C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 2, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 87 Headlines CHARLES SWHWAB: Judge Issues Order in CA Securities Fraud Suit CITIGROUP INC: N.Y. Court Gives Final OK to $14M Focal Agreement CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Second Circuit Mulls Appeal in Metromedia Case CITIGROUP INC: Seeks Dismissal of Ill. IAA Violations Lawsuit CITIGROUP INC: Settles TARGETS Securities Litigation in N.Y. CREDIT INVESTIGATION: Faces California Suit Over Service Payment DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Florida Suit Calls Chryslers & Dodges Defective DESERET CHEMICAL: $4.2MM Overtime Pay Settlement Gets Final OK DVI INC: Securities Lawsuit in Penna. Denied Class Certification FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: Oakland Claims 'Bid Rigging' in Lawsuit FINANCIAL SECURITY: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Bidding of GICs FIRST BANKS: $5 Check Fee Suit Dismissal Upheld by Appeals Court HANAROTELECOM: Subscribers Sue Over Leak of User Information ILLINOIS: Motorists Complain of Outrageous Toll Fines INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Court Affirms Approval of "Nuanes" Agreement OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Andean Ops Suit in Calif. Belongs in Peru SIRVA INC: Establishes Separate Class for Antitrust Claims SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA: Employees Seek Unpaid Back Wages in Suit WM WRIGLEY: Illinois Suit Challenges Sale of Company to Mars Inc New Securities Fraud Cases ARBITRON INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY BLACKSTONE GROUP: Stull & Brody Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Finkelstein Thompson Files MA Securities Suit FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Murray Frank Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit LEHMAN BROTHERS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit TD AMERITRADE: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin Barroway Files TX Securities Suit Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Exxon in Altimore Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $872M Receivable at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Veolia Expends $2.5M for Claims at Oct. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk Southern Faces Occupational Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. DT Solutions Still Pending in Md. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Face 631 Actions at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Still Facing 3rd-Party Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ENSCO Still Facing Suits in Miss. & Calif. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Has $50M Claims Reserve at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Pending v. Goodrich, Units ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Has $261M Liability at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: La. Lawsuits Still Pending v. Morton Int'l. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Automation Still Has Injury Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 103T Claims Still Pending v. ITT at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Records No Liability at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Goodyear Rise to 118T at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Electric Cites $200M Charge in 1Q08 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flowserve Still Facing Pending Injury Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Liability Totals $221M at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Hercules Drop to 25,320 at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $3M Net Costs at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 28,320 Claims Pending v. Lincoln at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Ltd Cites $77M Obligations at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Issues Split Ruling in Keeton ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chervenick Files Suit v. 131 Firms in W.Va. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hynus Files Action v. 80 Companies in W.Va. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Plumber's Death to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Md. Union Sues Health Agency Over Exposure ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Malaysian Trade Union Moves to Ban Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Florida Jury Awards Over $24M to Guilders ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Presents Witnesses in Estimation Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian Gov't. Seeks to Include ZAI Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace to Continue Montana Medical Program ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Examiner Says Overbilling Could Reach $10MM ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACTU to Raise Awareness of Work Carcinogens ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Railway Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Florida Mechanic Sues 66 Firms in Illinois ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Completes Study at Clear Creek, Calif. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: East Liverpool to Discuss $30T Fine w/ EPA ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Contingency Remains at $1.7B in March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Steel Cases Remain at 325 at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. Olin Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Gets $3.1M Trust Payment in March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Cites $539M Reserve at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,827 Claims Pending v. Burlington at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Fin'l. Cites $1.275B Reserves at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal to A.P. Green's Ruling Still Pending ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Engaged in Keasbey Action in N.Y. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Involved in Burns & Roe Coverage Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texas Court Actions Ongoing v. CNA Fin'l. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Action Stayed Due to Grace Bankruptcy ********* CHARLES SWHWAB: Judge Issues Order in CA Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A United States District Court judge issued an order on April 28, 2008, clarifying important procedural issues in the class-action lawsuit against Charles Schwab Corporation by the law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro which claims the company misled investors about the diversification and safety of Schwab YieldPlus Funds Investor Shares. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup, states, "that any member of the purported class may move to the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice." Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed the suit on March 18, 2008. The lawsuit, filed with U.S. District Court in Northern California, alleges Schwab omitted important information from the funds' SEC Registration Statement, Prospectus and selling representation, including how heavily the funds were exposed to sub-prime mortgage risks. The lawsuit claims more than 50 percent of the funds' assets are invested in the risky mortgage industry -- a percentage that grew as the company abandoned the original objectives of the funds in pursuit of higher yields. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro has received requests to join the action from hundreds of investors from across the country who felt they were misled by Schwab. Losses from those investors alone total millions of dollars. According to Reed Kathrein, Esq., the range of investors inquiring about the class action runs the gamut from investment advisors to retirees. Money managers and registered investment advisors who followed Schwab's advice are also upset as their clients are inquiring whether they can join or have losses large enough to be the lead plaintiff. "The common thread is Schwab's representation that the YieldPlus funds were an alternative to cash, CDs and money market funds, which we are finding to be far from the truth," said Mr. Kathrein. Charles Schwab advertised the YieldPlus funds as ultra-short bond funds that serve as a higher-yielding alternative to money- market funds and offer low risk to investors. Charles Schwab also claimed to offer 'investments in a large, well-diversified portfolio that a seasoned team of taxable bond portfolio managers actively managed,' the complaint states. The lawsuit seeks to represent investors or their money managers who purchased shares after March 17, 2005. By mid-2007, the funds held more than $13.5 billion in assets. The share price for the funds began decreasing in July 2007, suffering a total loss of more than 21 percent throughout the year, compared to a drop in the S&P 500 index fund, SPY, of less than six percent. Today the funds stand at an all-time low of $6.58. Interested parties may move the court no later than May 16, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. Judge Alsup issued the order on April 10, but served it on April 28, 2008. For more information, contact: Reed Kathrein, Esq. (Reed@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA, 98101 Phone: (510) 725-3000 - and - Mark Firmani, Esq. (Mark@firmani.com) Firmani + Associates Inc. 2505 Second Ave., Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98121 Phone: (206) 443-9357 CITIGROUP INC: N.Y. Court Gives Final OK to $14M Focal Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York gave final approval to the proposed $14,000,000 settlement in a putative class action suit filed by purchasers of Focal Communications Corp. common stock. Case Background On July 28, 2004, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, asserting claims under Section 10 and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against: -- Citigroup, Inc.; -- Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (f/k/a Salomon Smith Barney); and -- Jack B. Grubman, telecommunications research analyst at Salomon Smith. Defendant Citigroup, Inc., is the indirect parent to defendant Citigroup Global Markets Inc., which was formerly known as Salomon Smith Barney Inc., (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 5, 2007). Salomon Smith provided a range of investment services to its clients, including the preparation of private research reports and ratings concerning publicly traded companies. During the class period, individual defendant Jack B. Grubman was a telecommunications research analyst at Salomon Smith. In this capacity, Mr. Grubman was responsible for issuing research analyst reports on companies operating in the telecommunications sector, including Focal Communications Corp. In April 2002, the New York State Attorney General announced that it was investigating the defendants' preparation and issuance of research analysts' reports and ratings during the period 1999 through early 2002. The investigation focused on the defendants' reports regarding numerous companies, including Focal. It was after the extensive investigation, including the review of documents made available by the NYSAG and the defendants, that LACERA filed the complaint. The original complaint asserted securities fraud claims against defendants under Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The original complaint asserted claims on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased shares of Focal Common Stock during the period from July 29, 1999, through Aug. 13, 2001. By order dated Aug. 30, 2004, the court transferred this case to Judge Gerard E. Lynch. On Sept. 24, 2004, LACERA moved for appointment as lead plaintiff pursuant to 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act. By Order dated Jan. 7, 2005, the Court: -- appointed LACERA as lead plaintiff; and -- appointed Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, as lead counsel. On March 15, 2005, lead plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Focal Common Stock during the period July 27, 1999 through Oct. 1, 2002, alleging that defendants violated Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934,by publishing false and misleading analyst reports concerning Focal and by engaging in market manipulation. The amended complaint alleged that the defendants engaged in securities fraud by causing fraudulent Salomon Smith research reports concerning Focal and authored by Mr. Grubman to be issued, and by artificially inflating the price of a portion of the telecommunications equities market. The amended complaint also alleged that the reports were fraudulent because, at least since June 2000, the defendants believed that Focal Common Stock truly warranted a "Sell" rating even though Salomon Smith rated it a "Buy." Moreover, since at least July 29, 1999, the defendants had failed to disclose their true opinion regarding Focal. According to the amended complaint, the fraudulent Focal reports were part of a quid-pro-quo arrangement between defendants and Focal, whereby Salomon Smith rated Focal positively, in return for which Focal retained Salomon Smith as an underwriter. The amended complaint further alleged that Mr. Grubman's subsequent critical statements about Focal, and his ultimate downgrade of the stock, caused Focal's stock price to decline, and resulted in significant losses for lead plaintiff and the class. On April 29, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the amended complaint. On July 1, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. In addition to the review of several hundred thousand pages of documents produced by the defendants in connection with the NYSAG investigation, lead counsel engaged consultants who prepared a comprehensive analysis of loss causation and damage issues prior to the initiation of settlement discussions in late spring 2005. This required an extensive review of information gleaned from analyst reports regarding Focal, as well as analysis of factors impacting Focal stock on key dates. Settlement Beginning in late spring of 2005, the parties engaged in numerous telephone calls and face-to-face meetings concerning the possibility of settlement. During these preliminary meetings, documents were exchanged and the strengths and weaknesses of the claims were discussed and debated. Throughout the negotiations, various consultants and experts, including individuals with expertise in estimating potential damages in cases involving allegations of securities fraud, advised the settling parties. The parties finally reached an agreement to settle all claims in the Focal class action for $14 million. The settlement was finally approved on March 23, 2007, and is no longer subject to appeal, according to Shearson Mid-West Futures Fund's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as the general partner of Shearson Mid-West. Both have Citigroup Global Markets Inc., a unit of Citigroup Inc., as its commodity broker. For more details, contact: Salomon Analyst Focal Litigation c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC P.O. Box 9014 Jericho, NY 11753-8914 Phone: (800) 766-3330 Fax: (516) 931-0810 Web site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claims CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Second Circuit Mulls Appeal in Metromedia Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to rule on a motion seeking review of the district court's decision certifying a class in the matter, "In Re Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ. 7966." Shareholders sued Citicorp, Inc. -- an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc. -- Citicorp USA; Salomon Smith Barney, now known as Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.; and analyst Jack Grubman for violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 9, 2007). The shareholders allege that the defendants issued false and misleading analyst reports as to Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc. stocks. The district court dismissed several claims, but allegations that analyst reports containing false buy recommendations issued between March 8 and July 25, 2001, survived. The shareholders moved for certification of a class as to these claims. The plaintiffs had sought certification of the class comprised of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Metromedia from March 8, 2001, through July 25, 2001, inclusive, and who were therefore damaged. In order to allege a violation of Section 10(b), a complaint must allege with particularity that the defendant made fraudulent misstatements or omissions in connection with the sale or purchase of securities with scienter, upon which the plaintiffs relied, that caused plaintiffs' economic loss. Certification requires numerous class members to share common claims. On June 20, 2006, Judge Gerard E. Lynch granted class certification, ruling that all elements of Rule 23 were satisfied. He then appointed three law firms as class counsel, finding that the firms were qualified to adequately represent the interests of the class. The three firms certified as class counsel are: -- Nix, Patterson & Roach LLP; -- Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP; and -- Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw. The plaintiffs' motion to certify Technology Associates Management Co. and Techgains I, II, III, IV and V as class representatives is denied. On Oct. 6, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit accepted an appeal of the class certification order, which appeal was argued on Jan. 30, 2008, and remains pending. Fact discovery has concluded, and expert discovery has been stayed, by agreement of the parties, pending resolution of the appeal, according to Shearson Mid-West Futures Fund's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as the general partner of Shearson Mid-West. Both have Citigroup Global Markets Inc., a unit of Citigroup Inc., as its commodity broker. The suit is "In Re: Salomon Metromedia, et al v. Salomon Smith Barney, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-07966-GEL," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Gerard E. Lynch, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert Alan Abrams, Esq. (rabrams@katskykorins.com) Katsky Korins, LLP 605 Third Avenue New York, NY 10158 Phone: (212) 716-3237 Fax: (212) 716-3337 - and - Richard A. Adams, Esq. Patton, Haltom, Roberts, McWilliams & Greer, LLP Century Bank Plaza 2900 St. Michael Drive Suite 400 Texarkana, TX 75505-6128 Phone: (903) 334-7000 Representing the defendants are: Eric S. Goldstein, Esq. (egoldstein@paulweiss.com) Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, L.L.P. 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212)-373-3000 Fax: (212)-492-0204 - and - Robert Bruce McCaw, Esq. (robert.mccaw@wilmer.com) Wilmer, Cutler, Hale & Dorr, L.L.P. 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-230-8810 Fax: 212-230-8888 CITIGROUP INC: Seeks Dismissal of Ill. IAA Violations Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup, Inc., and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (f/k/a Salomon Smith Barney) are seeking the dismissal of a purported class action suit in Illinois that generally alleges violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Initially, four putative class actions were filed against Citigroup and certain of its affiliates, including Citigroup Global, and certain of their current and former directors, officers and employees, along with other parties, on behalf of persons who maintained accounts with Citigroup Global. These actions assert, among other things, common law claims, claims under state statutes, and claims under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, for allegedly failing to provide objective and unbiased investment research and investment management, seeking, among other things, return of fees and commissions. The four cases were: 1. "Norman v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.," 2. "Rowinski v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.," 3. "Politzer v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.," and 4. "Disher, et al. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc." In "Norman," the judge denied our motion to dismiss, class certification was briefed by the parties, and the action was subsequently settled for $50 million, an amount covered by existing litigation reserves. The settlement was finally approved on May 18, 2006, and is no longer subject to appellate review. In "Rowinski," the judge granted the company's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed the earlier decision. The "Politzer" case was dismissed by the judge -- a decision that was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review. In "Disher," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision to remand the case to state court, and directed the district court to dismiss the case as preempted. The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Seventh Circuit's decision, and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit in light of the Supreme Court's decision in "Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust." On Jan. 22, 2007, the Seventh Circuit dismissed Citigroup's appeal. On Feb. 1, 2007, the plaintiffs secured an order reopening this case in Illinois state court, and on Feb. 16, 2007, Citigroup removed the reopened action to federal court. On May 3, 2007, the District Court remanded the action to Illinois state court, and on June 13, 2007, Citigroup moved in state court to dismiss the action. That motion remains pending, according to Shearson Mid-West Futures Fund's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as the general partner of Shearson Mid-West. Both have Citigroup Global Markets Inc., a unit of Citigroup Inc., as its commodity broker. Citigroup, Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/citigroup/homepage/ -- is a diversified global financial services holding company whose businesses provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate customers. The Company is a bank holding company. As of March 31, 2008, Citigroup was organized into four major segments: Consumer Banking, Global Cards, Institutional Clients Group and Global Wealth Management. The Company has more than 200 million customer accounts and does business in more than 100 countries. In July 2007, the Company merged with Citigroup Japan Investments LLC, a 100% subsidiary of the Company. In July 2007, Citigroup completed the acquisition of Old Lane Partners, L.P. and Old Lane Partners, GP, LLC. In August 2007, Citigroup acquired The BISYS Group, Inc. In March 2008, Citigroup reorganized its consumer group into two global businesses: Consumer Banking and Global Cards. CITIGROUP INC: Settles TARGETS Securities Litigation in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ Citigroup, Inc., and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (f/k/a Salomon Smith Barney) reached a settlement in the matter, "In Re TARGETS Securities Litigation." The case is a putative class action against Citigroup and Citigroup Global, and certain former employees, leaving only claims under the 1934 Act for purchases of Targeted Growth Enhanced Terms Securities with respect to the common stock of MCI WorldCom, Inc., after July 30, 1999. On June 28, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed all claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and certain claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On Oct. 20, 2004, the parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding setting forth the terms of a settlement of all remaining claims in this action. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on Jan. 11, 2005, and finally approved on April 22, 2005, according to Shearson Mid-West Futures Fund's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as the general partner of Shearson Mid-West. Both have Citigroup Global Markets Inc., a unit of Citigroup Inc., as its commodity broker. Citigroup, Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/citigroup/homepage/ -- is a diversified global financial services holding company whose businesses provide a range of financial services to consumer and corporate customers. The Company is a bank holding company. As of March 31, 2008, Citigroup was organized into four major segments: Consumer Banking, Global Cards, Institutional Clients Group and Global Wealth Management. The Company has more than 200 million customer accounts and does business in more than 100 countries. In July 2007, the Company merged with Citigroup Japan Investments LLC, a 100% subsidiary of the Company. In July 2007, Citigroup completed the acquisition of Old Lane Partners, L.P. and Old Lane Partners, GP, LLC. In August 2007, Citigroup acquired The BISYS Group, Inc. In March 2008, Citigroup reorganized its consumer group into two global businesses: Consumer Banking and Global Cards. CREDIT INVESTIGATION: Faces California Suit Over Service Payment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Credit Investigation and Arbitration, of Santa Rosa in Sonoma County, is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging it defrauds customers by charging $1,200 or more for services it cannot provide, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named lead plaintiff Timur Geffe claims that the defendant's employee, Ernesto Rodriquez, claimed his company had a "close relationship with the credit bureaus" and that "he 'guaranteed' he could eliminate the unwanted credit information, accurate or not, currently on Plaintiff's consumer credit report." Mr. Rodriquez claimed the company did that "by mailing the three major credit-reporting agencies a dispute every month for a year until the credit-reporting agencies got tired of it and took off the unwanted credit information, whether that information was accurate or not. . . . In this telephone conversation, Rodriquez stated that once Defendant began sending these letters to the major credit reporting agencies, unwanted credit information would 'come off automatically.'" The plaintiff claims he paid $1,200 for this, and it did not work, and the statements that induced him to spend the money were untrue and misleading. Mr. Geffe brings this suit on behalf of all persons with addresses within the United States who defendant charged, or from which defendant received, money or other valuable consideration for the performance of a service that the defendant agreed to perform for said persons but was not yet fully performed at that time as prohibited in 15 USC Section 1679(c)(b). The plaintiff asks the court for: -- an award of actual damages pursuant to 15 USC Section 1679h(a)(1); -- an award of punitive damages pursuant to 15 USC Section 1679h(a)(2); -- an award of costs of litigation and reasonable attorney's fees, pursuant to 15 USC Section 1679h(a)(3); and -- such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper under the circumstances. The suit is "Timur Geffe et al. v. Credit Investigation and Arbritration," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Representing the plaintiff are: Robert L. Hyde, Esq. (bob@westcoastlitigation.com) Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. (josh@westcoastlitigation.com) Hyde & Swigart 411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Phone: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Florida Suit Calls Chryslers & Dodges Defective ---------------------------------------------------------------- DaimlerChrysler Corp. and Chrysler LLC are facing a class action complaint filed on April 23, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida calling Chryslers & Dodges defective, CourtHouse News Service reports. The complaint claims that defective 2.7-liter V6 engines in 1998 to 2004 model Chrysler Concordes and Sebrings and Dodge Intrepids and Stratuses produce harmful oil sludge that caused thousands of engines to fail catastrophically. Named plaintiff Joan Capobianco brings this action on behalf of all other persons in the State of Florida who purchased or leased a model year 1998-2004 Chrysler Concorde, Chrysler Sebring, dodge Intrepid or Dodge Stratus equipped with a 2.7 liter V6 engine. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether the engine in the class vehicles have a common design defect; (b) whether the engine in the class vehicles are fit for their ordinary and intended purpose; (c) whether the useful life of the engine in the class vehicles is reduced as a result of the design defect and the oil sludge malfunction; (d) whether the defendants sought to conceal the design defect from the public, and to suppress or misrepresent the existence of the defect; (e) whether the class vehicles were merchantable when defendants placed these vehicles into the stream of commerce and thereafter; (f) whether the defendants have engaged in an unconscionable commercial practice, including aggravated acts, as defined under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Section 501.201 et seq.; (g) whether the defendants have been unjustly enriched to the detriment of the consumers owning or leasing the class vehicles; (h) whether the class members are entitled to an inspection and cleaning of the engines in class vehicles; (i) whether class members are entitled to restitution; and (j) whether the class members are entitled to actual damages and if so, the appropriate amount thereof. The plaintiff asks the court for: -- an order certifying the class, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), appointing plaintiff as representative of the class and appointing the law firms representing plaintiff as counsel for the class; -- compensatory damages incurred by plaintiff; -- payment of costs of suit incurred; -- both pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded; and -- payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees. The suit is "Joan Capobianco et al v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. et al, Case No. 2:08-Cv-329-FHA-345PC," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Representing the plaintiffs are: T. Omar Malone, Esq. (omalone@fdlaw.net) Randy Rosenblum, Esq. (rrosenblum@fdlaw.net) Manuel L. Dobrinsky, Esq. (mdobrinsky@fdlaw.net) Freidin & Dobrinsky, PA One Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3100 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida Phone: (305) 371-3666 Fax: (305) 371-6725 DESERET CHEMICAL: $4.2MM Overtime Pay Settlement Gets Final OK -------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Dee Benson gave final approval to a settlement that will pay approximately $4.2 million to workers at the Deseret Chemical Depot who claimed that they were cheated out of overtime pay, The Salt Lake Tribune reports. According to Salt Lake Tribune, the settlement deal covers EG&G Defense Materials Inc. employees who worked any time on or after May 24, 2000, at the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, which is located on the depot. About 300 of the 500 eligible workers have opted in to the settlement, according to Jesse Brar, Esq., one of the workers' attorneys. EG&G, the report explains, is a contractor to the U.S. Army and has about 750 employees at the facility, about 40 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. Under an international treaty, these workers are destroying the nation's stockpile of chemical weapons. Salt Lake Tribune recounts that some workers filed the class- action lawsuit in 2004, asserting that they should have been on the clock and paid for the time spent on tasks like waiting to clear security stations; putting on protective gear; and picking up kits that contain masks and nerve agent antidotes. Lawyers for EG&G had responded that the law exempts from pay activities that are preliminary to an employee's principal activity, including the walk to their workstation. They also said picking up the mask kits takes only a few seconds to a few minutes. However, Judge Benson rejected the defendants' argument and ruled in 2007 that picking up the kit is "integral and indispensable" to the employees' work. He noted that each worker is fitted with a personalized mask and required to carry a kit at all times. After negotiations, the two sides agreed to the settlement presented in court. EG&G denies any liability but acknowledged that continued litigation would be expensive and contrary to its best interests. Of the total settlement, $425,000 has been designated for attorneys' fees and costs, the report notes. Most of the remainder will be given in cash payments to eligible workers and $100,000 will be used for matching contributions to a 401(k) plan. Salt Lake Tribune relates that still to be resolved in this case and a similar lawsuit against Battelle Memorial Institute, an EG&G subcontractor, is a claim that the companies failed to pay monitoring technicians overtime for work performed during meal breaks. DVI INC: Securities Lawsuit in Penna. Denied Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cooley Godward Kronish has achieved a major victory in a securities class action in which the firm represented the law firm of Clifford Chance. It is one of the first opinions applying the United States Supreme Court's decision in Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta. The plaintiffs alleged that Clifford Chance was liable under a 10-b(5) scheme liability theory for a fraud allegedly perpetrated by its former (and now defunct) client, DVI, a medical equipment finance company. The district court denied class certification as to Clifford Chance, holding that the fraud on the market presumption did not apply since no public statements were attributed to the firm and the firm had not engaged in any conduct that could be relied upon by investors. The suit is "In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:03-CV-5336," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Legrome D. Davis. For more information, contact: William J. Schwartz, Esq. Celia G. Barenholtz, Esq. Cooley Godward Kronish The Grace Building 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-7798 Phone: 212-479-6000 Fax: 212-479-6275 FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: Oakland Claims 'Bid Rigging' in Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Oakland City Attorney John Russo filed a federal lawsuit against some of America's most powerful financial institutions, saying they conspired to rip off taxpayers in Oakland and other cities, Kelly Rayburn writes for Tri Valley Herald. According to Tri Valley, the antitrust suit piggybacks on an investigation by the U.S. Justice Department into allegations that financial firms and brokers conspired to provide lower- than-market bids to municipalities on so-called guaranteed investment contracts. The report explains that cities rely on bond sales for public projects of all kinds. Often times they take bond proceeds and deposit them into guaranteed investment contracts, allowing for a higher rate of interest on the money while still having it available when needed. Tri Valley says that Mr. Russo's lawsuit alleges "bid rigging" by financial firms and brokers, saying they colluded to keep interest rates below market, costing cities such as Oakland hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more. Named in the lawsuit, among others, are: * Bank of America, * JPMorgan Chase, * Merrill Lynch, * Morgan Stanley, and * Bear Stearns. Bank of America, however, did strike a deal with the federal government over that investigation, Tri Valley says. In 2007, the bank agreed to cooperate with the feds in exchange for amnesty from criminal antitrust prosecution. The bank then released a statement saying that it does "not admit to any conduct that would be subject to liability under the Internal Revenue Code." According to the report, no indictments have been issued in the federal investigation, but a number of companies have been subpoenaed. Mr. Russo said Bank of America's decision to cooperate was crucial to the city's suit. Councilmember Jean Quan (Montclair-Laurel), who heads the council's finance committee, said the money allegedly lost could have been used to benefit city residents. Mr. Russo said the scheme cost Oakland at least $500,000 since 1992, possibly more. "What this really means, in practical terms, is affordable housing, this is open space we could have bought, this is improvements that could have been made that weren't made, because we weren't getting the interest rate we should have been getting," Ms. Quan said. Ms. Quan added that the city has tens of millions wrapped up in guaranteed investment contracts, including $38 million for affordable housing, $12 million for the zoo, $8 million for museum upgrades and millions more for redevelopment zones. She provided these data, she said, only to point out how much money is placed in such investments. Mr. Russo is seeking class-action status in the suit. The legal action is the first of its kind in California, Mr. Russo noted, but jurisdictions in other parts of the country have filed similar lawsuits. Mr. Russo, however, said that he does not believe the defendants specifically targeted Oakland. "I'm sure these folks just wanted to make as much money as they could," he said. JPMorgan, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Bear Stearns did not return phone calls by Tri Valley seeking comment. A Bank of America spokeswoman said she could not comment because the company had not seen the lawsuit yet. FINANCIAL SECURITY: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Bidding of GICs -------------------------------------------------------------- Financial Security Assurance Holdings, Ltd., is facing two purported class action suits seeking damages for alleged violations of antitrust laws in connection with the bidding of municipal guaranteed investment contracts and derivatives, according to GSAMP 2007-HSBC1's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suits are: 1. "Hinds County, Mississippi et al. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. et al., Case No. 08 CV 2516," filed on March 12, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; and 2. "Fairfax County, Virginia et al. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 08-cv-00432," filed on March 12, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In both lawsuits, a large number of financial institutions, including the company and the Financial Security Assurance, Inc., are named as defendants. New York-based Financial Security Assurance Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.fsa.com/-- through its subsidiary, Financial Security Assurance, Inc. provides guaranty insurance on municipal bonds and asset-backed obligations. The company insures new issues and those already trading in the secondary market; it also writes portfolio insurance for securities held by investment funds. The company is licensed as a guaranty insurer in the US and in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; it also operates in Europe and the Pacific Rim. French-Belgian financial services company Dexia owns almost all of Financial Security Assurance Holdings. FIRST BANKS: $5 Check Fee Suit Dismissal Upheld by Appeals Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Class Action Reporter reported on Jan. 8, 2007, that Gail Renshaw, Esq., of the Lakin Law Firm, appealed to the Fifth District in Mt. Vernon the Madison County Circuit Court's dismissal of a check cashing fee class action complaint filed against First Banks. In an update, the Madison County Record relates that in a unanimous Rule 23 order, the Fifth District Appellate Court affirmed former Madison County Circuit Judge Don Weber's ruling dismissing the class action complaint. According to Madison County Record, Justices James Wexstten, James Donovan and Stephen Spomer concurred with the dismissal. Case Background The Lakin Law Firm filed the suit on March 9, 2004, on behalf of Darryl Johnson of Collinsville, alleging that Mr. Johnson paid $5 each time he cashed a check drawn on First Banks because he had no account there. First Banks, through Troy Bozarth, Esq., of the Hepler Broom law firm, in Edwardsville, asked the court to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Mr. Johnson lacked standing to sue because he was not a customer. Judge Weber reluctantly dismissed the class action complaint on Nov. 14, 2006, Madison County Record says. "It seems to be unwise policy to allow a bank to charge a fee to cash a check drawn on the bank," Judge Weber wrote. "However unwise this policy seems, it appears to be the law." "Although the court is of the opinion that there should be a cause of action when a bank charges a fee for cashing a check drawn on the bank, that is, apparently not the law," he added. Mr. Johnson claimed that by charging a fee, the bank wrongfully dishonored the check and moved to certify a class action, with him representing thousands who had paid the fee in the United States. Mr. Bozarth objected, arguing that Mr. Johnson had no claim because he paid the $5 voluntarily. Mr. Bozarth also argued that Mr. Johnson did not have standing to assert a cause of action for wrongful dishonor under Section 4-402 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that his claims were preempted by the National Bank Act and the regulations and regulatory interpretations issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Judge Weber ruled that the voluntary payment doctrine does not apply because the act to refuse to honor a check drawn on the bank under these circumstances is coercive. "A reasonable consumer should be able to cash a check drawn on First Bank at First Bank without a fee," Judge Weber wrote. He said that the holder of the check is a third party beneficiary to the contract between the bank and the payor of the check. The plaintiffs are represented by: The Lakin Law Firm 300 Evans Ave. P.O. Box 229 Wood River, Illinois 62095 Phone: (618) 254-1127 Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/ HANAROTELECOM: Subscribers Sue Over Leak of User Information ------------------------------------------------------------ Subscribers of South Korean broadband and fixed-line operator Hanarotelecom (KSE:033630) launched a class-action lawsuit against the company on April 28, 2008, amid allegations that former management officials were involved in illegally selling customer information in the past, Asia Pulse reports. The report recalls that last week, the police revealed that several former managers, including Hanarotelecom's former president, allegedly sold the private information, including resident registration and phone numbers, of some 6 million users to telemarketing companies over the past two years. Namkang Law & IP Firm, the Seoul-based law firm representing 30 Hanarotelecom subscribers, told Asia Pulse that it filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court, requesting that the company offer compensation of KRW1 million (US$1,004) to each client for illegally selling their information. Meanwhile, the report relates, National Council of the Green Consumers Network in Korea, together with other consumer advocacy groups, launched a buyer's strike against Hanarotelecom products. The NCGCN, with the Consumers Korea and the Korea YMCA, held a press conference recently, calling for the Broadcasting and Communications Commission to cancel Hanarotelecom's business permit and urging users to join in class-action lawsuits. Asia Pulse further says that a recent spate of private information leaks and theft online have raised serious questions about South Korea's Internet security, tarnishing its image as an information technology powerhouse. The report recounts that Internet Auction Co.'s -- the local unit of U.S. online auction house eBay Inc. -- Web site was hacked in early February, leading to the theft of 10.8 million users' information, while mobile carrier LG Telecom Co. (KSE:032640) was found last week to have been attacked by a hacker who managed to access the private information of its subscribers. ILLINOIS: Motorists Complain of Outrageous Toll Fines ----------------------------------------------------- A Chicago lawyer is taking on the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority over the issue of more than $50 million in fees and fines imposed on drivers accused of skipping out on tolls, according to TheNewspaper.com. The report recalls that earlier last month, the Southtown Star newspaper reported that Daniel Edelman filed a class action lawsuit against the toll agency for depriving motorists of their due process rights. In addition, motorists like Leslie Boudreau were accused of cheating because the credit card set up to keep their electronic toll transponder account current had expired. These drivers never received notification of any problem between July 2006 and August 2007 because the tollway had changed its billing contractors. In Mr. Boudreau's case, TheNewspaper.com notes, this delay turned $180 in tolls that inadvertently went unpaid into a bill for $4,620. Motorists who attempted to call the tollway and complain or challenge a citation met a near continuous busy signal. The Southtown Star also reported on the case of Michael Healy, who the tollway accused of cheating to the tune of $3,106.60. Mr. Healy, who gave up driving entirely three years ago, never received any notice until the massive bill hit. His son, Jim Healy, was actually the one driving the car and was responsible for skipping the tolls. When Jim attempted to transfer the fines to his name, the agency refused and his father was forced to pay the full amount on his credit card. "The registered owner of the vehicle is liable," tollway spokesman Joelle McGinnis told the Star. "It is something a family must settle amongst themselves." Outraged motorists in Orange County, California, filed a similar lawsuit in 2007 after being hit with individual toll bills that ballooned up to $90,000, TheNewspaper.com points out. INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Court Affirms Approval of "Nuanes" Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Court of Appeals in California affirmed an order approving the settlement in matter, "Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et al." In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited partnership units of National Property Investors 5, commenced a purported class action entitled, "Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et al." with the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo. The plaintiffs named as defendants, among others, the Partnership, its Managing General Partner, NPI Equity Investments, Inc., a subsidiary of Apartment Investment and Management Co., and several of their affiliated partnerships and corporate entities. The action purported to assert claims on behalf of a class of limited partners and derivatively on behalf of a number of limited partnerships (including the Partnership) that are named as nominal defendants, challenging, among other things: -- the acquisition of interests in certain Managing General Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group, Inc., and entities that were, at one time, affiliates of Insignia; -- past tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to acquire limited partnership units; -- management of the partnerships by the Insignia affiliates; and -- the series of transactions which closed on Oct. 1, 1998, and Feb. 26, 1999 whereby Insignia and Insignia Property Trust, respectively, were merged into AIMCO. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and equitable relief, including judicial dissolution of the Partnership. In addition, during the third quarter of 2001, a complaint captioned, "Heller v. Insignia Financial Group," was filed against the same defendants that are named in "Nuanes." On Aug. 6, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The Heller action was brought as a purported derivative action, and asserted claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment, and judicial dissolution. On Jan. 28, 2002, the trial court granted the defendants' motion to strike the complaint. The Plaintiffs took an appeal from this order. On Jan. 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in proposed settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller action. On June 13, 2003, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered judgment in both the Nuanes and Heller actions. On Aug. 12, 2003, an objector filed an appeal seeking to vacate and reverse the order approving the settlement and entering judgment thereto. On May 4, 2004, the objector filed a second appeal challenging the court's use of a referee and its order requiring objector to pay those fees. On March 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both pending appeals. With regard to the settlement and the judgment entered, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order and remanded to the trial court for further findings on the basis that the "state of the record is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review." The matter was transferred back to the trial court on June 21, 2005. With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the order requiring the objector to pay referee fees. With respect to the related Heller appeal, on July 28, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order striking the first amended complaint. On Aug. 18, 2005, the objector and his counsel filed a motion to disqualify the trial court based on a peremptory challenge and filed a motion to disqualify for cause on Oct. 17, 2005, both of which were ultimately denied and struck by the trial court. On Oct. 13, 2005, the objector filed a motion to intervene and on Oct. 19, 2005, filed both a motion to take discovery relating to the adequacy of plaintiffs as derivative representatives and a motion to dissolve the anti-suit injunction in connection with settlement. On Nov. 14, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Further Findings pursuant to the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals. The defendants joined in that motion. On Feb. 3, 2006, the Court held a hearing on the various matters pending before it and ordered additional briefing from the parties and the objector. On June 30, 2006, the trial court entered an order confirming its approval of the class action settlement and entering judgment thereto after the Court of Appeals had remanded the matter for further findings. The substantive terms of the settlement agreement remain unchanged. The trial court also entered supplemental orders on July 1, 2006, denying the objector's Motion to File a Complaint in Intervention, the objector's Motion for Leave of Discovery and Objector's Motion to Dissolve the Anti-Suit Injunction. Notice of Entry of Judgment was served on July 10, 2006. On Aug. 31, 2006, the objector filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court's June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2006 orders. The matter was argued and submitted and the Court of Appeal issued an opinion on Feb. 20, 2008, affirming the order approving the settlement and judgment entered thereto. On March 12, 2008, the Court of Appeal denied Appellant's Petition for Re-Hearing. Appellant has until April 1, 2008, to file a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court, according to National Property Investors 5's March 28, 2008 Form 10KSB filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Andean Ops Suit in Calif. Belongs in Peru --------------------------------------------------------------- A Los Angeles superior court judge recently ruled that a class- action lawsuit filed by an indigenous group in Peru against Occidental Petroleum Corp. in Los Angeles County Superior Court belonged in Peruvian rather than U.S. jurisdiction. In 2007, 25 Achuar Indians -- who claim they suffered health problems from cancer to lead poisoning due to exposure to contaminants from Occidental's oil production operation -- brought the complaint (Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2007). It claimed Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s oil production operations in the Andean nation resulted in toxic levels of pollution that left many people sick or at risk of serious illness. The group, native to Peru's Upper Corrientes Basin, claims the region gradually became contaminated by pollutants over the three decades since Occidental first established operations there. According to the lawsuit, Occidental discharged millions of gallons of water used to process crude oil back into local waterways, flooding rivers with heavy metals, radioactive compounds and other harmful compounds. The crude oil processing also released gasses that have contributed to air pollution and acid rain, the group claims. The suit further alleges the Achuar's land was also exposed to contamination from chemical waste, which the company stored in unlined earthen pits. Government health studies have found that Achuar Indians in the zone suffer high blood concentrations of cadmium and lead -- a problem that Peruvian officials have said goes back to the 1970s when Occidental operated in the region. The company pumped oil in Peru's northern jungle until 1999, when its operations were bought by the Argentine-run company Pluspetrol, the report said. The suit seeks class-action status and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Apu Tomas Maynas Carijano is the lead plaintiff in the suit. But in light of the recent court decision, the plaintiff's lawyers are now considering whether to appeal that decision or whether to launch a new lawsuit in Peru. "Whether it is here in Los Angeles or back in Peru, we will get justice. Oxy will clean up," said Henderson Rengifo, an Achuar leader who has traveled to LA this week. SIRVA INC: Establishes Separate Class for Antitrust Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- SIRVA, Inc., a global relocation services provider, reached an agreement with the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors that will resolve the Committee's objections to the Company's proposed Plan of Reorganization. The agreement is supported by representatives for all major creditor groups and includes all individual members of the Committee. Under the agreement, all allowed claims of Class 5 creditors will receive a distribution of 25%. A separate class for certain putative antitrust class action claims will be established. Members of that class would receive a pro rata share of $5 million, consisting of $3 million in cash and $2 million in a second lien note. The specific terms are set forth in a modified Plan of Reorganization. The settlement will be funded by the Company's secured lenders. All other terms of the Company's reorganization plan will remain the same, including providing payment in full to all members of Class 4, which includes ongoing business partners. The Plan of Reorganization will be filed with the court today. Judge James M. Peck of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a Confirmation Hearing on the revised Plan following a brief solicitation of Class 1 creditors to be completed early next week. A favorable ruling at the Confirmation Hearing will mark the last major milestone in SIRVA's Chapter 11 case, paving the way for SIRVA's emergence from Chapter 11. Headquartered in Westmont, Illinois, SIRVA Inc. (Pink Sheets : SIRV.PK) -- http://www.sirva.com/-- is a provider of relocation solutions to a well-established and diverse customer base. The company handles all aspects of relocation, including home purchase and home sale services, household goods moving, mortgage services and home closing and settlement services. SIRVA conducts more than 300,000 relocations per year, transferring corporate and government employees along with individual consumers. SIRVA's brands include Allied, Allied International, Allied Pickfords, Allied Special Products, DJK Residential, Global, northAmerican, northAmerican International, Settlement. The company has operations in Costa Rica. Pickfords, SIRVA Mortgage, SIRVA Relocation and SIRVA The company and 61 of its affiliates filed separate petitions for Chapter 11 protection on Feb. 5, 2008 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 08-10433). Marc Kieselstein, Esq. at Kirkland & Ellis, L.L.P. is representing the Debtor. An official Committee of Unsecured Creditors has been appointed in this case. When the Debtors filed for bankruptcy, it reported total assets of US$924,457,299 and total debts of US$1,232,566,813 for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007. SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA: Employees Seek Unpaid Back Wages in Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Former employees of Speedway SuperAmerica LLC commenced a federal lawsuit in St. Paul against the Ohio-based company over unpaid back wages, Pioneer Press reports. Constantine Thompson, who once lived in Minnesota, and Tina Dado of Illinois, are the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which also seeks unspecified damages aside from the back wages. The suit is asking class-action status. According to Pioneer Press, the lawsuit involves current and former assistant managers, shift leaders or co-managers employed by Speedway SuperAmerica during the past three years. The suit could potentially involve several thousand employees, an attorney for the plaintiffs told Pioneer Press. Mr. Thompson said in a statement that he was pressured by Speedway to work off the clock while employed at SuperAmerica locations in Mounds View, Brooklyn Park, and Maple Grove. Speedway SuperAmerica, a subsidiary of Marathon Petroleum Co., operates about 1,600 locations in nine Midwest states, including 217 SuperAmerica locations in Minnesota, Pioneer Press points out. "Many nights I took phone calls relating to store business. I was never compensated for this work, which interrupted my family life and contributed to Speedway's successful operation," said Mr. Thompson, who now lives in Miami. Jon Tostrud, Esq., a Los Angeles attorney representing the plaintiffs, told Pioneer Press that the jobs covered in the suit are typically $8 to $10 an hour positions. "They're not salaried managers," Mr. Tostrud said. "They're hourly paid employees. When you're an hourly paid employee, you're to be paid for every hour you work." Specifically, according to the complaint against Speedway SuperAmerica: -- The plaintiffs regularly worked several hours per week off the clock beyond their regularly scheduled hours; -- They received calls at home relating to customer complaints, store alarms, missed shifts, computer and register problems and other store issues. In response, they routinely returned to the store to address these issues but were not compensated for the time actually spent answering and responding to these calls. They also were required to work through mandatory meal and rest breaks without compensation; and -- Speedway SuperAmerica failed to accurately record actual hours worked and willfully encouraged and directed employees to perform tasks and work additional time, including overtime, off the clock. Speedway knew it failed to pay these employees for all hours actually worked, including regular and overtime wage compensation. Linda Casey, a spokeswoman for Speedway SuperAmerica, told Pioneer Press that the company does not comment on pending litigation. WM WRIGLEY: Illinois Suit Challenges Sale of Company to Mars Inc ---------------------------------------------------------------- WM. Wrigley Jr. Company is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois challenging the $23-billion sale to Mars Inc., for $80 a share, and object to the more than $70 million in "change of control benefits" for Wrigley directors, CourtHouse News Service reports. This is a shareholder derivative action brought by a shareholder of the company on behalf of the company and a class action brought by company shareholder Robert L. Garber on behalf of the holders of Wrigley common stock. The action is brought against the company's Board of Directors for breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of defendant's efforts to sell the company to Mars Inc. via an unfair process and at the inadequate and unfair price. Defendant William Wrigley Jr. controls 40% of the voting stock, the class states. The plaintiffs say the rapidly negotiated sale illegally provided "Wrigley insiders and directors with preferential treatment at the expense of the public shareholders." They claim Wrigley shares were expected to "pop" -- i.e., rise in value -- even before the sale was announced. They claim the $80 per share sale price effectively capped the price of the stock. "Thus, Company insiders get to 'have their cake and eat it took' while the Company's public shareholders are frozen out of the Company's brightening future prospects." They claim Wrigley Jr. will get $26 million "change of control benefits" and CEO William Perez will get $15 million. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether the defendants have engaged and are continuing to engage in a plan and scheme t benefit themselves at the expense of the members of the class; (b) whether the individual defendants have fulfilled, and are capable of fulfilling, their fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the other members of the class, including their duties of loyalty, due care and candor, which include, in this assistance, the duty to maximize shareholder value; (c) whether defendants have unlawfully employed lock-up provisions in order to impede, thwart or prevent the successful emergence of any alternative bid for Wrigley shares that offers greater value to plaintiff and the class than does the proposed buyout; (d) whether the individual defendants are engaging in self- dealing in connection with the proposed buyout; (e) whether the individual defendants are unjustly enriching themselves and other insiders or affiliates of Wrigley; (f) whether the proposed buyout is entirely fair to the members of the class; (g) whether the defendants have disclosed all material facts in connection with the true value of the company and the challenged transaction; and (h) whether plaintiff and the other members of the class would be irreparably harmed if the defendants are not enjoined from effectuating the conduct described. The plaintiffs demand injunctive relief: -- declaring that this action is properly maintainable as a class and derivative action; -- declaring and decreeing that the proposed buyout and merger agreement was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable; -- enjoining defendants, their agents, counsel, employees and all persons acting in concert with them from consummating the proposed buyout, unless and until the company adopts and implements a procedure or process to obtain the highest possible price for shareholders; -- directing defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best interest of Wrigley shareholders until the process for the sale or auction of the company is completed and the highest possible price is obtained; -- rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the proposed buyout or any of the terms thereof; -- awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees; and -- granting such other and further equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Robert L. Garber et al. v. William Wrigley et al.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Representing the plaintiffs are: Leigh R. Lasky, Esq. Norman Rifkind, Esq. Amelia S. Newton, Esq. Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1320 Chicago, IL 60610 Phone: (312) 634-0057 Fax: (312) 634-0059 New Securities Fraud Cases ARBITRON INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY -------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Arbitron, Inc. common stock during the period between July 19, 2007, and November 26, 2007. The complaint charges Arbitron and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides media and marketing information services in the United States and internationally. The Company's Portable People Meter ratings service is purportedly capable of measuring radio, broadcast television, cable television, Internet broadcasts, satellite radio and television audiences, and retail store video and audio broadcasts. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to disclose: (i) that the Company's scheduled implementation of its Portable People Meter ratings service in certain major markets was not performing according to internal expectations and the Company was experiencing significant difficulties such that it would have to delay its implementation; and (ii) as a result, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the timing of the implementation of Arbitron's Portable People Meter ratings service and the Company's prospects and future earnings. On November 26, 2007, Arbitron announced that "it (would) delay the commercialization of its Portable People Meter (PPM) radio ratings service in nine markets" and that the Company would be revising its financial guidance for 2007 and its outlook for 2008. In response to this announcement, the price of Arbitron common stock declined $7.21 per share, or over 14.74%, to close at $41.70 per share, on unusually high trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Arbitron 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 BLACKSTONE GROUP: Stull & Brody Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody has filed a class action suit with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of 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 alleges that Blackstone and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially inaccurate Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the Company's IPO. The complaint alleges that the Company's Registration Statement was materially false because it 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 fourth quarter and full year 2007, the periods ending December 31, 2007. Among other disclosures, the Company announced that it was writing down its investment in Financial Guaranty Insurance Company by $122 million. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 16, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. Stull, Stull & Brody 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Toll-free: 1-800-337-4983 Fax: 1-212-490-2022 e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com Web site: htpp:/www.ssbny.com FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Finkelstein Thompson Files MA Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Finkelstein Thompson LLP has filed a Class Action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of First Marblehead Corporation between August 10, 2006, and April 7, 2008 inclusive. The Complaint alleges that First Marblehead and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. First Marblehead engages in the packaging and securitization of student loans. The Education Resources Institute is a nonprofit organization that guaranteed nearly all student loans originated by First Marblehead that resulted in default. According to the Complaint, First Marblehead misrepresented or failed to disclose that: (a) First Marblehead's portfolio had experienced increasing default rates and was not performing according to the Company's representations; (b) TERI, as guarantor of First Marblehead loan securities, was not financially equipped to handle the increasing defaults; (c) a securitization in the second quarter of fiscal year 2008 was unlikely; (d) First Marblehead had a larger role in the management of TERI's day-to-day affairs than represented to investors; (e) First Marblehead was unable to manage the risk of TERI's portfolio; and (f) First Marblehead lacked adequate internal and financial controls. On April 8, 2008, First Marblehead revealed that TERI had filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection. On this news, First Marblehead shares plunged 37% to close at $4.86 per share on April 8, 2008, on unusually heavy trading. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members. For more information, contact: Finkelstein Thompson LLP 1050 30th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (877) 337-1050 e-mail: contact@finkelsteinthompson.com Web site: http://www.finkelsteinthompson.com FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Murray Frank Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of The First Marblehead Corporation during the period August 9, 2007, through April 8, 2008, inclusive. The complaint charges First Marblehead and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 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 recently enacted and impending legislation would have a significant negative impact on the Company's business and prospects; and (2) that the Company's student loan guarantor, The Education Resources Institute Inc., was under- reserved and facing bankruptcy. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 9, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Brian D. Brooks, Esq. (bbrooks@murrayfrank.com) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP 275 Madison Ave New York, NY 10016-1101 Phone: 212-682-1818 http://www.murrayfrank.com LEHMAN BROTHERS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, and Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on April 29, 2008, with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. between September 13, 2006, and July 30, 2007, inclusive. The complaint names Lehman Brothers, Richard S. Fuld, Christopher M. O'Meara, and Joseph M. Gregory as defendants. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing various materially false and misleading statements about Lehman Brothers' financial well-being, business operations and prospects, which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. The complaint alleges, inter alia, that Defendants failed to fully disclose the nature and extent of the Company's exposure to losses incurred from trading in subprime mortgage-backed derivatives and that the Company failed to timely writedown its positions in these securities. On July 10, 2007, Lehman Brothers announced that it had "unrealized" losses of $459 million in the quarter ended May 31, 2007, from mortgages and mortgage-backed assets in its inventory. On the same day, it was reported that Standard & Poor's indicated that it may cut ratings on $12 billion of bonds backed by subprime mortgages, a move that would significantly cut into the Company's trading profits, since it is Wall Street's largest underwriter of mortgage bonds. As a result of the news, Lehman Brothers' stock fell $3.76 per share on July 10, 2007, on unusually high trading volume. Throughout the remainder of the Class Period, Lehman Brothers continued to downplay the risks associated with owning these mortgage-backed securities, and the nature and true extent of the Company's exposure to subprime- related assets and financial positions. On July 26, 2007, it was reported by Bloomberg that the risk of owning Lehman Brothers' bonds "soared" and its share price plunged "as concerns escalated that investment banks will be hurt by losses from subprime mortgages and corporate debt." The report detailed the soaring cost of credit-default swaps used to bet on Lehman Brothers' creditworthiness, signaling a significant deterioration in investor confidence. On this news, Lehman Brothers' shares fell an additional $3.16 per share on July 26, 2007, again on unusually heavy trading volume. Finally, on July 31, 2007, Bloomberg reported that ". . . Lehman Brothers (is) as good as junk" because the prices of credit- default swaps for the Company equated to a Ba1 rating, implying that the Company's credit ratings were below investment grade. On this news, the Company's shares fell an additional $2.80 on heavy trading volume. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 30, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Andrei Rado, Esq. Labaton Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: 800-321-0476 - and - Darren J. Check, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 888-299-7706 TD AMERITRADE: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all those who purchased Auction Rate Securities from TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation between March 19, 2003 and February 13, 2008, inclusive, to recover damages caused by TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. and TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s violation of the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that TD Ameritrade violated the securities laws by deceiving investors about the investment characteristics of Auction Rate Securities and the auction market in which these securities traded. Auction Rate Securities are either municipal or corporate debt securities or preferred stocks which pay interest at rates set at periodic "auctions." Auction Rate Securities generally have long-term maturities or no maturity dates. The Complaint alleges that, pursuant to uniform sales materials and top-down management directives, TD Ameritrade offered and sold Auction Rate Securities to the public as highly liquid cash-management vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money market mutual funds. According to the Complaint, those who now hold Auction Rate Securities sold by TD Ameritrade cannot liquidate their positions since the auction market for these securities has collapsed. Interested parties may move the court no later than May 19, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 39 Broadway, Suite 1601 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 e-mail: info@zlk.com Web site: http://www.zlk.com TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin Barroway Files TX Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP commenced a class action with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all purchasers of securities of TETRA Technologies, Inc. from January 3, 2007, through October 16, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges TETRA and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. TETRA is an oil and gas services company, which includes an integrated calcium chloride and brominated products manufacturing operation that supplies feedstocks to energy markets, as well as other markets. The Company operates in three divisions: Fluids, Well Abandonment and Decommissioning Services, and Product Enhancement. 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 WA&D Services division was performing below internal expectations; (2) that the Company had not taken timely charges for uncollectable insurance receivables; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On August 3, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it announced that it was reducing its 2007 earning guidance from $1.80-$2.15 per diluted share to $1.30-$1.50 per share, due to the fact that second quarter earnings were below Company expectations. The Company stated that its Fluids Division was impacted by higher inventory costs and that WA&D Services generated substantially less profits than anticipated. Nonetheless, the Company stated that the reasons for its weak performance were transitory, and that the second half of 2007 should exceed the first half, due to lower Fluids production costs and a more efficiently run WA&D Services operation. Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined $6.64 per share, or 25.14 percent, to close on August 3, 2007 at $19.77 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on October 16, 2007, the Company further shocked investors when it announced the withdrawal of the 2007 earnings guidance it had issued on August 3, 2007, stating that the negative factors that affected the first half of 2007 would also adversely impact the third quarter. The Company disclosed that it would record impairments of certain oil and gas properties, and that by the end of the year, the Company could experience earnings impacts from insurance related issues, changes in asset retirement obligations, asset sales, and successful efforts impairments. Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined $1.76 per share, or 8.14 percent, to close on October 16, 2007 at $19.86 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than May 27, 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 Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Exxon in Altimore Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.), reversed the ruling of the 405th District Court, Galveston County, Tex., which ruled against Exxon Mobil Corporation, in an asbestos- related lawsuit filed by Louise Altimore. The case is styled Exxon Mobil Corporation, Appellant v. Louise Altimore, Appellee. Justices Charles Seymore, Hedges, and Murphy entered judgment of Case No. 14-04-01133-CV on April 3, 2008. Mrs. Altimore's deceased husband, Mike Altimore, was employed at Exxon's Baytown refinery from 1942 until he retired in 1977. He was a machinist until 1972, when he was promoted to a supervisory position and worked in an air-conditioned tool room at the polyolefins unit. Mrs. Altimore sued Exxon and 69 other defendants alleging negligence and gross negligence in connection with injuries claimed as a result of exposure to asbestos dust brought home on her husband's clothes. Before trial, she settled or dismissed her claims against all defendants except Exxon. Following presentation of the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury awarded actual damages totaling US$992,001. The jury also assessed the same amount in exemplary damages. After allocating settlement credits, the trial court rendered judgment based solely on the jury's assessment of exemplary damages. Exxon's post-trial motions for new trial, remittitur and to modify the judgment were overruled by operation of law. This was a personal injury case wherein Exxon sought reversal of a judgment for exemplary damages. Accordingly, the Appeals Court reversed the trial court's award of exemplary damages and rendered judgment that Mrs. Altimore take nothing. Reagan W. Simpson, Aditi Dravid, Gary D. Elliston, Glenna M. Kyle, Bryant Robert Bremer, Amy C. Eikel, represented Exxon Mobil Corporation. Troy Damon Chandler, Daryl L. Moore, Denmon Heard, represented Louise Altimore. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $872M Receivable at Dec. --------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Mogul Corporation's long-term asbestos-related insurance receivable amounted to US$872.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2007. The Company's asbestos liabilities were US$1.389 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$1.392 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006. Southfield, Mich.-based Federal-Mogul Corporation is a global supplier of parts, components, modules and systems to customers in the automotive, small engine, heavy-duty, marine, railroad, aerospace and industrial markets. The Company is organized into six primary reporting segments: Powertrain Energy, Powertrain Sealing and Bearings, Vehicle Safety and Protection, Automotive Products, Global Aftermarket, and Corporate. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Veolia Expends $2.5M for Claims at Oct. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- During the five-year period ended Oct. 31, 2007, Veolia Environnement's average annual expenses relating to claims (asbestos, silica, and other potentially harmful substances), have been about US$2.5 million, excluding any reimbursements by insurance companies. Several present and former indirect subsidiaries of Veolia Eau, a Company subsidiary, in the United States are defendants in lawsuits in which the plaintiffs seek to recover for personal injury and other damages for alleged exposure to asbestos, silica and other potentially harmful substances. With respect to the lawsuits against Veolia Eau's former subsidiaries, certain of Veolia Eau's current subsidiaries remain liable and sometimes have to manage the outcomes. Further, the acquirers of Veolia Eau's former subsidiaries in some instances benefit from guarantees given by Veolia Eau or by the Company relating to such lawsuits. These lawsuits typically allege that the plaintiffs' injuries resulted from the use of products manufactured or sold by Veolia Eau's present or former subsidiaries or their predecessors. There are generally numerous other defendants, in addition to Veolia Eau's present or former subsidiaries, which are accused of having contributed to the injuries. Reserves have been accrued by Veolia Eau's current subsidiaries for their estimated liability in these cases based on the relation between the injuries claimed and the products manufactured or sold by Veolia Eau's subsidiaries or their predecessors, the extent of the injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiffs, the involvement of other defendants and the settlement history in similar cases. A number of such claims have been resolved to date either through settlement or dismissal. To date, no court decisions have been issued relating to any of these claims. Paris, France-based Veolia Environnement engages in water management, waste management, energy, and transportation. The Company's Veolia Water unit provides water and wastewater services to more than 110 million people. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk Southern Faces Occupational Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Norfolk Southern Corporation states that occupational claims (including asbestosis and other respiratory diseases, as well as conditions allegedly related to repetitive motion) it faces are often not caused by a specific accident or event but rather result from a claimed exposure over time. Many such claims are being asserted by former or retired employees, some of whom have not been employed in the rail industry for decades. The actuarial firm provides an estimate of the occupational claims liability based upon the Company's history of claim filings, severity, payments and other pertinent facts. The liability is dependent upon management's judgments made as to the specific case reserves as well as judgments of the consulting actuarial firm in the periodic studies. The actuarial firm's estimate of ultimate loss includes a provision for those claims that have been incurred but not reported. This provision is derived by analyzing industry data and projecting the Company's experience into the future as far as can be reasonably determined. Adjustments to the recorded liability are reflected in operating expenses in the periods in which such adjustments become known. Norfolk Southern Corporation's subsidiary, Norfolk Southern Railway, transports freight over a network consisting of more than 21,000 route miles in 22 states in the eastern U.S. and in Ontario, Canada. The rail system is made up of more than 16,000 route miles owned by Norfolk Southern and about 5,000 route miles of trackage rights, which allow the Company to use tracks owned by other railroads. Norfolk Southern transports coal and general merchandise, including automotive products and chemicals. The Company is based in Norfolk, Va. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. DT Solutions Still Pending in Md. -------------------------------------------------------------- Diversified Thermal Solutions, Inc.'s subsidiary, DT Solutions, Inc., continues to face an asbestos-related lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Allegheny County, Md. On Sept. 25, 2005, First Capital Insulation, Inc. filed a complaint against DT Solutions and Mt. Savage Firebrick Company. DT Solutions entered into an agreement for the purchase of real property from Mt. Savage Firebrick Company. First Capital Insulation seeks about US$38,000 for its removal and disposition of asbestos containing material from two brick ovens. As of April 23, 2008, the date of the filing of the annual report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, this matter had not been resolved. Based in Memphis, Tenn., Diversified Thermal Solutions, Inc. manufactures refractory products, such as clay and brick, for the linings of high-temperature furnaces and reactors. The Company is expanding in the Southeast and Northeast of the U.S., primarily targeting non-ferrous industries such as aluminum, incineration, paper, and petrochemical operations. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Face 631 Actions at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Celanese Corporation's U.S. subsidiaries, Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings, Inc., as of March 31, 2008, are defendants in about 631 asbestos cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2008. During the three months ended March 31, 2008, 27 new cases were filed against the Company, 24 cases were resolved and two cases were added to the count after further analysis by outside counsel. Because many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the number of actual cases. The Company has reserves for defense costs related to claims arising from these matters. Celanese Ltd. CNA Holdings, Inc. faced about about 626 asbestos- related cases. (Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2008) Dallas-based Celanese Corporation, with its subsidiaries, is a leading global integrated chemical and advanced materials company. The Company's business involves processing chemical raw materials, such as methanol, carbon monoxide and ethylene, and natural products, including wood pulp, into value-added chemicals, thermoplastic polymers and other chemical-based products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Still Facing 3rd-Party Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Badger Meter, Inc. continues to be involved in multi- claimant/multi-defendant lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, manufactured by third parties, and integrated into a very limited number of the Company's industrial products. No claimant has demonstrated exposure to products manufactured or sold by the Company and that a number of cases have been voluntarily dismissed, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2008. Based in Milwaukee, Badger Meter, Inc. is a manufacturer and marketer of products incorporating liquid flow measurement and control technologies, developed both internally and in conjunction with other technology companies. The Company's product lines fall into two general categories, utility and industrial flow measurement. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ENSCO Still Facing Suits in Miss. & Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- ENSCO International Incorporated continues to face asbestos- related lawsuits in Mississippi and California courts, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2008. In August 2004, the Company and certain current and former subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with numerous other third party companies as co-defendants, in three multi-party lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones County (2nd Judicial District) and Jasper County (1st Judicial District), Miss. The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities during the period 1965 through 1986. In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims. As a result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims, the Company has been named as a defendant by 66 individual plaintiffs. Of these claims, 63 claims or lawsuits are pending in Mississippi state courts and three are pending in the U.S. District Court as a result of their removal from state court. Currently, none of the pending Mississippi asbestos lawsuits against the Company have been set for trial. In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi, the Company has assumed the defense and indemnity of two parties that formerly held an interest in a predecessor company named in a lawsuit pending in the Superior Court of the State of California. The assumption of their defense and indemnity arises under the terms and conditions of an Assumption Agreement given by Penrod Drilling Corporation, the predecessor of one of the Company's subsidiaries. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages allegedly arising from exposure to asbestos or products containing asbestos while employed by Penrod and several other named defendants between 1960 and the early 1990s. (Plaintiff alleges employment with Penrod in 1980 and 1981.) Inasmuch as the discovery process is in an early stage, it is difficult to assess the exposure or predict the outcome of this lawsuit. Dallas-based ENSCO International Incorporated is an international offshore contract drilling company. As of Feb. 15, 2008, the Company's offshore rig fleet included 44 jackup rigs, one ultra-deepwater semisubmersible rig and one barge rig. Additionally, the Company has four ultra-deepwater semi- submersible rigs under construction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Has $50M Claims Reserve at March ---------------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, had reserved about US$50 million in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims, at March 31, 2008, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2007. In the second quarter of 2005, Generation performed analyses to determine if a reasonable estimate of future losses could be calculated associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by other Company subsidiaries, Commonwealth Edison Company and PECO Energy Company. Generation recorded an undiscounted US$43 million pre-tax charge for its estimated portion of all estimated future asbestos- related personal injury claims estimated to be presented through 2030. This amount did not include estimated legal costs associated with handling these matters, which could be material. As of March 31, 2008, about US$14 million of the US$50 million relates to 172 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining US$36 million of the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2030 based on actuarial assumptions and analysis. Chicago-based Exelon Corporation, a utility services holding company, operates through its principal subsidiaries: Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Commonwealth Edison Company; and PECO Energy Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Pending v. Goodrich, Units ---------------------------------------------------------------- Goodrich Corporation and some of its subsidiaries are defendants in various actions by plaintiffs alleging damages as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers in products or at its facilities, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2008. A number of these cases involve maritime claims, which have been and are expected to continue to be administratively dismissed by the court. In May 2002, the Company completed the tax-free spin-off of its Engineered Industrial Products (EIP) segment, which at the time of the spin-off included EnPro Industries, Inc. and Coltec Industries Inc. At that time, two subsidiaries of Coltec were defendants in personal injury claims relating to alleged asbestos-containing products sold by those subsidiaries before the Company's ownership. It is possible that asbestos-related claims might be asserted against the Company on the theory that it has some responsibility for the asbestos-related liabilities of EnPro, Coltec or its subsidiaries. Also, it is possible that a claim might be asserted against the Company that Coltec's dividend of its aerospace business to the Company prior to the spin-off was made at a time when Coltec was insolvent or caused Coltec to become insolvent. Such a claim could seek recovery from the Company on behalf of Coltec of the fair market value of the dividend. A limited number of asbestos-related claims have been asserted against the Company as "successor" to Coltec or one of its subsidiaries. In addition, the agreement between EnPro and the Company that was used to effectuate the spin-off provides the Company with an indemnification from EnPro covering these liabilities. Based in Charlotte, N.C., Goodrich Corporation supplies components, systems and services to the commercial and general aviation airplane markets. The Company also supplies systems and products to the global defense and space markets. Products and services are principally sold to customers in North America, Europe and Asia. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Has $261M Liability at March --------------------------------------------------------------- Union Pacific Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liability amounted to US$261 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008, compared with US$300 million for the three months ended March 31, 2007. The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$11 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008, compared with US$13 million for the three months ended March 31, 2007. The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits in which current and former employees and other parties allege exposure to asbestos. Additionally, the Company has received claims for asbestos exposure that have not been litigated. The claims and lawsuits allege occupational illness resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products. In most cases, the claimants do not have credible medical evidence of physical impairment resulting from the alleged exposures. Additionally, most claims filed against the Company do not specify an amount of alleged damages. The Company has insurance coverage for a portion of the costs incurred to resolve asbestos-related claims, and it has recognized an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007. Omaha, Nebr.-based Union Pacific Corporation's principal operating company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, links 23 states in the western two-thirds of the country and serves the fastest-growing U.S. population centers. Union Pacific Railroad Company's business mix includes agricultural products, automotive, chemicals, energy, industrial products, and intermodal. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: La. Lawsuits Still Pending v. Morton Int'l. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rohm and Haas Company's subsidiary, Morton International, Inc., continues to face pending lawsuits related to employee exposure to asbestos at a manufacturing facility in Weeks Island, La., with more suits expected, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2008. The Company expects that most of these cases will be dismissed because they are barred under workers' compensation laws. Morton has also been sued in connection with asbestos-related matters in the former Friction Division of the former Thiokol Corporation, which merged with Morton in 1982. Settlement amounts to date have been minimal and many cases have closed with no payment. The Company estimates that all costs associated with future Friction Division claims, including defense costs, will be well below the Company's insurance limits. As a result of the bankruptcy of asbestos producers, plaintiffs' attorneys have focused on peripheral defendants, including the Company, which had asbestos on its premises. Historically, these premises cases have been dismissed or settled for minimal amounts because of the minimal likelihood of exposure at Company facilities. The Company has reserved amounts for premises asbestos cases that it currently believes are probable and estimable. Philadelphia-based Rohm and Haas Company operates as a global specialty materials company. The Company reported sales of US$8.9 billion in 2007 on a portfolio of global businesses including electronic materials, specialty materials and salt. The Company caters to markets including: building and