who had worked for the British Railways Board, is seeking compensation for Mr. Holmes' exposure to asbestos, North-West Evening Mail reports. Mr. Holmes died in November 2006 from mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos throughout his working life. Between 1947 and 1949, Mr. Holmes worked for the British Railways Board, cleaning locomotives in its Barrow depot. The pipework and firebox, which he had to clean were lagged with asbestos insulation, which, when disturbed, created the asbestos dust to which he was exposed. From 1975 to 1993, Mr. Holmes was employed as a laborer by Vickers-Armstrong Limited in the Barrow shipyard. During this time he worked mainly with plumbers on pipework throughout the ships. There was asbestos lagging on pipes and old lagging that had fallen to the floor which created asbestos dust when disturbed, to which Mr. Holmes was also exposed. Mr. Holmes was never given any warning of the danger of working with asbestos and never provided with any protective clothing or equipment. Lucy Proctor, a solicitor at personal injury firm Irwin Mitchell, who represents Mrs. Holmes, said, "Mesothelioma is a devastating form of cancer which affects the lining of the lung." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Links Sailor's Death to Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest ruled that the death of Wyn Lloyd, a retired sailor, was linked to asbestos, South Wales Echo reports. Mr. Lloyd served at Royal Chatham Dockyard in Kent, England, and spent eight years in the Royal Navy, followed by a job at a hospital where he worked with asbestos lagging. Mr. Lloyd died from mesothelioma in October 2007 at the age of 76. Recording a verdict of death due to industrial disease, coroner Philip Walters said, "I'm satisfied this was as a result of his employment." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pig Shelter Exposure Led to Farmer's Death --------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest heard that the death of Brian Shepard, a former farmer who was exposed to asbestos after making a contaminated pig shelter, was linked to asbestos, The Citizen reports. Mr. Shepard, of Darwen, Lancashire, England, died at East Lancashire Hospice on Dec. 28, 2007 after suffering from mesothelioma. The 69-year-old Mr. Shepard had suffered breathing difficulties for a few weeks before his death. He was retired after working as a construction worker and farmer. The inquest heard evidence that Mr. Shepard had worked in the mid 1970s building a piggery, which involved cutting sheets of asbestos. It was the only time that he recalled being in contact with the material. Deputy Coroner, Caroline Singleton, concluded that the cause of death was due to the deceased being exposed to asbestos, which led to a tumor developing on his lung. The verdict was death due to industrial disease. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Color Stillman Gets GBP65T in Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Douglas, a 66-year-old former stillman from Ellesmere Port, England, has been awarded GBP65,000 in compensation for lung cancer after being exposed to asbestos, The Standard reports. Mr. Douglas received the payout from his former employer HH Robertson after developing lung cancer in 2004. He was exposed to asbestos when he worked as a color stillman at the Ellesmere Port company from 1966 to 1995. HH Robertson made asbestos roofing sheets and the paint to go on them and Mr. Douglas's job involved mixing asbestos fibers into the paint. He was never warned about the dangers of asbestos and was not provided with respiratory protection. Although Mr. Douglas was a smoker, he was told by a cancer specialist his exposure to asbestos had more than doubled his risk of lung cancer. The operations to remove both tumors were successful but Mr. Douglas has been told the cancer might return. He is also at a high risk of developing secondary tumors. Mr. Douglas decided to claim for compensation after meeting Joanne Candlish, a client representative from Thompsons Solicitors who was interviewing him as a witness in an asbestos compensation claim for a former colleague. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Town Worker Fired for "Whistleblowing" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Watson, a town worker from Cherry Creek, in Chautauqua County, N.Y., says he was fired for blowing the whistle on his boss over asbestos matters, WGRZ-TV Buffalo reports. Mr. Watson says he would not sign off on the demolition of Cherry Creek's old schoolhouse. He says the schoolhouse is filled with asbestos and proper procedures were not being followed. However, the Mayor wanted it torn down anyway. Mr. Watson said, "By me not signing that permit and by speaking out I'm being fired." The Department of Labor is looking into the old school's demolition and if proper asbestos procedures were followed. The Mayor said at a special meeting on April 9, 2008, the village board unanimously approved firing Mr. Watson and it has the right to fire village employees. The Mayor says Mr. Watson did not work well with the board and had a temper. Meantime, demolition on the school is stopped. ASBESTOS ALERT: Total Environmental Fined $12T for Mishandling -------------------------------------------------------------- A Toledo, Ohio-based asbestos removal company, Total Environmental Services, was fined US$12,600 for mishandling asbestos in Wayne County, Ohio, The Plain Dealer reports. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency said Total Environmental did not comply with Ohio's asbestos emission control standards in 2006. In a press release, the EPA said, "The Company failed to adequately wet asbestos-containing material that had been stripped from Gourley Hall at Ohio State University's Agricultural Research and Development Center in Wooster. The Company also neglected to wet the asbestos-containing waste while collecting and bagging it for disposal." Ohio EPA inspectors documented the violations in February 2006 after examining the contents of asbestos disposal bags at the site. The Company promptly corrected the violations by wetting the contents inside the bags. When in a dry state and disturbed, asbestos breaks up into small fibers that can be released to the air if not properly controlled during removal and disposal activities. If inhaled, airborne asbestos can pose health risks including respiratory diseases. ********* 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 * * *