/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080523.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 23, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 102 Headlines APPLIANCE RETAILERS: Face Raps Over Dryer Vents in Three States BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Faces Lawsuit Over May 17 Train Derailment CANDELA CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Massachusetts CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Denies Certification in FACTA Lawsuit CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Calif. Wage Law Violations Suit Still Pending CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Face Calif. Wage/Hour Lawsuit CHARLES SCHWAB: Wants YieldPlus Fund Lawsuits Consolidated CVR ENERGY: Dismissal of Kansas Oil Spill Lawsuit Not Appealed EINSTEIN NOAH: Amended Complaint Filed in Store Managers' Suit EINSTEIN NOAH: Faces Non-Exempt Employees' Litigation in Calif. EMERSON RADIO: Faces Delaware Suit Over Grande Holdings Buy-Out FRANKLIN RESOURCES: N.J. Court Dismisses "Ulferts" Litigation FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Awaits Market-Timing Suit Dismissal Order FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Certification Sought in Market-Timing Suit GEMSTAR-TV: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss "Zilson" Complaint GEMSTAR-TV: Del. Suit Over Macrovision Corp. Deal Still Pending INTERMIX MEDIA: Court to Hear Arguments in Appeal of Nixed Suits INTERMIX MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Awaits Ruling ISRAELI BANKS: Face Lawsuit for Profiting From Withheld Taxes JARDEN CORP: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in Securities Fraud Suit JARDEN CORP: Calif. Court Approves K2 Inc. Lawsuit Settlement LIVE NATION: Calif. Court Approves Stipulation in Antitrust Suit LONDON LIFE: Ex-Workers File $11-Million Suit Over Pension Money MASSBANK CORP: Faces Suit in Mass. Over Eastern Bank Merger Deal MCKESSON CORP: Calif. Demands "Hundreds Of Millions” in Lawsuit MENU FOODS: Settles Pet Owners' Hawaii suit Over Pet Food Recall MERCURY INSURANCE: Calif. Court Approves CLRA Suit Settlement MERCURY INSURANCE: Awaits Final Approval of "Goodman" Settlement MONROE COUNTY: School Officials Face Racial Discrimination Raps NEVADA: Speech-Impaired Patients Sue Over Medicaid Money Denial RAMBUS INC: Calif. Court Okays $18MM Securities Suit Settlement ROCKWELL INT'L: Judge Upholds $350MM Verdict in Rocky Flats Case SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces Suit Over Defective Garage Door Openers SILVER STATE HELICOPTERS: Ex-students Sue Two More Lenders STARBUCKS COFFEE: No Trial Date Fixed for Fla. Overtime Lawsuit STARBUCKS CORP: No Trial Date Set for Calif. Suit on Appeal STARBUCKS CORP: Texas Court Approves Settlement in FLSA Lawsuit SYSTEMAX INC: N.Y. Court Considers Motions in "Vukson" Lawsuit WMG ACQUISITION: N.Y. Court Considers Dismissal of Pricing Suit New Securities Fraud Cases ARBITRON INC: Brower Piven Commences N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit DOWNEY FINANCIAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Calif. MGIC INVESTMENT: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Michigan Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Newsome Action in Favor of U.S. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: District Court Remands Sether Action v. GE ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Facing Injury Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Corp. Has $1.28B Reserves at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. CenterPoint ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Records $19.9M Reserves at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tecumseh Products Subject to Exposure Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Still Has 114 Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, Five Units Face Lawsuits in 30 States ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Motors Has $628M Liability at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Pending v. Curtiss-Wright ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26,275 Claims Pending v. Harsco at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork & Seal Has 79,000 Pending Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Faces Suits in Tex. Courts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Facing Lawsuits in Pa. Courts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Unit Gets 2T New Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Ongoing v. Houston Wire ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Records $96.11M Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 8,836 Claims Pending v. Ampco at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BJ Services Still Facing Lawsuits in Miss. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M & F Incurs No Amounts for Asbestos Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $27.69M Liability at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $21.17M Reserves at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Cites $12.27M Liabilities ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,344 Claims at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mallinckrodt Inc. Has 10,607 Pending Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Records $622.7M Liability at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Inc. Faces 104,642 Pending Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Inc Pursuing Coverage for N.J. Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chemtura Still Subject to Liability Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 14T Claims Still Pending v. Owens-Illinois ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 117T Claims Pending v. Ashland at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alamo Reserves for Liability Still at $325T ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Court Favors Defendants in Marley Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling to Favor Gomez ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 299 Claims Pending v. Nevamar Co. at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3 Applica Lawsuits Still Pending v. Salton ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 10 Suits Ongoing v. Katy Industries in Ala. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Ind. Cites 2,426 Sterling Fluid Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 388 Actions Pending v. LaBour Pump in N.J. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ballantyne Facing Stehmans' Case in Calif. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 536 Claims Pending v. Constellation & BGE ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Cites 40 Cases Set for Trial in 2008 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Richards Widow Names 30 Firms in W.Va. Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Issues $18,500 Penalty to Ariz. Company ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Workers Seek JPY6.6Bil from Japanese Gov't. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court OKs $3.9M Verdict v. Crane Co. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Has 6,191 Mesothelioma Claims Filed ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grumley Settles w/ Garlock Sealing for $12M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chason Case v. Marathon Filed in Tex. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs $3.2M Verdict v. Parsons, Jacobs Foster Wheeler Tops List of Companies with Open Asbestos Claims ********* APPLIANCE RETAILERS: Face Raps Over Dryer Vents in Three States --------------------------------------------------------------- Appliance retailers are facing lawsuits seeking class-action status in the states of Illinois, North Carolina and Indiana alleging that the companies improperly installed dryer vents, Reuters reports. Named in the suits are: -- Sears Holdings Corp. -- Lowe's Cos. Inc. and -- hhgregg Inc. The lawsuit against Sears, filed in U.S. District Court in Illinois, states that clothes dryers were involved in more than 15,000 U.S. structure fires, 15 deaths and $99 million worth of property damage annually between 2002 and 2004. The suits against Lowe's and hhgregg were filed before the federal court in North Carolina and Indiana, respectively, where the companies are based, the report notes. According to the lawsuits, "The leading cause of clothes dryer fires is due to improper installation of vents and excessive build-up of lint within the dryer." The lawsuits state that the retailers' installers attached metal foil or plastic vents to dryers sold to consumers instead of heavy metal ones recommended by manufacturers, creating conditions that could cause fires or death. The suits seek unspecified monetary damages and corrective action for consumers whose vents were installed improperly. Appliance retailers typically charge a fee for installation. "These retailers are selling their installation services and then they are (installing) in a way that they know can ultimately be a fire hazard,” said Paul Geller, Esq., who represents plaintiffs in the lawsuits. To contact Mr. Geller: Paul J. Geller, Esq. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561-750-3000 Fax: 561-750-3364 BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Faces Lawsuit Over May 17 Train Derailment --------------------------------------------------------------- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad is facing a class-action complaint filed before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana over the May 17 morning train derailment that spilled hydrochloric acid near Lafayette, forcing the evacuation of 3,000 people, CourtHouse News Service reports. A BNSF train derailed in Lafayette, Lafayette Parish, State of Louisiana, on May 17, 2008, caused emissions of toxic chemicals including but not limited to hydrochloric acid. This resulted to injuries to plaintiffs and numerous other individuals over a large area of Lafayette Parish, Louisiana. The wreck sent a toxic cloud over the city, putting five people in the hospital, according to press reports. Most of the roughly 3,000 residents who were evacuated after the 2:00 a.m. derailment were able to return home the following night, but residents within 1,000 feet of the 10,000-gallon spill -- mostly businesses -- are still prohibited from returning, state troopers told The Associated Press. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all residents and domiciliaries of the Parish of Lafayette, State of Louisiana who were present, had businesses or owned property in Lafayette on May 17, 2008, and who sustained injuries and damages as a result of the derailment of the BNSF train and the subsequent release of toxic chemicals. The plaintiffs ask the court for: -- an order certifying the class under the appropriate provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23, and appointing complainants and their counsel to represent the class; -- a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and the proposed class against BNSF in an amount to compensate each class member for all damages to which they are entitled to by law, but after due proceedings that including a trial by jury; -- legal interest on all damages awarded from the date of judicial demand until paid; and -- the cost of this litigation. The suit is "Daniel Danenberg et al. v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company, Case No. 6:08-cv-00676,” filed before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Representing the plaintiffs are: Daniel E. Becnel, Esq. (dbecnel@becnellaw.com) Matthew B. Moreland, Esq. (mmoreland@becnellaw.com) Salvadore Christina, Jr., Esq. (schristina@becnellaw.com) Becnel Law Firm LLC P.O. Drawer H Reserve, LA 70084 Phone: 985-536-1186 Fax: 985-536-6445 CANDELA CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Candela Corp. is facing a purported securities fraud class action suit that was filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2008. On April 2, 2008, Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees' Pension Fund filed a putative securities class action complaint against the company, Candela President and CEO Gerard E. Puorro, and its former chief financial officer, F. Paul Broyer. The suit was brought on behalf of investors who purchased the company's publicly traded securities between Feb. 1, 2006, and Aug. 21, 2006. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks an unspecified amount of damages, as well as other forms of relief. The suit is "Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees Pension Fund, et al. v. Candela Corporation, et al., Case No. 08-CV- 10551," filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Representing the plaintiffs are: Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY, 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 e-mail: info@csgrr.com - and - Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP 52 State Street Boston, MA, 02109 Phone: 617-439-3939 Fax: 617-439-0134 e-mail: info@shulaw.com CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Denies Certification in FACTA Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied a motion by the plaintiffs seeking class-action status for a consolidated class action suit filed against CEC Entertainment, Inc., that alleges violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, according to CEC's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2008. On Jan. 23, 2007, a purported class action complaint against CEC, entitled, "Blanco v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., et al., Cause No. CV-07-0559," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Blanco Litigation was filed by an alleged customer of one of the company's Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants purporting to represent all individuals in the U.S. who, on or after Dec. 4, 2006, were knowingly and intentionally provided at the point of sale or transaction with an electronically printed receipt by the company that was in violation of U.S.C. Section 1681c(g) of FACTA. The Blanco Litigation is not seeking actual damages, but is only seeking statutory damages for each willful violation under FACTA. On Jan. 10, 2008, the Court denied class certification without prejudice and stayed the case pending the appellate outcome of the "Soualian v. Int'l Coffee & Tea LLC" case which is presently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The trial court in "Soualian" is currently evaluating a preliminary settlement of the matter. If the settlement is approved by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the stay in the Blanco Litigation will likely be lifted. CEC Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.chuckecheese.com/-- is engaged in the family restaurant/entertainment center business. The Company operated, as of Dec. 31, 2006, 484 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants. In addition, as of Dec. 31, 2006, franchisees of the Company operated 45 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants. Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants offer a variety of pizzas, a salad bar, sandwiches, appetizers and desserts, and feature musical and comic entertainment by robotic and animated characters, family oriented games, rides and arcade-style activities. The Company and its franchisees operate in a total of 48 states and five foreign countries/territories. CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Calif. Wage Law Violations Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- CEC Entertainment, Inc., continues to face a purported class action suit that was filed before the Central District Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County in connection with alleged violations of the state wage and hour laws, according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2008. The purported class action complaint was filed against the company on Nov. 19, 2007, and is entitled, "Ana Chavez v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., et. al., Cause No. BC380996." The company received service of process on Dec. 21, 2007. The Chavez Litigation was filed by a former store employee purporting to represent other similarly situated current and former employees of the company in California from Nov. 19, 2003, to the present. The lawsuit alleges violations of the state wage and hour laws involving unpaid vacation wages, meal periods, wages due upon termination, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition and seeks an unspecified amount in damages. On Jan. 18, 2008, the company removed the Chavez Litigation to Federal Court. The Federal Court remanded the Chavez Litigation back to State Court on March 21, 2008. The company reported no further development in the matter in its recent SEC regulatory disclosure. CEC Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.chuckecheese.com-- is engaged in the family restaurant/entertainment center business. The Company operated, as of Dec. 31, 2006, 484 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants. In addition, as of Dec. 31, 2006, franchisees of the Company operated 45 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants. Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants offer a variety of pizzas, a salad bar, sandwiches, appetizers and desserts, and feature musical and comic entertainment by robotic and animated characters, family oriented games, rides and arcade-style activities. The Company and its franchisees operate in a total of 48 states and five foreign countries/territories. CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Face Calif. Wage/Hour Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ CEC Entertainment, Inc. continues to face a purported class action lawsuit that was filed before the Central District Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County in connection with alleged violations of the state wage and hour laws, according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2008. The purported class action lawsuit against CEC, entitled, "Cynthia Perez et. al. v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., et. al., Cause No. BC3853527," was filed on Jan. 9, 2008. The company was served with the complaint on Jan. 30, 2008. The Perez Litigation was filed by former store employees purporting to represent other similarly situated current and former employees of the company in Los Angeles County from Jan. 8, 2004, to the present. The lawsuit alleges violations of the state wage and hour laws involving unpaid overtime wages, meal and rest periods, itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties, retaliation, unfair competition, and constructive trust and seeks an unspecified amount in damages. On Feb. 29, 2008, the company removed the Perez Litigation to federal court. The federal court remanded the Perez Litigation back to State Court on April 30, 2008. The company reported no further development in the matter in its recent SEC regulatory disclosure. CEC Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.chuckecheese.com/-- is engaged in the family restaurant/entertainment center business. The Company operated, as of Dec. 31, 2006, 484 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants. In addition, as of Dec. 31, 2006, franchisees of the Company operated 45 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants. Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants offer a variety of pizzas, a salad bar, sandwiches, appetizers and desserts, and feature musical and comic entertainment by robotic and animated characters, family oriented games, rides and arcade-style activities. The Company and its franchisees operate in a total of 48 states and five foreign countries/territories. CHARLES SCHWAB: Wants YieldPlus Fund Lawsuits Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------- The Charles Schwab Corp. is seeking for the consolidation of several purported securities class action lawsuits related to the Schwab YieldPlus Fund. In March 2008, two purported class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of investors in the Schwab YieldPlus Fund alleging that the mutual fund's registration statements and prospectuses were false and misleading in violation of federal securities laws. Six additional purported class action complaints asserting largely identical claims were filed in April 2008. Aside from the company, the other defendants named in the eight lawsuits are: -- Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., -- Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc., -- Randall W. Merk, -- Charles R. Schwab, and -- other current and former management affiliated trustees and officers of the fund or Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. In addition, several of the lawsuits name the fund itself, Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the fund's shares), and the current and former independent trustees of the fund. The claimants seek unspecified compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and attorneys fees. Five of the lawsuits have been filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, two with the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, and one with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The five California cases have been assigned to the same judge, and the company will seek consolidation of all eight cases into a single action, according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. The Charles Schwab Corp. -- http://www.schwab.com/-- is a financial holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the Company engages in securities brokerage, banking and related financial services. CSC provides financial services to individuals and institutional clients through three segments: Schwab Investor Services, Schwab Institutional, and Schwab Corporate and Retirement Services. The Schwab Investor Services segment includes the Company's retail brokerage and banking operations. The Schwab Institutional segment provides custodial, trading and support services to independent investment advisors. The Schwab Corporate and Retirement Services segment provides retirement plan services for employers and employees, as well as support services for plan administrators. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had seven million active brokerage accounts, 1.2 million corporate retirement plan participants and 262,000 banking accounts. CVR ENERGY: Dismissal of Kansas Oil Spill Lawsuit Not Appealed -------------------------------------------------------------- No appeal was made with regards to the dismissal of a federal class action lawsuit over an oil spill in Coffeyville, Kansas, that named CVR Energy Inc. as a defendant. To recount, crude oil was discharged from the company's refinery on July 1, 2007, due to the short amount of time available to shut down and secure the refinery in preparation for a flood that occurred on June 30, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 10, 2008). More than 71,000 gallons of crude oil spilled from the refinery -- far more than the 42,000 gallons that was initially reported by the press. Due to widespread flooding that was occurring at the time of the oil spill, the crude oil reached and damaged a very large area. As a result of the crude oil discharge, a putative class action complaint was filed in federal court seeking unspecified damages under applicable law for all residents, domiciliaries and property owners of Coffeyville, Kansas, who were affected by the oil release. The federal action was commenced by the law firms Parker Waichman Alonso LLP; Hutton & Hutton Law Firm LLC; Neblett, Beard & Arsenault; and Becnel Law Firm LLC before the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, on behalf of numerous individuals and business owners who have sustained losses as a result of the refinery oil spill. The plaintiffs' complaint alleged that the crude oil discharge resulted from our negligent operation of the refinery and that class members suffered unspecified damages, including damages to their personal and real property, diminished property value, lost full use and enjoyment of their property, lost or diminished business income and comprehensive remediation costs. The federal suit sought recovery under the federal Oil Pollution Act, Kansas statutory law imposing a duty of compensation on a party that releases any material detrimental to the soil or waters of Kansas, and the Kansas common law of negligence, trespass and nuisance. This suit was dismissed on Nov. 6, 2007, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and no appeal was made, according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Dunham v. Coffeyville Resources, LLC et al., Case No. 6:07-cv-01186-JTM-DWB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas under Judge J. Thomas Marten, with referral to Judge Donald W. Bostwick. For more information, contact plaintiffs' lawyer: Andrew W. Hutton, Esq. (andrew.hutton@huttonlaw.com) Hutton & Hutton 8100 E. 22nd St., North-Bldg. 1200 P. O. Box 638 Wichita, KS 67201-638 Phone: 316-688-1166 Fax: 316-686-1077 EINSTEIN NOAH: Amended Complaint Filed in Store Managers' Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- An amended consolidated complaint was filed in a purported class action lawsuit against Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc., over the company's alleged failure to pay overtime wages to "salaried restaurant employees" of its stores in the state, according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 1, 2008. Initially, two purported class action suits were filed. The first was filed in the Superior Court of California for the State of California, County of San Diego, on Sept. 18, 2007, by a former store manager, Eric Mathistad. Mr. Mathistad alleges that the defendants failed to pay overtime wages to "salaried restaurant employees" of its California stores who were improperly designated as exempt employees, and that these employees were deprived of mandated meal periods and rest breaks. The plaintiff alleges that these actions were in violation of the California Labor Code Sections 1194, et seq., 500, et seq., California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., and applicable wage order(s) issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, attorney's fees, restitution and an unspecified amount of damages for unpaid overtime and for missed meal and rest periods. The Company filed a demurrer on Oct. 18, 2007, claiming that, inter alia: -- the plaintiff fails to state a claim against the Company; -- the plaintiff does not state a claim for a joint venture, partnership, common enterprise, or aiding and abetting; -- the plaintiff's definition of the class is deficient and -- the plaintiff's claims for declaratory judgment regarding Labor Code violations should be dismissed. On No. 14, 2007, Bernadette Mejia, another former store manager, filed a similar case against the company. In April 2008, the Mathistad and Meija cases were consolidated into one case, and on May 6, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. Lakewood, Colorado-based Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. -- http://www.einsteinnoah.com/-- commenced operations as an operator and franchisor of coffee cafes in 1993, is an owner/operator, franchisor and licensor of bagel specialty restaurants in the U.S. EINSTEIN NOAH: Faces Non-Exempt Employees' Litigation in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc., is facing a purported class action lawsuit in California claiming failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime and failure to provide rest periods and meal breaks, among other charges, according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 1, 2008. On Feb. 8, 2008, non-exempt employees Gloria Webber and Hakan Mikado brought a putative class action suit against the company in the Superior Court of California for the State of California, County of San Diego. The parties have agreed to stay formal discovery and a formal response to the complaint pending exchange of information. Lakewood, Colorado-based Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. -- http://www.einsteinnoah.com/-- commenced operations as an operator and franchisor of coffee cafes in 1993, is an owner/operator, franchisor and licensor of bagel specialty restaurants in the U.S. EMERSON RADIO: Faces Delaware Suit Over Grande Holdings Buy-Out --------------------------------------------------------------- Emerson Radio Corp. and its directors are facing a derivative- action complaint filed before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for self-dealing and breaches of duty in selling 58% of the company to Grande Holdings Ltd., CourtHouse News Service reports. This is a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of Emerson Radio, seeking to recover for damages caused to the company by its directors and senior officers who breached their fiduciary obligations to the company arising out of the self- dealing transactions they caused Emerson to enter. These transactions were with subsidiaries and affiliates of Emerson's controlling shareholder, Grande Holdings, which obtained control over Emerson through a series of open market transactions and private acquisitions resulting in the accumulation of over 57.6% of Emerson's outstanding common stock. In pursuing these related party transactions, the directors violated Delaware law by directly breaching and/or aiding and abetting the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties of loyalty and fair dealing. The plaintiffs request that the court: -- declare this action to be a proper derivative action and certify plaintiff as representative plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel as derivative counsel; -- order defendants to pay Emerson monetary damages, together with interest thereon; -- award plaintiff the costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees; and -- grant such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. The suit is "Warren Pinchuk et al. v. Christopher Ho et al.,” filed before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. Representing the plaintiffs are: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Briand D. Long, Esq. Rigrodsky & Long PA 919 Norht Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: 302-295-5310 Fax: 302-654-7530 FRANKLIN RESOURCES: N.J. Court Dismisses "Ulferts" Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed with prejudice the purported class action suit, "Ulferts v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01309 WJM- MF," according to Franklin resources' May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. Initially, the company and certain of its subsidiaries were named in a lawsuit, entitled "Ulferts v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7847 SI," which was filed on Dec. 22, 2006, before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit is alleging violations of federal securities laws relating to disclosure of marketing support payments and payment of allegedly excessive commissions. It was styled as a class action and sought, among other relief, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 16, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered a stipulated order transferring the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The transferred case in now captioned, "Ulferts v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01309 WJM- MF." On Sept. 25, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In April 2008, the court granted the defendants' request dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. Franklin Resources, Inc. -- http://www.franklintempleton.com,-- is an investment management company. Through its wholly owned direct and indirect subsidiaries, Franklin Resources provides investment management and fund administration services to open- end and closed-end investment companies, institutional accounts, high-net-worth families, individuals and separate accounts in the U.S. and internationally. FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Awaits Market-Timing Suit Dismissal Order ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has yet to rule on motions seeking to dismiss a consolidated market timing/late trading class action suit filed against Franklin Resources, Inc., and certain of the Franklin Templeton mutual funds, current and former officers, employees, and directors. The defendants have been named in multiple lawsuits in different federal courts in Nevada, California, Illinois, New York, and Florida. Generally, the cases alleged violations of various federal securities and state laws. Specifically, the lawsuits claim breach of duty with respect to alleged arrangements to permit market timing and late trading activity, or breach of duty with respect to the valuation of the portfolio securities of certain Templeton Funds managed by the company's subsidiaries, allegedly resulting in market timing activity. The lawsuits are styled as class actions, or derivative actions on behalf of either the named funds or the company. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, monetary damages, restitution, removal of fund trustees, directors, advisers, administrators, and distributors, rescission of management contracts and 12b-1 plans, and attorneys' fees and costs. The majority of these lawsuits duplicate, in whole or in part, the allegations asserted in an administrative complaint and in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's findings regarding market timing in the SEC Order. To date, more than 400 similar lawsuits against at least 19 different mutual fund companies have been filed in federal district courts throughout the country. Because the cases involve common questions of fact, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the creation of a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, entitled "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation." The Judicial Panel then transferred similar cases from different districts to the MDL for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. As of Dec. 20, 2006, these market timing lawsuits are pending against the company and certain of its subsidiaries, and in some instances, name certain officers, directors and Funds. The suits that have been transferred to the MDL include: -- "Kenerley v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-770 GPM," filed on Nov. 19, 2003, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois; -- "Cullen v. Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-859 MJR," filed on Dec. 16, 2003, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 29, 2004; -- "Jaffe v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No. CV-S-04-0146-PMP-RJJ," filed on Feb. 6, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada; -- "Lum v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04 0583 JSW," filed on Feb. 11, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; -- "Fischbein v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No. C 04 0584 JSW," filed on Feb. 11, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; -- "Beer v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No. 8:04-CV-249-T-26 MAP," filed on Feb. 11, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida; -- "Bennett v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. CV-S-04-0154-HDM-RJJ," filed on Feb. 12, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada; -- "Dukes v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No. C 04 0598 MJJ," filed on Feb. 12, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; -- "McAlvey v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04 0628 PJH," filed on Feb. 13, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; -- "Alexander v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No. C 04 0639 SC," filed on Feb. 17, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; -- "Hugh Sharkey IRA/RO v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 1330," filed on Feb. 18, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; -- "D'Alliessi, et al. v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No. C 04 0865 SC," filed on March 3, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; -- "Marcus v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04 0901 JL," filed on March 5, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; -- "Banner v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04 0902 JL," filed on March 5, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; -- "Denenberg v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04 0984 EMC," filed on March 10, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; and -- "Hertz v. Burns, et al., Case No. 04 CV 02489," filed on March 30, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs in the MDL filed consolidated amended complaints on Sept. 29, 2004. On Feb. 25, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss. The company's and its subsidiaries' motions are currently pending with the court. The company reported no further development in the matter in its May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. The suit is "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, Case No. 1:04-md-15862-AMD," pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Judge Andre M. Davis, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: H. Adam Prussin, Esq. (haprussin@pomlaw.com) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman and Gross, LLP 100 Park Ave., 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017-5516 Phone: 1-212-661-1100 Fax: 1-212-661-8665 Representing the company is: Meredith Nelson Landy, Esq. (mlandy@omm.com) O'Melveny and Myers, LLP 2765 Sand Hill Rd. Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone: 1-650-473-2671 Fax: 1-650-473-2601 FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Certification Sought in Market-Timing Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in one market-timing lawsuit filed in Canada against Franklin Templeton Investments Corp., a unit of Franklin Resources, Inc., served the company with a motion for class certification. Franklin Templeton is a subsidiary of Franklin Resources, Inc., and the investment manager of Franklin Templeton's Canadian mutual funds. It faces four hree market-timing class action suits filed in Canada. The suits are: 1. "Huneault v. AGF Funds, Inc., et al., Case No. 500-06- 000256-046," filed on Oct. 25, 2004, in the Superior Court for the Province of Quebec, District of Montreal; 2. "Heinrichs, et al. v. CI Mutual Funds, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-CV-29700," filed on Dec. 17, 2004, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice; 3. "Richardson v. Franklin Templeton Investments Corp., Case No. 05-CV-303069," filed on Dec. 23, 2005, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice; and 4. "Fischer, et al. v. IG Investment Management Ltd., et al. Case No. 06-CV-307599CP," filed on March 9, 2006, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The suits are seeking, among other relief, monetary damages, an order barring any increase in management fees for a period of two years following judgment, and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 25, 2007, the plaintiffs in the Fischer lawsuit served Franklin Templeton Investments with a motion for class certification. The company reported no further development in the matter in its May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. Franklin Resources, Inc. -- http://www.franklintempleton.com/-- is an investment management company. Through its wholly owned direct and indirect subsidiaries, Franklin Resources provides investment management and fund administration services to open- end and closed-end investment companies, institutional accounts, high-net-worth families, individuals and separate accounts in the U.S. and internationally. GEMSTAR-TV: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss "Zilson" Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the purported class action lawsuit captioned, "Karen Zilson, et al. v. Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc., et al.," requested the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to dismiss their complaint without prejudice as to all defendants. The purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on Dec. 7, 2007, against Gemstar-TV, News Corp., and members of Gemstar- V's board of directors. The complaint alleged that the company is being sold to Macrovision Corp. through an unfair process and for less than its fair value. The complaint contains a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and sought a declaration that the sale is unlawful, an injunction to prevent the sale from going forward, rescission to the extent that the terms of the sale have been implemented, an order that the Directors exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction in the best interest of Gemstar-TV's shareholders, and an award of attorneys' fees, experts fees, costs, and other disbursements. On Feb. 4, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a request for the Court to dismiss their complaint without prejudice as to all defendants, according to Macrovision Solutions Corp.'s May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. Los Angeles, California-based Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. -- http://www.gemstartvguide.com/-- is a media, entertainment and technology company that develops, licenses, markets and distributes products and services targeted at the video guidance and entertainment needs of consumers worldwide. GEMSTAR-TV: Del. Suit Over Macrovision Corp. Deal Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action suit in connection with Macrovision Corp.'s proposed acquisition of Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc., remains pending with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, according to Macrovision Solutions Corp.'s May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. The purported shareholder class action suit, styled "Martin Henkel v. Battista, et al.," was filed on Dec. 17, 2007, against Gemstar-TV, and the members of its board of directors. The complaint alleges that Macrovision's proposed acquisition of Gemstar-TV is unfair to Gemstar-TV's shareholders and that the defendants agreed to accept consideration for Gemstar-TV's shares that is substantially less than their value. The complaint contains a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against Gemstar-TV and members of its board of directors. On Feb. 1, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding News Corp. as a defendant and asserting a cause of action against News Corp. for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint also contains allegations that certain of Gemstar-TV's disclosures in connection with the proposed transaction are inadequate. The amended complaint seeks an injunction to prevent the proposed sale, rescission or rescissory damages in the event that the sale is consummated, rescission of the voting agreement in which News Corp. agreed to vote its shares in favor of the proposed transaction, an accounting of damages allegedly suffered by Gemstar-TV's shareholders, and an award of attorneys and experts fees. Gemstar-TV reported no further development in the matter in its SEC regulatory disclosure. Los Angeles, California-based Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. -- http://www.gemstartvguide.com/-- is a media, entertainment and technology company that develops, licenses, markets and distributes products and services targeted at the video guidance and entertainment needs of consumers worldwide. INTERMIX MEDIA: Court to Hear Arguments in Appeal of Nixed Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The California Court of Appeal has yet to hear arguments on the motions filed in relation to the the dismissal of purported class action suits against Intermix Media, Inc., which is an acquisition of News Corp. These purported class action lawsuits were filed on Aug. 26 and Aug. 30, 2005, before the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles: -- "Ron Sheppard v. Richard Rosenblatt, et al.," and -- "John Friedmann v. Intermix Media, Inc. et al." Both lawsuits named as defendants all of the then-incumbent members of the Intermix Media Board, including Intermix' former chief executive officer, Richard Rosenblatt, and certain entities affiliated with VantagePoint Venture Partners, a former major Intermix stockholder. The complaints alleged that, in pursuing the transaction wherein Intermix Media was to be acquired by Fox Interactive, and approving the related merger agreement, the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Intermix stockholders by, among other things, engaging in self-dealing and failing to obtain the highest price reasonably available for Intermix and its stockholders. The complaints further alleged that the merger agreement resulted from a flawed process and that the defendants tailored the terms of the merger to advance their own interests. The Fox Interactive Media Transaction was consummated on Sept. 30, 2005. The Friedmann and Sheppard lawsuits were subsequently consolidated and, on Jan. 17, 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, known as "Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation." The plaintiffs in the consolidated action are seeking various forms of declaratory relief, damages, disgorgement and fees and costs. The defendants have filed demurrers seeking dismissal of all claims in the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation, which were heard by the court on July 6, 2006. On Oct. 6, 2006, the court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend. On Dec. 13, 2006, the court dismissed the complaints and entered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs in the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation filed notices of appeal, and subsequently filed respective opening briefs on appeal in October 2007. The Defendants filed opposing appellate briefs on April 16, 2008. The Court of Appeal has not yet heard argument in the matter, according to News Corp.'s May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. News Corp. -- http://www.newscorp.com/-- is a diversified entertainment company with operations in eight industry segments, including Filmed Entertainment; Television; Cable Network Programming; Direct Broadcast Satellite Television; Magazines and Inserts; Newspapers; Book Publishing, and Other. INTERMIX MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Awaits Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint in a purported securities class action suit filed against several former officers and directors of Intermix Media, Inc., which is an acquisition of News Corp., according to News Corp.'s May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. The suit, captioned "Jim Brown v. Brett C. Brewer, et al.," was filed on June 14, 2006. It asserts claims for alleged violations of Section 14a of the U.S. Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9, as well as control person liability under Section 20a. The plaintiff alleges that certain of the defendants disseminated false and misleading definitive proxy statements on two occasions: 1. on Dec. 30, 2003 in connection with the shareholder vote on Jan. 29, 2004 on the election of directors and ratification of financing transactions with certain entities of VantagePoint Venture Partners, a former large stockholder of Intermix; and 2. on Aug. 25, 2005 in connection with the shareholder vote on the formation of Fox Interactive Media (FIM), a division of News Corp. The complaint names as defendants certain VantagePoint-related entities and members of the Intermix board of directors who were incumbent on the dates of the respective proxy statements. Intermix is not named as a defendant, but has certain indemnity obligations to the former officer and director-defendants in connection with the suit's claims and allegations. On Aug. 25, 2006, the plaintiff amended his complaint to add certain investment banks as defendants. Intermix has certain indemnity obligations to the investment banks as well. The complaint was again amended in September 2006 and the defendants filed motions to dismiss all the claims asserted. On Feb. 9, 2007, the case was transferred from Judge John F. Walter to Judge George H. King, who is the judge assigned to the derivative action captioned, "LeBoyer v. Greenspan et al." The suit was transferred on the grounds that it raises substantially related questions of law and fact as "LeBoyer," and would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges. Judge King took the Feb. 26, 2007 hearing date for the dismissal motions off the calendar. On May 22, 2007, he ordered a combined status conference with the LeBoyer action to occur on June 11, 2007, at which he ordered the Brown case to be consolidated with the LeBoyer action. The judge also directed the plaintiffs' counsel to file a consolidated amended complaint setting forth the causes of action in the LeBoyer and Brown matters and further ordered the parties to file a joint brief regarding the dismissal of the first amended complaint. In July 2007, the plaintiffs filed the consolidated first amended complaint. The parties' joint brief on the defendants' motion to dismiss was filed on Oct. 11, 2007, and was taken under submission without a hearing. Subsequently, by order dated Jan. 17, 2008, Judge King granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the 2003 proxy claims (concerning VantagePoint transactions) and the 2005 proxy claims (concerning the FIM Transaction), as well as a claim against the VantagePoint entities alleging unjust enrichment. The court, however, found it unnecessary to dismiss the remaining claims, which are related to the 2005 FIM Transaction, because the dismissal disposed of those claims. On Feb. 8, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated Second Amended Complaint. The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss this amended complaint, which request the court has not yet ruled on. The suit is "Jim Brown v. Brett C Brewer et al., Case No. 2:06 cv-03731-JFW-SH," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge John F. Walter, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Christy W. Goodman, Esq. (cgoodman@gsrllp.com) Goodman Sheridan and Roff 1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1350 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-241-4860 Representing the defendants are: Elizabeth A. Moriarty, Esq. (eamoriarty@hhlaw.com) Hogan and Hartson 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-785-4600 Web site: http://www.hhlaw.com - and - Stephen M. Knaster, Esq. (sknaster@orrick.com) Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-773-5700 Fax: 415-773-5759 Web site: http://www.orrick.com ISRAELI BANKS: Face Lawsuit for Profiting From Withheld Taxes ------------------------------------------------------------- A request has been filed with the Tel Aviv District Court for a $25.72-million class-action lawsuit against: -- Bank Hapoalim (TASE: POLI; LSE:80OA), -- Bank Leumi (TASE: LUMI), and -- Israel Discount Bank (TASE: DSCT), claiming that the banks are making illegal profits by holding onto customers' withheld taxes for more than a month on average, Yitzhak Danon of the Globes reports. According to the report, the banks withhold taxes on customers' transactions in securities, the sale of unlinked deposits and mutual funds, as well as interest payments and dividends. The Income Tax Regulations stipulate that banks transfer withheld taxes of each month to the assessor on the 15th of the following month, the report says. The claimants contend that the banks keep the withheld taxes until the payment date of the 15th of the following month. During this period, they claim that the banks illegally benefit from millions of shekels that belong to their customers and are held in trust for them. JARDEN CORP: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York certified a class in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit filed against the Jarden Corp. in relation to the company's plan to acquire The Holmes Group, Inc., according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2008. In January and February 2006, purported class action suits were filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from June 29, 2005, through Jan. 12, 2006. The company announced the signing of the agreement to acquire The Holmes Group, Inc., on June 29, 2005. On June 9, 2006, the Court appointed joint lead plaintiffs, who filed an amended consolidated complaint against the company, Jarden Consumer Solutions, and certain officers of the company. The suit alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were injured by reason of certain allegedly false and misleading statements made by the company relating to the expected benefits of the THG Acquisition. The company, Jarden Consumer Solutions, and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 20, 2006. On May 31, 2007, the Court issued an opinion denying the defendants' dismissal motion. The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's denial of their request. On Sept. 5, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion for reconsideration, but reaffirmed its earlier denial of their dismissal request. On Sept. 10, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification. In March 2008, the Court issued an opinion certifying a class comprised of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from June 29, 2005, through January 11, 2006. The suit is "Ernesto Darquea, et al. v. Jarden Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-00722," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Charles L. Brieant, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Christopher J. Gray, Esq. (gray@cjgraylaw.com) Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C 460 Park Avenue 21st Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-838-3221 Fax: 212-508-3695 Laurence Paskowitz, Esq. (classattorney@aol.com) Paskowitz & Associates 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: 212-685-0969 Fax: 212-685-2306 - and - Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@csgrr.com) Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 Representing the defendants is: Stephen William Greiner Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-728-8000 Fax: 212-728-8111 e-mail: maosdny@willkie.com JARDEN CORP: Calif. Court Approves K2 Inc. Lawsuit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The California Superior Court approved on a final basis the proposed settlement in the matter, "City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System v. K2 Inc., et al.," which also names Jarden Corp., as a defendant. The case was filed on May 4, 2007, by a shareholder of K2 on behalf of itself and a putative class of shareholders against K2 and the members of its Board of Directors. It seeks to enjoin the merger transaction between K2 and a wholly owned subsidiary of Jarden Corp. on the purported grounds that the members of the Board of Directors of K2 allegedly breached fiduciary duties to the K2 shareholders in connection with the negotiation and structure of the merger as well as the disclosures made by K2 to shareholders in its proxy. On July 30, 2007, K2 announced that it and the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System agreed to a settlement in principle of the pending litigation pursuant to which K2 made certain disclosures regarding the transaction in its proxy materials sent to shareholders and reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and amended the merger agreement to reduce from $27.5 million to $24 million the termination fee that would have been payable by K2 to the Company under certain circumstances in the event that the merger agreement had been terminated. The agreement includes full releases of all the defendants as well as the Company. The settlement was approved preliminarily by the California Superior Court on Feb. 8, 2008. The deal was granted final approval by the California Superior Court on April 9, 2008, according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2008. Jarden Corp. -- http://www.jarden.com/-- is a provider of consumer products. Jarden's three primary business segments: Outdoor Solutions, Consumer Solutions and Branded Consumables, manufacture or source, market and distribute a number of brands, including Outdoor Solutions, Abu Garcia, Adio, Berkley, Campingaz, Coleman, Fenwick, Gulp!, JT, K2, Marker, Marmot, Mitchell, Penn, Planet Earth, Rawlings, Shakespeare, Sevylor, Stearns, Stren, Trilene, Ugly Stik and Volkl; Consumer Solutions, Bionaire, Crock-Pot, FoodSaver, Health o meter, Holmes, Mr. Coffee, Oster, Patton, Rival, Seal-a-Meal, Sunbeam and VillaWare, and Branded Consumables, Ball, Bee, Bicycle, Crawford, Diamond, Dicon, First Alert, Forster, Hoyle, Java-Log, Kerr, Lehigh, Leslie-Locke, Loew-Cornell and Pine Mountain. LIVE NATION: Calif. Court Approves Stipulation in Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered an order approving a stipulated continuance and stay of all proceedings in a consolidated antitrust lawsuit filed against Live Nation, Inc. The consolidated suit alleges that anti-competitive practices for concert promotion services by the company caused artificially high-ticket prices. Originally, the company is a defendant in 22 putative class action suits filed by different named plaintiffs in various district courts throughout the country. The claims made in these actions are substantially similar to claims made in the "Heerwagen v. Clear Channel Comm., et al., Case No. 2:02-cv-04503-JES," except that the geographic markets alleged are statewide or more local in nature, and the members of the putative classes are limited to individuals who purchased tickets to concerts in the relevant geographic markets alleged. The company filed its answers in all actions, and it has denied liability. On Dec. 5, 2005, the company filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the lawsuits and any similar ones commenced in the future to a single federal district court for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. On April 17, 2006, the Panel granted the company's motion and ordered the consolidation and transfer of the suits to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On June 4, 2007, the Court conducted a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order staying all proceedings in the case pending a ruling on the plaintiffs' class certification request. On Oct. 22, 2007, the Court ruled in the plaintiffs' favor, granting class certification and certifying a class in the Chicago, New England, New York/New Jersey, Colorado and Southern California regional markets. On Nov. 5, 2007, the company filed a petition for permission to appeal the class certification order in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At a status conference conducted on Nov. 5, 2007, the District Court extended its stay of all proceedings pending further developments in the company's appeal with the Ninth Circuit. On Feb. 15, 2008, the Ninth Circuit denied the company's petition for permission to appeal. On Feb. 20, 2008, the company filed a motion before the District Court for reconsideration of its class certification order. The District Court entered an order approving a stipulated continuance and stay of all proceedings pending further developments in the company's motion for reconsideration, according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. Representing the plaintiffs is: Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro 1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-7292 Representing the defendants are: Paul Chalmers, Esq. Paul Chalmers Law Offices Two Lafayette Centre, 1133 21st Street NW #405 New York, NY 920036 Phone: 202-772-1834 - and - Sara B. Ciarelli, Esq. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati 12 East, 49th Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-999-5859 LONDON LIFE: Ex-Workers File $11-Million Suit Over Pension Money ---------------------------------------------------------------- Former London Life workers are launching a class action lawsuit against the company, claiming they are owed $11 million in pension money, Norman de Bono writes for the London Free Press. The report recounts that in 2000, about 500 workers of the company that were fired in 1996 won a ruling that gave them more money through a partial windup of their pension plan. London Life appealed the order, but a higher court ruled in favor of the workers. London Free Press explains that when employees are fired or leave voluntarily after a termination notice, they receive money paid into the pension plan, plus interest. This is called a commuted value pension, often rolled into an RRSP. A partial plan wind-up is an enhancement of the commuted value to give the former workers full value for their pension at the time they were let go. London Life did not wind up the pension for those terminated, the report notes. London Life declined to pay the surplus to affected members of the plan, taking the position it owned the surplus. In 2001 the Ontario Financial Services Commission heard the workers were to get $26.7 million, but that includes totals paid when they were initially let go by London Life, the report says. On February 16, 2007, Sack Goldblatt Mitchell in Toronto filed a class action suit against London Life on behalf of a group of former London Life employees. A year later, the Honorable Justice Joan Lax heard the plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. On May 6, 2008, Justice Lax granted this request. According to the report, it is the latest battle in what has become a 12-year long war between the insurer and the workers, fired in 1996, over money not paid into their pension plans. "It is very frustrating to wait this long for justice, but we will,” said Alex Murphy, a former vice-president who has lead the battle. "They are trying to wait us out, but we are too stubborn. We are not going anywhere.” According to Mr. De Bono, London Life declined to be interviewed, but issued a statement from Libbie Jennings, associate manager of the company's communication services, who said "We believe this action is without merit, and we will vigorously defend it.” MASSBANK CORP: Faces Suit in Mass. Over Eastern Bank Merger Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- MASSBANK Corp. is facing a purported class action lawsuit filed with the Massachusetts Superior Court in relation to a merger agreement with Eastern Bank Corp. and its units, according to MASSBANK's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2008. On March 10, 2008, the company, MASSBANK, Eastern Bank Corp., Eastern Bank, and Minuteman Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Eastern (Merger Sub), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which the Merger Sub will merge with and into the company, with the company as the surviving corporation. As a result of the merger, the company will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Eastern. On March 13, 2008, Pennsylvania Avenue Funds, an alleged company stockholder, filed a purported class action suit allegedly on behalf of all company stockholders in the Massachusetts Superior Court against the company, the company's board of directors, Eastern, Eastern Bank and the Merger Sub. The case is captioned, "Pennsylvania Avenue Funds v. Brandi, et al., Civ. Act. No. 08-1057." The complaint generally alleges that the Company's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement because, plaintiff alleges, the merger consideration is inadequate, the Merger Agreement's termination fee and no shop provisions discourage bids from other sources, the transaction unfairly benefits the Company's Board of Directors to the disadvantage of the Company's stockholders, Mr. Brandi, the Company's chief executive officer and chairman of the board, during negotiations with Eastern, was also discussing a future position at Eastern, and approval of the Merger by the Company's Board of Directors was a response by the Company's Board of Directors to a proxy contest that might have resulted in three members of the Company's Board of Directors being replaced. The complaint also alleges that the company and Eastern aided and abetted the company's Board of Directors' breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiff seeks an order: -- declaring that the lawsuit is a proper class action; -- enjoining the completion of the Merger unless and until the company implements a procedure to obtain the highest price for the company; -- declaring the termination fee provisions in the Merger Agreement to be unfair, unreasonable and improper deal protection devices and enjoining the payment of any termination fee to Eastern or its affiliates; -- declaring that the company's Board of Directors has breached its fiduciary duties to the purported class and that Eastern aided and abetted such breaches; -- awarding the plaintiff the costs of the action, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees; and; -- granting such other further relief as the Court deems appropriate. On April 18, 2008, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. On May 6, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, individually and as a purported class action on behalf of all company stockholders. The amended complaint generally makes the same allegations as those contained in the initial complaint in support of its claim of a breach of fiduciary duties by the company's Board, but, in addition, alleges that the company's Board breached its fiduciary duties by failing, in the preliminary proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2008, to disclose adequate information to the stockholders necessary for them to make a fully informed decision about the Merger. Generally, the amended complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement fails to adequately describe in sufficient detail the process used by the defendants in deciding to enter into, and agreeing to the terms of, the Merger; provide sufficient detail of the analysis used by the company's financial advisor or the criteria for selecting the financial advisor; disclose the fact that a third party investor was seeking to gain control of the company and any impact of his efforts on the Board's efforts to sell the company; and disclose any future employment by Mr. Brandi at Eastern. Like the initial complaint, the amended complaint also alleges that the company and Eastern aided and abetted the Board's breach of fiduciary duties. The amended complaint seeks the same relief sought in the initial complaint. MASSBANK Corp. -- http://www.massbank.com/-- is a general business corporation that was organized for the purpose of becoming the holding company for MASSBANK. MASSBANK Corp. has no material assets other than its investment in the Bank. The Company's business, therefore, is managing its investment in the stock of the Bank. The Company does not own or lease any real estate (other than through its subsidiary Knabssam LLC ) or personal property. The Bank is engaged in the business of attracting deposits from the general public through its fifteen full service banking offices in Reading, Chelmsford, Dracut, Everett, Lowell, Medford, Melrose, Stoneham, Tewksbury, Westford and Wilmington, and originating residential and commercial real estate mortgages, construction loans, commercial loans, and a range of consumer loans. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Bank operated its business through a network of 5 branch offices. MCKESSON CORP: Calif. Demands "Hundreds Of Millions” in Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- McKesson Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging the company cheated the State of California and health plans in the state of "hundreds of millions of dollars” by illegally marking up the cost of its prescription drugs since 2001, CourtHouse News Service reports. This action is brought by the San Francisco Health Plan, on behalf of itself, the State of California and a class of governmental entities, agencies and political subdivisions in the State against McKesson for wrongfully increasing the so- called WAC to AWP markup factor for hundreds of brand-name prescription pharmaceuticals through a scheme beginning in late 2001, thereby causing SFHP and members of the class, whose payments for pharmaceuticals are directly tied to AWP, to make hundreds of million of dollars of excess payments for those pharmaceuticals. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether AWPs published are used as a contractual benchmark for payments by third-party payors for drugs; (b) whether defendants engaged in a contract, combination, and conspiracy to fix or raise the WAC-to-AWP markup and the ultimate AWPs or cash price used by the plaintiffs and other class members as the basis for reimbursement for the drugs that are the subject of the complaint; (c) whether the defendants caused the prices of the subject drugs to be sold to class members at artificially high and noncompetitive levels; (d) whether defendants engaged in a course of conduct that improperly inflated the WAC-to-AWP markup and the ultimate AWPs or cash price used by the plaintiffs and other class members as the basis for reimbursement; (e) whether McKesson engaged in a pattern of deceptive and fraudulent activity intended to defraud the plaintiffs and other class members; (f) whether McKesson formed an enterprise for the purpose of carrying out the 5% Scheme; (g) whether McKesson used the U.S. mails and interstate wire facilities to carry out the 5% Scheme; (h) whether the plaintiffs and other class members were injured by McKesson's conduct, and if so, the appropriate measure of damages for class members; and (i) whether the defendants' conduct violated the RICO and Cartwright statutes. The plaintiffs ask the court for: -- an order granting approval of this case as a proper class action and naming the plaintiffs as proper class representative; -- actual and treble damages and costs to the plaintiffs and the class pursuant to the federal RICO Act, 18 USC Section 1964(c); and the Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 16750(a); actual and treble damages and costs to SHFP and to the State of California pursuant to the California False Claims Act, Cal. Gov. Code Section 12651(a); -- civil penalties of $10,000 for each false claim submitted as a result of the Scheme, as well as civil penalties of $2,500 to the people for each violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.; -- attorney's fees pursuant to 18 USC Section 1964(c); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 16750(a); Cal. Gov. Code Section 12651(a); and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 1021.5; -- interest as provided by law; and -- such other legal or equitable relief as the court may deem appropriate. The suit is "San Francisco Health Plan et al v. McKesson Corp.,” filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Representing the plaintiffs is: Edward Notargiamco, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP One Main Street, 4th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 Phone: 617-482-3700 Fax: 617-482-3003 MENU FOODS: Settles Pet Owners' Hawaii suit Over Pet Food Recall ---------------------------------------------------------------- Menu Foods, Inc., an Ontario-based supplier of private-label wet pet food, has settled a $240,000 class action in Hawaii for selling contaminated pet food, KGMB9 News reports. On March 17, 2007, Menu Foods issued a North American-wide recall of 48 brands of dog food and 42 brands of cat food in response to reported deaths of cats and dogs in the U.S. The nationwide recall includes popular brands such as Iams, Nutro, and Eukanuba and private-label brands sold by retailers Wal-Mart, Safeway, and Petsmart. Veterinary professionals estimate thousands of pets across the nation will die of kidney failure or become very sick with similar symptoms as a result of consuming the contaminated products. In May 2007, Hawaii resident Kelly Engle filed a class action on behalf of 2,000 pet owners against pet food manufacturers that supplied the contaminated pet food (Class Action Reporter, May 15, 2007). Ms. Engle's lawyers said they went after Menu Foods for failing to test its products and selling food that was not safe to eat. According to Hawaii Reporter, under the recent settlement, a $240,000 fund is set up for payment of class claims, as well as attorneys' fees and costs associated with administration of the fund. The money will be used to reimburse customers for recalled pet food and help pay for veterinary examinations, KGMB9 says. Those who purchased Menu Foods recalled products can be reimbursed for the cost of the pet food they purchased and for the cost of a veterinary examination to ensure their pet's health upon providing proof of purchase of products and veterinary services. Menu Foods is facing other federal class actions in Canada and the U.S., Hawaii Reporter notes. More information about the Hawaii settlement is available at http://www.menufoodshiconsumersettlement.com MERCURY INSURANCE: Calif. Court Approves CLRA Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles Superior Court approved a tentative settlement reached in a purported class action suit alleging that Mercury Insurance Co.'s calculation of persistency discounts to determine premiums is an unfair business practice, according to Mercury General Corp.'s May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. The suit, "Sam Donabedian, et al. v. Mercury Insurance Co., et al.," was originally filed on April 20, 2001, in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The suit asserts, among other things, a claim that the company's calculation of persistency discounts to determine premiums is an unfair business practice, a violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The company originally prevailed on a demurrer to the complaint and the case was dismissed. However, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling, deciding that the California Insurance Commissioner does not have the exclusive right to review the calculation of insurance rates/premiums. The parties reached a settlement in late 2007, which was later approved by the Court. Mercury General Corp. -- http://www.mercuryinsurance.com-- and its subsidiaries are engaged primarily in writing automobile insurance principally in California. MERCURY INSURANCE: Awaits Final Approval of "Goodman" Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles Superior Court is set to give final approval to the proposed settlement in the matter, "Marissa Goodman, et al. v. Mercury Insurance Co." somewhere in the third quarter of 2008. The suit was filed on June 16, 2002. It is a class action suit questioning Mercury Insurance Corp.'s use of certain automated database vendors to assist in valuing claims for medical payments. The plaintiff filed a motion seeking class-action certification to include all of the company's insureds from 1998 to the present who presented a medical payments claim, had the claim reduced using the computer program and whose claim did not reach the policy limits for medical payments. The Court certified the class on Jan. 11, 2007. The company appealed the class certification ruling, and the Court of Appeal stayed the case pending their review. The company and the plaintiff have subsequently agreed to settle the claims for an amount that the company says is immaterial to its operations and financial position. The settlement was approved on an interim basis by the Court on April 24, 2008, subject to class members' ability to object. Final approval of the settlement is expected to occur in the third quarter of 2008, according to the Mercury General Corp.'s May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. Mercury General Corp. -- http://www.mercuryinsurance.com/-- and its subsidiaries are engaged primarily in writing automobile insurance principally in California. MONROE COUNTY: School Officials Face Racial Discrimination Raps --------------------------------------------------------------- The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Alabama filed a class-action complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama charging Monroe County school officials with racial discrimination, MyFox Gulf Coast reports. The complaint is filed on behalf of nine parents of Monroeville Junior High School students. The named defendants are: -- the members of the Monroe County Board of Education; -- the superintendent of the Monroe County School District; and -- the principal of MJHS. The class action lawsuit is brought pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The lawsuit challenges policies and practices in Monroe County School District that systemically deny African American children in MJHS the right to equal educational opportunity, and the free speech rights of students and parents to object to such treatment. The lawsuit accuses Monroe County school officials of: -- subjecting African American students at Monroeville Junior High School to racial epithets and slurs, -- practicing racially-motivated discipline, and -- having racially segregated classrooms. The suit says that these practices deny African American students their constitutional right to equal educational opportunities. In a news release, Catherine Kim, staff attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Project, said, "Students at Monroeville Junior High are systematically singled out by teachers and administrators for punishment and forced to endure hostile and discriminatory treatment simply because of their race.” She added, "Such behavior is a vestige of a tragic past and is simply unacceptable in any contemporary American school setting.” "All students have a constitutional right to an educational environment free from racial discrimination,” said Allison Neal, staff attorney with the ACLU of Alabama. "The kind of racially charged environment that exists at MJHS and the discriminatory policies and practices of school officials rob African American students of that right. Not only is that immoral, it is illegal.” The complaint further alleges that school officials retaliate against parents who object to the racially discriminatory treatment of their children. Children whose parents complain are singled out for more punishment, and parents who express their concerns about the use of discipline on their child are banned from the school grounds and threatened with arrest. The plaintiffs request that the Court: -- assume jurisdiction over this matter; -- certify this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; -- declare that the defendants' actions and inactions, including the defendants' perpetuation of the racially hostile educational environment at Monroeville Junior High School, the defendants' racially discriminatory disciplinary practices and procedures, the defendants' policies for assigning students into classes on the basis of race, and the defendants' policy and practice of retaliating against students and parents who assert their rights and denying free speech rights to speak out about these issues, violate rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and First Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000d; -- with respect to the claims raised by the sub-class consisting of all African American students who are currently or in the future will be enrolled in MJHS and their parents or guardians, enjoin any further violations of the plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory rights, including ordering Defendants to investigate and address all acts of racial harassment; implement transparent and objective policies to ensure equal access to extracurricular activities, eliminate racially discriminatory discipline, and ensure that class assignments are not made in a racially discriminatory manner; cease and desist from retaliating against and violating the rights of students and parents who complain about racial discrimination; expunge the disciplinary records of students who have been disciplined on the basis of race; and provide compensatory educational services for students who have been denied access to education due to the defendants' unlawful conduct, and any other appropriate relief; -- with respect to the claims raised by the sub-class of students consisting of African American students who attended MJHS in the past three years and who continue to attend Monroe County public schools and their parents or guardians, order the defendants to expunge the disciplinary records of students who have been disciplined on the basis of race and provide compensatory educational services for students who have been denied access to education due to the defendants' unlawful conduct; -- award the plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, including the fees and costs of experts, incurred in prosecuting this action; and -- grant any other relief the Court deems necessary and proper. The suit is "Nicky Williams et al. v. Monroe County Board of Education et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00561-CG-B,” filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Representing the plaintiffs are: Catherine Y. Kim, Esq. (ckim@aclu.org) ACLU Foundation 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: 212-549-2682 Fax: 212-549-2680 - and - Allison Neal, Esq. (anaclual@bellsouth.net) ACLU of Alabama 207 Montgomery Street, Suite 910 Montgomery, AL 36104 Phone: 334-265-2754 ext. 203 Fax: 334-269-5666 NEVADA: Speech-Impaired Patients Sue Over Medicaid Money Denial --------------------------------------------------------------- Speech-impaired patients filed a class-action complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada challenging the state's denial of Medicaid money to cover speech-generating devices that doctors prescribe for them, CourtHouse News Service reports. The plaintiffs file this action to challenge the Nevada Medicaid guidance that excludes SGD coverage. The individual named plaintiffs are Nevada Medicaid recipients, ranging in age from 7 to 24. Each was evaluated by a speech- language pathologist who recommended an SGD as the most appropriate form of treatment for their speech impairment. Each plaintiff's physician prescribed an SGD for his or her use. Thereafter, each individual plaintiff requested an SGD from Nevada Medicaid, but these requests were denied. According to the complaint, the Medicaid program was created to enable states to provide medical assistance to individuals whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of necessary medical services. The goal or purpose of the medical assistance provided by Medicaid is to enable eligible individuals to attain or retain their capability for independence or self care. The plaintiffs bring this case as a class action to challenge Nevada Medicaid's policy-based, categorical exclusion of SGDs. The proposed plaintiff class consists of all present and all future Nevada Medicaid recipients who will be determined by an SLP and by a physician to require an SGD, and whose request for Medicaid approval of an SGD has been or will be denied based on the Medicaid guidance stating SGDs are not covered. The plaintiffs request that the Court: -- accept jurisdiction of this action; -- certify the proposed plaintiff class; -- declare that Nevada Medicaid Services Manual, Section 1303.10(d)(3) violates the Medicaid Act EPSDT, reasonable promptness, and reasonable standards provisions; -- declare that Nevada Medicaid has a mandatory and non- discretionary duty to cover and provide SGDs for all Medicaid recipients; -- declare that Nevada Medicaid Services Manual, Section 1303.10(d)(3) has no objective factual basis, and is arbitrary and capricious; -- preliminarily enjoin defendants to provide the SGDs recommended and prescribed for each named plaintiff's use; -- permanently enjoin defendants to withdraw Nevada Medicaid Services Manual, Section 1303.10(d)(3); -- permanently enjoin defendants to adopt reasonable standards for SGD coverage; and -- enjoin defendants to pay to plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys fees and costs. The suit is "Andres CErvantes et al. v. Charles Duarte et al., Case 3:08-cv-00259-BES-RAM,” filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. Representing the plaintiffs is: Robert Kilby, Esq. (robert.kilby@sbcglobal.net) 1755 East Plumb Lane, Suite 107 Reno, NV 89502 Phone: 775-337-6670 Fax: 775-337-6652 RAMBUS INC: Calif. Court Okays $18MM Securities Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has given final approval to a $18.3-million settlement that allows memory-chip maker Rambus Inc. to end a consolidated class action suit alleging its executives of illegally backdating stock options, Shannon Henson writes for Securities Law 360. On July 17, 2006, the first of six class action lawsuits was filed in the Northern District of California against Rambus and certain of its current and former executives and board members. On Sept. 26, 2006, these class action suits were consolidated under the caption, "In re Rambus, Inc. Securities Litigation, C- 06-4346-JF (N.D. Cal.).” Ronald L. Schwarcz was then appointed lead plaintiff. An amended consolidated complaint was filed in February 2007, adding PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as defendant. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of various federal securities laws and seeks damages in an unspecified amount as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit. However, the parties have agreed in principle to resolve the dispute, subject to court approval (Class Action Reporter, March 31, 2008). Per agreement of the parties, briefing on the motions to dismiss was suspended, and the motions were taken off calendar. The settlement, which is subject to final documentation as well as review by the California court, provides for a payment by Rambus of $18 million and would lead to a dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all the defendants in the class action litigation. Recently, Judge Fogel signed off on the deal, saying it was fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable. He noted that the settlement is a greater recovery than many other class actions involving securities backdating. Judge Fogel also awarded the lead plaintiffs' firms, Stull Stull & Brody and Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, $4.5 million -- 25% of the settlement fund -- and $282,788 to reimburse expenses. The judge said that the settlement is significantly higher than many other backdating settlements, that the percentage reflects the market rate in similar complex litigation and that the case would have been difficult and risky to litigate. The suit is "In re Rambus Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:06-cv-04346-JF,” filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Timothy J. Burke, Esq. Stull Stull & Brody 10940 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-209-2468 Fax: 310-209-2087 e-mail: service@ssbla.com Representing the defendants are: Douglas John Clark, Esq. (dclark@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650-493-9300 Fax: 650 565-5100 Jeffrey S. Facter, Esq. (jfacter@shearman.com) Shearman & Sterling LLP 525 Market Street Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-616-1100 Fax: 415-616-1199 - and - Anthony I. Fenwick, Esq. (anthony.fenwick@dpw.com) Davis Polk & Wardwell 1600 El Camino Real Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone: 650-752-2015 Fax: 650-752-2111 ROCKWELL INT'L: Judge Upholds $350MM Verdict in Rocky Flats Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John Kane of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado upheld a jury verdict of $350 million against Rockwell International Corp., saying that Rockwell was liable for trespassing and nuisance in a protracted legal action involving the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant, John C. Ensslin of the Rocky Mountain News reports. Lawyers for the defendants had sought to overturn the jury's verdict, arguing that it was inconsistent and exceeded a cap on punitive damages. However, Judge Kane rejected those arguments, finding that the verdict was consistent with the instructions that had been given to the jury. He also found that the damages were "not excessive.” Judge Kane affirmed the February 2006 verdict in a 73-page ruling and tacked on 8% interest compounded annually dating back to the time the suit was filed in January 1990. "Defendants' misconduct was not the result of a single incident,” Judge Kane wrote, "but rather a series of incidents and also routine practices over decades of operating Rocky Flats, some of which were attended by circumstances of dishonesty, subterfuge and deceit.” He also rejected a defense argument that the neighbors were not entitled to interest on the judgment because the verdict had included a Consumer Price Index adjustment. The judge outlined a plan in which a court-appointed claims administrator would oversee distribution of the judgment. Yet, he stayed his order until the defense has time to file an appeal. "We're very pleased to have a ruling from Judge Kane on these issues and look forward to an end to this long, long process,” said Steven Kelly, a lawyer for the property owners. Case Background On Jan. 30, 1990, a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against Rockwell and Dow Chemical Co., another former operator of the plant. The action alleges the improper production, handling and disposal of radioactive and other hazardous substances, constituting, among other things, violations of various environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, and misrepresentation and concealment of the facts relating thereto. On Oct. 8, 1993, the court certified separate medical monitoring and property value classes. The trial of the $500 million class action, filed 15 years ago, began in Oct. 2005. Residents who owned property near the site, claimed that Dow Chemical, which operated the site from the 1950s through 1975, and Rockwell, which took over in 1975 and operated the plant until it was shut down in 1989, improperly stored or otherwise mishandled plutonium-laced waste, resulting in contamination of soil and groundwater. According to the suit, both firms operated the plant under a DOE contract, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2006). Those residents, who are the named plaintiffs in the suit, claimed that large fires at the plant and windstorms and other natural events helped to spread the waste outside the plant's boundaries. That contamination, plus what the property owners said was a stigma attached to houses near the plant, resulted in plummeting property values. They also contend that Dow, Rockwell and the DOE have covered up how harmful the plant really was. On Feb. 14, 2006, a federal jury empaneled to try certain of the class action plaintiffs' property damage claims found the contractor defendants liable for trespass and nuisance, and awarded $176 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages against the two defendants collectively (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 6, 2006). The jury also found RIC to be 10% responsible for the trespass and 70% responsible for the nuisance. No appealable judgment was entered on the jury verdict, in part because the court has yet to decide how the damages are to be allocated between the defendants and among the plaintiff class members. Much of the case centers on an FBI raid at the site in the summer of 1989. Rockwell, which ran Rocky Flats at the time, pleaded guilty in 1992 to 10 federal environmental crimes and paid a fine of $18.5 million. Built in the 1950s during the Cold War era, the plant has been shut down. Its 6,500-acre site underwent environmental cleansing and is slated to become a wildlife refuge. The suit is "Cook, et al. v. Rockwell Intl. Corp., Case No. 1:90-cv-00181-JLK,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, under Judge John L. Kane. SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces Suit Over Defective Garage Door Openers ------------------------------------------------------------ Sears, Roebuck & Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging it sells defective Craftsman garage door openers, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Melanie Rait alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, NJ Stat, Section 56:8-1 et seq., as well as allegations of common law fraud, breach of implied warranty of fitness, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all those who purchased Sears Craftsman brand garage door openers from Sears stores in New Jersey and nationwide and who have been charged fees for the service and repair and replacement of the inferior and defective Sears Craftsman brand garage door openers and parts. The plaintiff requests that the court enter an order: -- declaring that this action may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for an order certifying this case as a class action; -- awarding plaintiffs damages, both compensatory and punitive; -- awarding plaintiffs treble damages and attorneys' fees under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; -- awarding plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable counsel fees, costs and expenses in amounts to be determined by the court; -- awarding interest and costs of suit; and -- granting such other and further relief as if just and proper. The suit is "Melanie Rait et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et al.,” filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Representing the plaintiff is: Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. Nagel Rice, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, New Jersey 07068 Phone: 973-618-0400 SILVER STATE HELICOPTERS: Ex-students Sue Two More Lenders ---------------------------------------------------------- Two additional lenders -- Student Loan Xpress and American Education Services -- have been sued by students of the defunct helicopter flight training school Silver State Helicopters, demanding that the institutions stop pursuing repayment of their student loans, the Sacramento Bee reports. The lawsuit, filed in Alameda Superior Court, says because the lenders "knew or should have known” that Silver State was failing, they should not have issued the loans. The suit seeks a court order forbidding the lenders from pursuing students, most of whom borrowed as much as $75,000, for the unpaid balance on their loans. The suit seeks class action status on behalf of all Californians who took out the loans from the three institutions. As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on March 12, 2008, Student Loan Xpress in San Diego, California, said it will not write off the loans it extended to Silver State students. SLX advised the students to file proofs of claim against the Debtor for "unearned” tuition, Sign On relates. SLX added that it is willing to entertain students who want to discuss "repayment plans.” However, in a statement, Student Loan Xpress' parent-firm, CIT Group Inc., said it already halted efforts to collect "until further notice.” Kevin Rooney, a lawyer for the students, said that's no guarantee the firm won't resume collection efforts later. According to the report, American Education, which has been the loan-servicing agent for Student Loan XPress, had no comment. Closure of Silver State Helicopters Operations As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Feb. 6, 2008, the company closed all operations on Feb. 3, 2008. This action followed a rapid, unprecedented downturn in the U.S. credit markets, which severely curtailed the availability of student loans for the company's flight academy students and resulted in a sharp and sudden downturn in new student enrollment. "The decision to shut down operations was made only after the company explored its other available alternatives,” said Elizabeth Trosper, company spokesperson. "Information for former employees and students will be disseminated as it becomes available.” Students Move to Get Their Money Back The Class Action Reporter reported on Feb. 7, 2008, that thousands of Silver State students nationwide worry that they will never get their money back. Silver State students were required to pay their $70,000 tuition up front for helicopter training that would certify them as flight instructors and commercial pilots. Most of these students took out loans to pay for the school. Alleged Fraud Behind Student Loans Michael Berger, Esq., counsel to the Debtor's students told Sign On that he plans to investigate the possibility of fraud involved the bankruptcy case. According to Mr. Berger, some student loans were granted prior, on and after the bankruptcy date of Silver State. The government and the state attorneys are also investigating Silver State's operations, Sign On reveals, citing Mr. Berger. STARBUCKS COFFEE: No Trial Date Fixed for Fla. Overtime Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- No trial date was set yet for an overtime lawsuit against Starbucks Coffee Co. which was filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The suit, "Pendlebury, et al. v. Starbucks Coffee, et al., Case No. 9:04-cv-80521-KAM," which was filed on June 3, 2004, is part of a national debate over whether many managers are improperly classified as exempt from overtime laws. It was filed on behalf of 900 Starbucks store managers who claimed they are glorified "baristas" and should be eligible for overtime. The plaintiffs argue that their daily duties are virtually the same as the hourly workers they supervise. The plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and all similarly situated U.S. current and former store managers of the Company. They seek reimbursement for an unspecified amount of unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiffs also filed on June 3, 2004, a motion for conditional collective action treatment and court-supervised notice to additional putative class members under the opt-in procedures in Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On Jan. 3, 2005, the district court entered an order authorizing nationwide notice of the lawsuit to all current and former store managers employed by the company during the three years before the suit was filed. The company's initial motion for summary judgment was denied without prejudice. The company plans to file another motion for summary judgment with the court. There is currently no trial date. The company reported no further development in the matter in its May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2008. The suit is "Pendlebury, et al. v. Starbucks Coffee, et al., Case No. 9:04-cv-80521-KAM," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Kenneth A. Marra, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Robin Ilene Cohen, Esq. (ricohen@sbwlawfirm.com) Shapiro Blasi Wasserman & Gora PA 7777 Glades Road, Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Phone: 561-477-7800 Fax: 561-477-7722 Representing the defendant are: Susan Nadler Eisenberg, Esq. (susan.eisenberg@akerman.com) Akerman Senterfitt Suntrust International Ctr., 1 SE 3rd Ave., 28th Flr. Miami, FL 33131-1714 Phone: 305-374-5600 Fax: 305-374-5095 - and - Catherine A. Conway, Esq. (cconway@akingump.com) Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-552-6435 Fax: 310-552-6746 STARBUCKS CORP: No Trial Date Set for Calif. Suit on Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- No trial date was set for an employment-related lawsuit against Starbucks Corp. that is on appeal with the California Court of Appeals. On June 30, 2005, three individuals -- Erik Lords, Hon Yeung, and Donald Brown -- filed the lawsuit with the Orange County Superior Court in California. The plaintiffs allege that the company violated the California Labor Code section 432.8 by asking job applicants to disclose at the time of application convictions for marijuana related offenses more than two years old. They also seek attorneys' fees and costs. On Nov. 1, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying the case as a class action, with the plaintiffs representing a class of all persons who have applied for employment with Starbucks Coffee Co. in California since June 23, 2004, who cannot claim damages in excess of $200. On Nov. 15, 2007, the court denied the company's motion for summary judgment. Starbucks has appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment and the California Court of Appeals has agreed to hear the appeal. No trial date has been set. The company reported no further development in the matter in its May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2008. Starbucks Corp. -- http://www.starbucks.com/-- purchases and roasts whole bean coffees and sells them, along with fresh, rich-brewed coffees, Italian-style espresso beverages, cold blended beverages, a variety of complementary food items, coffee-related accessories and equipment, a selection of premium teas and a line of compact discs, primarily through Company- operated retail stores. STARBUCKS CORP: Texas Court Approves Settlement in FLSA Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas approved a proposed settlement in the matter, "Falcon v. Starbucks Corp. et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-00792," which alleges that Starbucks violated requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On March 11, 2005, a former employee of the company filed the lawsuit, entitled "James Falcon v. Starbucks Corporation and Does 1 through 100." Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the company misclassified its retail assistant store managers as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA and that each assistant manager therefore is entitled to overtime compensation for any week in which he or she worked more than 40 hours during the three years before joining the suit as a plaintiff, and for as long as they remain an assistant manager thereafter. On Aug. 18, 2005, the plaintiff amended his complaint to include allegations that he and other retail assistant store managers were not paid overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek after they were re-classified as non-exempt employees in September 2002. In both claims, the plaintiff seeks to represent himself and a putative class of all current and former assistant store managers employed by the company in the U.S. from March 11, 2002, until the present. The plaintiff also seeks, on behalf of himself and the class, reimbursement for an unspecified amount of unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On Sept. 13, 2005, the plaintiff filed a motion for conditional collective action treatment and court-supervised notice to all putative class members under the opt-in procedures in section 16(b) of the FLSA. On Nov. 29, 2005, the court entered an order authorizing notice to the class of the existence of the lawsuit and their opportunity to join as plaintiffs. In February 2008, the company and the plaintiffs agreed upon terms of a settlement which was approved by the court on March 4, 2008, according to the company's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2008. The suit is "Falcon v. Starbucks Corp. et al., Case No. 4:05-cv- 00792," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Keith P. Ellison, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq. (bdebes@debeslaw.com) The Debes Law Firm 17 South Briar Hollow Lane, Ste. 302 Houston, TX 77027 Phone: 713-623-0900 Fax: 713-623-0951 Representing the defendant is: Fraser A. McAlpine, Esq. (fmcalpine@akingump.com) Akin Gump et al. 1111 Louisiana St., 44th Floor Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-220-8129 Fax: 713-236-0822 SYSTEMAX INC: N.Y. Court Considers Motions in "Vukson" Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has yet to rule on motions filed in "Vukson v. TigerDirect, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:2007cv04353," which names Systemax Inc. and two subsidiaries -- TigerDirect and OnRebate -- as defendants. On October 18, 2007, Kevin Vukson filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court against TigerDirect, Inc., OnRebate.com Inc. and Systemax Inc. on behalf of himself and all OnRebate customers whose rebates were denied or delayed. OnRebate.com Inc. is a rebate processing company owned by Systemax. Mr. Vukson's complaint alleges that since 2004 Systemax, TigerDirect, and OnRebate have conducted a deceptive and unlawful enterprise by failing to pay rebates that should have been paid and delaying unnecessarily the payment of other rebates that were paid. Mr. Vukson alleges claims arising under Florida's Unfair, Deceptive Trade Practice Act, the federal RICO statute, along with claims for breach of contract, conspiracy to commit fraud and unjust enrichment. Systemax, TigerDirect and OnRebate have moved to dismiss the complaint and to transfer the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Court has not yet ruled on these motions and has not yet certified a class, according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. The suit is "Vukson v. TigerDirect, Inc. et al., Case No 2:2007cv04353," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Arthur D. Spatt, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Theodore Michael Eder, Esq. (teder@smsm.com) Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney 805 Third Avenue 19th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-912-3661 Fax: 212-912-3667 Representing the defendants is: William Francis Hamilton, Esq. (william.hamilton@hklaw.com) Holland & Knight LLP Suite 4100 100 N. Tampa Street Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: 813-227-6480 Fax: 813-229-0134 WMG ACQUISITION: N.Y. Court Considers Dismissal of Pricing Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule on a motion that seeks the dismissal of a consolidated class action suit over the pricing of digital music downloads, which named WMG Acquisition Corp., a subsidiary of Warner Music Group Corp., as one of the defendants. More than 30 putative class actions concerning the pricing of digital music downloads have been filed. On Aug. 15, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated these actions for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. It seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory, and treble damages. All defendants, including the company, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on July 30, 2007. The Court heard an argument on this motion on March 25, 2008, and reserved its decision, according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. Warner Music Group Corp. -- http://www.wmg.com/-- is a music content company that classifies its business interests into two areas: Recorded Music and Music Publishing. The Recorded Music business produces revenue through the marketing, sale and licensing of recorded music in various physical (such as compact disc's, cassettes, long playings and digital versatile discs) and digital (such as downloads and ringtones) formats. New Securities Fraud Cases ARBITRON INC: Brower Piven Commences N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Arbitron, Inc. between July 19, 2007, and November 26, 2007, inclusive. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company, and certain of its officers and directors, violated federal securities laws by issuing various materially false and misleading statements that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities and causing Class members to overpay for the securities. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 30, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410-986-0036 e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/ DOWNEY FINANCIAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Downey Financial Corp. between October 16, 2006, and March 14, 2008, inclusive. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company, and certain of its officers and directors, violated federal securities laws by issuing various materially false and misleading statements that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities and causing Class members to overpay for the securities. Interested parties may move the court no later than July 15, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410-986-0036 e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/ MGIC INVESTMENT: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Michigan --------------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of MGIC Investment Corporation between February 6, 2007, through February 12, 2008, inclusive. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company, and certain of its officers and directors, violated federal securities laws by issuing various materially false and misleading statements that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities and causing Class members to overpay for the securities. Interested parties may move the court no later than July 15, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410-986-0036 e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/ Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Newsome Action in Favor of U.S. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, at Lexington, dismissed a lawsuit involving asbestos exposure filed by Marshall Newsome, in favor of the United States of America. The case is styled Marshall Newsome, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant. Senior Judge Karl S. Forester entered judgment of Civil Action No. 07-CV-250-KSF on April 9, 2008. On Aug. 9, 2007, Mr. Newsome, an individual who was then in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and confined in the Federal Medical Center, filed a pro se complaint, claiming the jurisdiction of the District Court under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and he paid the District Court filing fee for a civil action. The BOP stated that Mr. Newsome was released from confinement on Nov. 26, 2007. A few days later, on Nov. 29, 2007, he filed a notice of his change of address revealing that he now resides in Atlanta, Ga. Mr. Newsome alleged that the problems complained-of began shortly after his arrival at the Federal Medical Center, in Lexington, Ky., in or around February 2000. He stated that he was initially housed in the institution's Health Care Unit, where, he complained, he was exposed to asbestos, pigeon postosis, mycotoxicosis. Mr. Newsome stated that all of the BOP staff knew of the lethal bacteria and asbestos in the HCU. Mr. Newsome accused the BOP of negligence in exposing him to these hazards. In 2003, he was moved from the HCU to another unit which, unlike his HCU placement, did not have the asbestos, was air conditioned, and had a "healthier atmosphere." However, despite his medical history and spots on his lungs showing on x-rays, in 2006, Mr. Newsome alleged he was placed back in the HCU, which is asbestos infested, has inadequate ventilation and does not have air conditioning. Mr. Newsome claimed that this change in units was in retaliation for his not cooperating in a government plan for paying his court-ordered restitution while in prison, and he suggested that he remained in the same conditions at the time he signed and filed the complaint herein. After screening Mr. Newsome's Complaint, the Court directed that summons issue for the United States. The U.S. has responded to the Complaint with a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. The U.S. Government argued that the negligence claims should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity with regard to claims based upon the performance or nonperformance of discretionary functions. The U.S. cited the discretionary function exception in the FTCA and cases from the District Court and other District Courts, which have applied the discretionary function exception to bar prisoner negligence claims regarding histoplasmosis and exposure to asbestos. The United States also maintains again that the action is barred by the FTCA's 2-year statute of limitations. As to the medical care issues, the U.S. contended that Mr. Newsome has failed to state either a negligence or a constitutional tort claim. Finally, the U.S. claimed to be entitled to summary judgment in its favor. The District Court granted the U.S.'s Motion to Dismiss and the U.S.'s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted. Marshall Newsome, Atlanta, pro se. Marianna Jackson Clay, U.S. Attorney's Office, EDKY, Lexington, Ky., represented the United States of America. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: District Court Remands Sether Action v. GE --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, S.D. Illinois, remanded an asbestos- related cased styled Warren W. Sether, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AGCO Corporation, et al., Defendants. District Judge Murphy entered judgment of Civil No. 07-809-GPM on March 28, 2008. On Oct. 4, 2007, Warren W. Sether and Marie L. Sether filed this action in Illinois state court against General Electric Company. The case was filed in connection with mesothelioma that Mr. Sether allegedly contracted due to exposure to asbestos- containing products while serving in the United States Navy from 1942 until 1962 and later while an employee of the Electric Boat Company at shipyards in Connecticut from 1962 until 1985. GE has removed the case from state court to this Court, contending that the Sethers' claims against it are based on GE's alleged failure to warn of the dangers relating to asbestos used as insulation in marine steam turbines manufactured by GE pursuant to contracts with the USN so that GE is entitled to invoke federal jurisdiction. The Sethers in turn have moved for remand of this case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court granted the Sethers' motion for remand of the case to state court. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Ill., for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Facing Injury Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to face a number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on the Company's historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products. The complaints in these cases are not specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products. The Company in each case is one of numerous defendants and none of the claims seek damages from the Company alone, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2008. The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, which is based in Marysville, Ohio, is engaged in the manufacture, marketing and sale of lawn and garden care products. Customers include home improvement centers, mass merchandisers, warehouse clubs, large hardware chains, independent hardware stores, nurseries, garden centers, food and drug stores, commercial nurseries and greenhouses, and specialty crop growers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Corp. Has $1.28B Reserves at March ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims were US$1.28 billion (US$737 million net) at March 31, 2008, compared with US$1.30 billion (US$752 million) at Dec. 31, 2007. About 63 percent of the total net asbestos and environmental reserves at March 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007 were for incurred but not reported estimated losses. Based in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corporation's business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company. The Company is engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and investment products business. The Company has four business segments: Allstate Protection, Allstate Financial, Discontinued Lines and Coverages, and Corporate and Other. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. CenterPoint ---------------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. or its predecessor companies continue to be defendants in lawsuits filed by certain individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos during work at such formerly owned facilities. The Company anticipates that additional claims like those received may be asserted in the future, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2008. Houston-based CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp.'s regulated utilities distribute natural gas to more than three million customers in six states and electricity to 1.9 million customers on the Texas Gulf Coast. The Company also operates 69,000 miles of gas pipeline, and it has gas gathering and storage operations. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Records $19.9M Reserves at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s ending loss and loss adjustment expense reserves for all direct business written by its property and casualty companies related to asbestos, environmental damage and toxic tort liability, included in the reserve for losses and LAE, were US$19.9 million at March 31, 2008 and US$19.4 million at Dec. 31, 2007. The Company's ending net and LAE reserves for all direct business written by its property and casualty companies related to A&E matters were US$8.4 million, net of reinsurance at March 31, 2008, compared with US$11.1 million, net of reinsurance at Dec. 31, 2007. The Company has established loss and LAE reserves for assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos, environmental damage and toxic tort liability of US$57.1 million at March 31, 2008, and US$56.9 million at Dec. 31, 2007. These reserves relate to pools in which the Company has terminated its participation. However, the Company continues to be subject to claims related to years in which it was a participant. A significant part of the Company's pool reserves relates to its participation in the Excess and Casualty Reinsurance Association voluntary pool from 1950 to 1982. In 1982, the pool was dissolved and since that time, the business has been in runoff. The Company's percentage of the total pool liabilities varied from one percent to six percent during these years. The Company's participation in this pool has resulted in average paid losses of about US$2 million annually over the past 10 years. Based in Worcester, Mass., The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. is an all-around property/casualty insurance holding company. Through its Hanover Insurance Company, the Company provides personal and commercial automobile, homeowners, workers' compensation, and commercial multiple-peril insurance and professional liability coverage. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tecumseh Products Subject to Exposure Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tecumseh Products Company is the subject of, or a party to, a number of other pending or threatened legal actions involving a variety of matters, including class actions and asbestos-related claims, incidental to its business. No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2008. Tecumseh Products Company makes compressors and pumps. Its compressors are used in refrigerators and freezers, air conditioners, dehumidifiers, and vending machines. The Company also makes centrifugal pumps for use in the agricultural, marine, and transportation industries. The Company is based in Tecumseh, Mich. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Still Has 114 Suits at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s subsidiary, Indiana Power & Light Company, as of March 31, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2007 faced about 114 pending lawsuits, alleging personal injury or wrongful death stemming from exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing products formerly located in IPL power plants. IPL has been named as a "premises defendant" in that IPL did not mine, manufacture, distribute or install asbestos or asbestos containing products. These suits have been brought on behalf of persons who worked for contractors or subcontractors hired by IPL. IPL has insurance which may cover some portions of these claims. Currently, these cases are being defended by counsel retained by various insurers who wrote policies applicable to the period of time during which much of the exposure has been alleged. Indianapolis-based IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. is a subsidiary of The AES Corporation. The Company owns all of the outstanding common stock of its subsidiaries. These include its regulated electric utility subsidiary, Indianapolis Power & Light Company, and its unregulated subsidiary, Mid-America Capital Resources, Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, Five Units Face Lawsuits in 30 States ---------------------------------------------------------------- IDEX Corporation and five of its subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products manufactured with components that contained asbestos. These claims have been filed in Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming. Those components were acquired from third party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. To date, all of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance subject to applicable deductibles. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without payment. The balance have been settled for various insignificant amounts. One case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the Company's business unit. Northbrook, Ill.-based IDEX Corporation is an applied solutions company specializing in fluid and metering technologies, health and science technologies, dispensing equipment, and fire, safety and other diversified products built to its customers' specifications. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Motors Has $628M Liability at March ---------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Corporation's liability for asbestos-related matters was US$628 million as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$637 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2008. The Company has been subject to asbestos-related claims in recent years. While it has resolved many of the asbestos-related cases over the years and continue to do so for strategic litigation reasons such as avoiding defense costs and possible exposure to excessive verdicts, the Company said it believes that only a small proportion of the claimants has or will develop any asbestos-related impairment. Only a small percentage of the claims pending against the Company allege causation of a disease associated with asbestos exposure. The reserve balance between March 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2007 increased as a result of a $349 million increase in the reserve for probable pending and future asbestos claims, which was partially offset by a reduction in the reserve for existing claims of US$251 million resulting from fewer claims and lower expenses than previously estimated. Detroit-based General Motors Corporation is engaged in the worldwide production and marketing of cars and trucks. The Company develops, manufacture and market vehicles worldwide through its four automotive segments which consist of GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Pending v. Curtiss-Wright ---------------------------------------------------------------- Curtiss-Wright Corporation and its subsidiaries continue to face lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2008. To date, neither the Company nor its subsidiaries have been found liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any case. The Company said it believes that the minimal use of asbestos in its past and current operations and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in its products makes it unlikely that it will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate. The Company maintains insurance coverage for these potential liabilities and the Company said it believes adequate coverage exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability. Roseland, N.J.-based Curtiss-Wright Corporation is a diversified, multinational manufacturing and service company that designs, manufactures, and overhauls precision components and systems and provides highly engineered products and services to the aerospace, defense, automotive, shipbuilding, processing, oil, petrochemical, agricultural equipment, railroad, power generation, security, and metalworking industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26,275 Claims Pending v. Harsco at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Harsco Corporation, as of March 31, 2008, faced 26,275 pending asbestos personal injury claims filed against it, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2008. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company faced 26,383 pending asbestos personal injury claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2008) The Company has been named as one of many defendants (about 90 or more in most cases) in legal actions alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants many manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos. The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor of asbestos fibers. Any component within a Company product which may have contained asbestos would have been purchased from a supplier. The majority of the asbestos complaints pending against the Company have been filed in New York. Almost all of the New York complaints contain a standard claim for damages of US$20 million or US$25 million against about 90 defendants, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without specifically identifying any Company product as the source of plaintiff's asbestos exposure. Of the 26,275 cases, 25,750 were pending in the New York Supreme Court for New York County in New York State. The other claims, totaling 525, are filed in various counties in a number of state courts, and in certain Federal District Courts (including New York), and those complaints generally assert lesser amounts of damages than the New York State court cases or do not state any amount claimed. As of March 31, 2008, the Company has obtained dismissal by stipulation, or summary judgment prior to trial, in 17,724 cases. As of March 31, 2008, the Company has been listed as a defendant in 330 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County. Camp Hill, Pa.-based Harsco Corporation provides industrial services and engineered products. The Company's operations fall into two reportable segments: Access Services and Mill Services, plus an "all other" category labeled Minerals & Rail Services and Products. The Company has locations in 50 countries, including the United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork & Seal Has 79,000 Pending Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., for the period ended March 31, 2008, faced about 79,000 outstanding asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008. Crown Cork is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These claims arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963. About 90 days after the stock purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork. Before 1998, the amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs. During the three months ended March 31, 2008, Crown Cork received about 1,000 new claims, settled or dismissed about 1,000 claims for a total of US$1 million. As of March 31, 2008, the Company's accrual for pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was US$197 million, including US$69 million for unasserted claims and US$5 million for committed settlements that will be paid over time. Historically (1977-2007), Crown Cork estimates that about one- quarter of all asbestos-related claims made against it have been asserted by claimants who claim first exposure to asbestos after 1964. However, because of Crown Cork's settlement experience to date and the increased difficulty of establishing identification of the subsidiary's insulation products as the cause of injury by persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964, the Company has not included in its accrual any amounts for settlements by persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964. Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings, Inc. produces consumer packaging, in which its primary sources of income are metal food and beverage cans and related packaging. Products include aerosol cans and metal caps, crowns, and closures, as well as specialty packaging like decorative novelty containers and industrial paint cans. The Company also makes canmaking equipment and replacement parts. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Faces Suits in Tex. Courts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits in Texas courts. In June 2003, the State of Texas enacted legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies like Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been involved with asbestos. The Texas legislation, which applies to future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its predecessor's assets. On Oct. 31, 2003, Crown Cork received a favorable ruling on its motion for summary judgment in two asbestos-related cases pending against it in the district court of Harris County, Tex., (in Re Asbestos Litigation No. 90-23333, District Court, Harris County, Tex.), which were appealed. On May 4, 2006, the Texas 14th Court of Appeals upheld the favorable ruling in one of the two cases (Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, 14th Court of Appeals, Tex.) The Appeals Court decision has been appealed by the plaintiff to the Texas Supreme Court where oral argument was held on Feb. 7, 2008. The Texas Supreme Court has not ruled on the appeal. In addition, a favorable ruling for summary judgment in an asbestos case pending against Crown Cork in the district court of Travis County, Tex., (in Re Rosemarie Satterfield as Representative of the Estate of Jerrold Braley Deceased v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. District Court Travis County, 98th Judicial District Cause No. GN-203572) has been appealed. Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings, Inc. produces consumer packaging, in which its primary sources of income are metal food and beverage cans and related packaging. Products include aerosol cans and metal caps, crowns, and closures, as well as specialty packaging like decorative novelty containers and industrial paint cans. The Company also makes canmaking equipment and replacement parts. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Facing Lawsuits in Pa. Courts ------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits in Pennsylvania courts. In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset value adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has already paid significantly more for asbestos- related claims than the acquired company's adjusted asset value. On Feb. 20, 2004, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the June 11, 2002 order of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, in which the Court of Common Pleas ruled favorably on a motion by Crown Cork for summary judgment regarding 376 pending asbestos-related cases against Crown Cork in Philadelphia and remanded the cases to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (Ieropoli v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002). The Court ruled that the new statute, as applied, violated the Pennsylvania Constitution because it retroactively extinguished the plaintiffs' pre-existing and accrued causes of action. The Company said it believes that the ruling by the court was limited only to cases which were pending at the time the legislation was enacted. In November 2004, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted legislation amending the 2001 successor liability statute providing that the 2001 statute applies only to asbestos-related claims with respect to which the two-year statute of limitations for asbestos-related claims had not yet commenced at the time the statute was enacted on Dec. 17, 2001. On July 28, 2005, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granted Crown Cork's global motion for summary judgment to dismiss all pending asbestos-related cases filed in the court after Dec. 17, 2003 (In re: Asbestos-Litigation October term 1986, No. 001). Additional cases have been dismissed subsequent to July 28, 2005 by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. These decisions remain subject to potential appeal by the plaintiffs and, in some cases, appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania have been filed by the plaintiffs in connection with these decisions and oral argument was held before the Superior Court. The Superior Court has not ruled on these appeals. Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings, Inc. produces consumer packaging, in which its primary sources of income are metal food and beverage cans and related packaging. Products include aerosol cans and metal caps, crowns, and closures, as well as specialty packaging like decorative novelty containers and industrial paint cans. The Company also makes canmaking equipment and replacement parts. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Unit Gets 2T New Claims at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, received about 2,000 new asbestos-related claims during the three months ended March 31, 2008, compared with 1,600 claims during the three months ended March 31, 2007. As reported in the Company's 2007 Annual Report, Metropolitan Life received about 7,200 asbestos-related claims in 2007. Metropolitan Life is and has been a defendant in asbestos- related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of Metropolitan Life's employees during the period from the 1920s through about the 1950s and allege that the Company learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life have included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with asbestos. During 1998, Metropolitan Life paid US$878 million in premiums for excess insurance policies for asbestos-related claims. The excess insurance policies for asbestos-related claims provide for recovery of losses up to US$1.5 billion, which is in excess of a US$400 million self-insured retention. New York-based MetLife, Inc. is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the United States and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and affiliates, the Company offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products and services to corporations and other institutions. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Ongoing v. Houston Wire --------------------------------------------------------------- Houston Wire & Cable Company continues to face a number of lawsuits in the state courts of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota alleging that certain wire and cable, which may have contained asbestos caused injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable. These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy. It is not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the wire and cable in question or whether the Company distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any injuries. In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the wire and cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any warranties from the manufacturers of such cable if it were determined that any of the wire or cable that the Company distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these plaintiffs. In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages associated with these claims that the Company believes it could enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate. In addition, the Company maintains general liability insurance that has applied to these claims. To date, all costs associated with these claims have been covered by the applicable insurance policies and all defense of these claims has been handled by the applicable insurance companies. Houston Wire & Cable Company, through its wholly owned subsidiaries, HWC Wire & Cable Company, Advantage Wire & Cable and Cable Management Services Inc., distributes specialty electrical wire and cable to the U.S. electrical distribution market through 11 locations in 10 states throughout the United States. The Company is based in Houston. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Records $96.11M Liability --------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's long-term asbestos liability was US$96,114,414 as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$99,722,526 as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008. Current asbestos liability was US$20 million at March 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007. The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$81,884,914 as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$84,547,965 as of Dec. 31, 2007. Current asbestos insurance receivable was US$10 million at March 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, operating in two business units, manufactures metal products. Its forged and cast steel rolls unit makes hardened-steel rolls for the steel and aluminum industries. The air and liquid processing segment includes Buffalo Pumps, Aerofin, and Buffalo Air Handling. The Company is headquartered in Pittsburgh. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 8,836 Claims Pending v. Ampco at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, for the three months ended March 31, 2008, faced about 8,836 open asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008. The Company recorded 8,335 open asbestos-related claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 9,442 claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, April 4, 2008) For the three months ended March 31, 2008, about 217 claims were settled or dismissed and the gross settlement and defense costs were US$4,220,000. Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in some products of certain of the Company's operating subsidiaries ("Asbestos Liability") and of an inactive subsidiary and another former division of the Company. Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the Company, are defendants (among a number of defendants, typically over 50) in cases filed in various state and federal courts. In 2006, for the first time, a claim for Asbestos Liability against one of the Company's subsidiaries was tried to a jury. The trial resulted in a defense verdict. The plaintiff has appealed that verdict. Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Corporation have an arrangement (Coverage Arrangement) with insurers responsible for historical primary and some umbrella insurance coverage for Asbestos Liability (Paying Insurers). In the fourth quarter of 2007, one Paying Insurer responsible for two years of primary coverage informed the Company that its policies had exhausted. Another Paying Insurer responsible for about two and a half years of primary coverage informed the Company that two of its policies would likely exhaust in the first quarter of 2008, and they did exhaust on March 31, 2008. The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgment that Howden Buffalo, Inc., is entitled to coverage under policies covering Asbestos Liability, for claims arising out of the historical products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former subsidiary of the Company. The Company recorded reserves at Dec. 31, 2006 for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013 of US$140,015,000, of which about 60 percent was attributable to settlement and defense costs for unasserted claims projected to be filed through 2013. The reserve at March 31, 2008 was US$116,114,000. The Corporation recorded a receivable as at Dec. 31, 2006 of US$114,548,000 (US$91,885,000 as of March 31, 2008) for insurance recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Company's Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Coverage Arrangement, and the probable payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity and defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos Liability claims. The US$25,467,000 difference between insurance recoveries and projected costs which was recorded in 2006 is not due to exhaustion of the total product liability insurance for Asbestos Liability. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, operating in two business units, manufactures metal products. Its forged and cast steel rolls unit makes hardened-steel rolls for the steel and aluminum industries. The air and liquid processing segment includes Buffalo Pumps, Aerofin, and Buffalo Air Handling. The Company is headquartered in Pittsburgh. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BJ Services Still Facing Lawsuits in Miss. --------------------------------------------------------------- BJ Services Company continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits filed in Mississippi Courts, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008. In August 2004, certain Company predecessors, along with numerous other defendants, were named in four lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones and Smith Counties in Mississippi. These four lawsuits included 118 individual plaintiffs alleging that they suffer various illnesses from exposure to asbestos and seeking damages. The lawsuits assert claims of unseaworthiness, negligence, and strict liability, all based upon the status of the Company's predecessors as Jones Act employers. The plaintiffs were required to complete data sheets specifying the companies they were employed by and the asbestos-containing products to which they were allegedly exposed. Through this process, about 25 plaintiffs have identified the Company or its predecessors as their employer. Amended lawsuits were filed by four individuals against the Company and the remainder of the original claims (114) were dismissed. Of these four lawsuits, three failed to name the Company as an employer or manufacturer of asbestos containing products so the Company was thereby dismissed. Subsequently an individual from one of these lawsuits brought his own action against the Company. As a result, the Company is currently named as an employer in two of the Mississippi lawsuits. In addition to the Jones Act cases, the Company has been named in a small number of additional asbestos cases. The allegations in these cases vary, but generally include claims that the Company provided some unspecified product or service which contained or utilized asbestos or that an employee was exposed to asbestos at one of the Company's facilities or customer job sites. Some of the allegations involve claims that the Company is the successor to the Byron Jackson Company. To date, the Company has been successful in obtaining dismissals of such cases without any payment in settlements or judgments, although some remain pending at the present time. Houston-based BJ Services Company is engaged in providing pressure pumping, well completion, production enhancement and pipeline services to the petroleum industry worldwide. Services are provided through four business segments: U.S./Mexico Pressure Pumping, Canada Pressure Pumping, International Pressure Pumping and the Oilfield Services Group. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M & F Incurs No Amounts for Asbestos Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- M & F Worldwide Corp., as of March 31, 2008, has not incurred and does not expect to incur material amounts related to asbestos-related claims not subject to certain arrangements ("Remaining Claims"), according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008. The Company's non-operating contingent claims are generally associated with its indirect, wholly owned, non-operating subsidiary, Pneumo Abex LLC (together with its predecessors in interest, "Pneumo Abex"). In 1988, a predecessor of PepsiAmericas, Inc. ("Original Indemnitor") sold to Pneumo Abex various operating businesses, all of which Pneumo Abex re-sold by 1996. Prior to the 1988 sale, those businesses had manufactured certain asbestos- containing friction products. Pneumo Abex has been named, typically along with 10 to as many as 100 or more other companies, as a defendant in various personal injury lawsuits claiming damages relating to exposure to asbestos. Under indemnification agreements, the Original Indemnitor has ultimate responsibility for all the remaining asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through August 1998 and for certain asbestos-related claims asserted thereafter. In connection with the sale by Pneumo Abex in December 1994 of its Friction Products Division, a subsidiary ("Friction Buyer") of Cooper Industries, Inc. (now Cooper Industries, LLC, the "Friction Guarantor") assumed all liability for substantially all asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after August 1998 and not indemnified by the Original Indemnitor. Following the Friction Products sale, Pneumo Abex treated the Division as a discontinued operation and stopped including the Division's assets and liabilities in its financial statements. In 1995, MCG Intermediate Holdings Inc. ("MCGI"), the Company and two subsidiaries of the Company entered into a transfer agreement ("Transfer Agreement"). Under the Transfer Agreement, Pneumo Abex transferred to MCGI substantially all of its assets and liabilities other than the assets and liabilities relating to its former Abex NWL Aerospace Division ("Aerospace") and certain contingent liabilities and the related assets, including its historical insurance and indemnification arrangements. The Transfer Agreement also requires MCGI, which currently is an indirect subsidiary of Holdings, to undertake certain administrative and funding obligations with respect to certain categories of asbestos-related claims and other liabilities, including environmental claims, that Pneumo Abex did not transfer. Pneumo Abex will be obligated to reimburse the amounts so funded only when it receives amounts under related indemnification and insurance agreements. Such administrative and funding obligations would be terminated as to these categories of asbestos-related claims in the case of a bankruptcy of Pneumo Abex or the Company or of certain other events affecting the availability of coverage for such claims from third-party indemnitors and insurers. In the event of certain kinds of disputes with Pneumo Abex's indemnitors regarding their indemnities, the Transfer Agreement permits Pneumo Abex to require MCGI to fund 50 percent of the costs of resolving the disputes. Pneumo Abex's former subsidiary maintained product liability insurance covering substantially all of the period during which it manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing products. The subsidiary commenced litigation in 1982 against a portion of these insurers in order to confirm the availability of this coverage. As a result of settlements in that litigation, other coverage agreements with other carriers, payments by the Original Indemnitor and funding payments pursuant to the Transfer Agreement, all of Pneumo Abex's monthly expenditures for asbestos-related claims are managed and paid by others. New York-based M & F Worldwide Corp.'s Harland Clarke business manufactures checks and related products, forms, treasury supplies and related delivery and fraud-prevention services. Harland Financial Solutions provides lending and mortgage origination and servicing applications, business intelligence solutions, and customer management software for community banks and credit unions. The Company's Mafco Worldwide is one of the world's largest makers of licorice extract, used for flavoring candy and tobacco products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $27.69M Liability at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Congoleum Corporation's current asbestos-related liabilities were US$27,688,000 million at March 31, 2008, compared with US$31,207,000 at Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008. On Dec. 31, 2003, the Company filed a voluntary petition with the Bankruptcy Court (Case No. 03-51524) seeking relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code as a means to resolve claims asserted against it related to the use of asbestos in its products decades ago. On Feb. 5, 2008, the Future Claimants' Representative, the Asbestos Claimants' Committee, the Bondholders' Committee and the Company jointly filed a plan of reorganization (the Joint Plan). The Bankruptcy Court approved the disclosure statement for the Joint Plan in February 2008, and the Joint Plan is being solicited in accordance with court-approved voting procedures. Various objections have been filed to the Joint Plan, and a hearing has been scheduled for May 12, 2008 to hear oral argument on summary judgment motions relating to certain of those objections. A confirmation hearing on the Joint Plan is scheduled for June 26, 2008. During the first three months of 2008, the Company paid US$3.6 million in fees and expenses related to the implementation of its planned reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and a Coverage Action litigation with certain insurance companies. Based on the Joint Plan, the Company has made provision in its financial statements for the minimum estimated cost to effect its plan to settle asbestos liabilities through confirmation of a plan that complies with section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Company recorded charges aggregating about US$51.3 million in years prior to 2007. Based on the terms of the Joint Plan, in the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company recorded an additional US$41.3 million charge. Of this charge, US$14.9 million related to the write-off of certain insurance litigation costs receivable that will not be collected under the terms of the Joint Plan and US$26.4 million was an additional provision for estimated costs for the reorganization proceedings and the Coverage Action. In the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company also recorded a US$41 million interest expense credit to reverse post-petition interest accrued on its Senior Notes. There were no asbestos related property damage claims asserted against the Company at the time of its bankruptcy filing. The Bankruptcy Court approved an order establishing a bar date of May 3, 2004 for the filing of asbestos property damage claims. The claims agent appointed in the Company's bankruptcy proceeding advised the Company that, as of the bar date, it received 35 timely filed asbestos property damage claims asserting liquidated damages in the amount of about US$800,000 plus additional unspecified amounts. The Company objected to certain claims on various grounds, and the Bankruptcy Court ultimately allowed 19 claims valued at US$133,000. Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corporation specializes in making flooring products for residential and commercial use, including resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it-yourself vinyl tile, and commercial flooring. The Company markets its products through distributors in more than 50 North American locations, as well as directly to large market retailers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $21.17M Reserves at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Congoleum Corporation's current asbestos-related reserves were US$21,169,000 at March 31, 2008, compared with US$24,744,000 at Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008. Current receivables were US$1,322,000 at March 31, 2008, compared with US$10,490,000 at Dec. 31, 2007. Net asbestos liability was US$19,847,000 at March 31, 2008, compared with US$14,254,000 at Dec. 31, 2007. Restricted cash for insurance proceeds were US$6,519,000 at March 31, 2008, compared with US$6,463,000 at Dec. 31, 2008. There is insurance coverage litigation currently pending in the New Jersey State Court between the Company and its excess insurance carriers, and the guaranty funds and associations for the State of New Jersey. The litigation was initiated in September 2001, by one of the Company's excess insurers (Coverage Action). In April 2003, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in another case involving the same non-cumulation provisions as in the Congoleum primary policies (Spaulding Case) that the non-cumulation provisions are invalid under New Jersey law and that the primary policies provide coverage for the full amount of their annual limits for all successive policies. The Company has reached a settlement agreement (Liberty Settlement) with the insurance carrier whose policies contained the non-cumulation provisions, under which the insurance carrier will pay the Company US$15.4 million in full satisfaction of the applicable policy limits, of which US$14.5 million has been paid to date. As of Dec. 31, 2002, the Company had already entered into settlement agreements with asbestos claimants exceeding the amount of this previously disputed primary coverage. The excess insurance carriers have objected to the global settlement of the asbestos claims currently pending against the Company as contemplated by the Claimant Agreement on the grounds that the negotiations leading to the settlement and the Claimant Agreement violate provisions in their insurance policies, including but not limited to the carriers' right to associate in the defense of the asbestos cases, the duty of the Company to cooperate with the carriers and the right of the carriers to consent to any settlement. In November 2003, the State Court denied a motion for summary judgment by the excess insurance carriers that the Claimant Agreement was not fair, reasonable or in good faith, ruling that material facts concerning these issues were in dispute. In April 2004, the State Court denied motions for summary judgment by the excess carriers that the Claimant Agreement was not binding on them because the Company had breached the consent and cooperation clauses of their insurance policies by entering into the Claimant Agreement without their consent. In August 2004, the State Court entered a case management order that divided the Coverage Action trial into three phases. In February 2005, the State Court ruled on a series of summary judgment motions filed by various insurers. The State Court denied a motion for summary judgment filed by certain insurers, holding that there were disputed issues of fact regarding whether the Claimant Agreement and other settlement agreements between the Company and the claimants had released the Company and the insurers from any liability for the asbestos bodily injury claims of the claimants who signed the Claimant Agreement and the other settlement agreements. The State Court also denied another motion for summary judgment filed by various insurers who argued that they did not have to cover the liability arising from the Claimant Agreement because they had not consented to it. The State Court granted summary judgment regarding the Company's bad faith claims against excess insurers (other than first-layer excess insurers). In March 2005, the Company filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court asking the Bankruptcy Court to vacate its prior order lifting the automatic stay in bankruptcy to permit the Coverage Action to proceed. The Company requested that the Coverage Action proceedings be stayed until the Company has completed its plan confirmation process in the Bankruptcy Court. A hearing on the Company's motion was held in April 2005 and the motion was denied. The first phase of the Coverage Action trial began in August 2005. Three months into the trial, in October 2005, a federal appeals court ruled that GHR, which had been acting as the Company's insurance co-counsel in the Coverage Action, had other representations which were in conflict with its representation of the Company. As a result of this ruling, the Company retained the firm of Covington & Burling to represent it as co-counsel with Dughi & Hewit in the insurance coverage litigation and insurance settlement matters previously handled by GHR. In May 2007, the State Court issued a decision ruling that the Company's insurers have no coverage obligations under New Jersey law for the Claimant Agreement. The Company filed an objection (Omnibus Objection) in the Bankruptcy Court in June 2007 requesting that all asbestos- related personal injury claims settled and/or liquidated (Settled Claims) under either a pre-petition settlement agreement or the Claimant Agreement be disallowed and expunged. The Bankruptcy Court heard arguments on the Omnibus Objection in July 2007 and ruled that the Omnibus Objection should be heard in the context of an adversary proceeding (a formal lawsuit) in order to insure that the Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction over all the affected claimants and that their due process rights are otherwise protected. The Company amended the Omnibus Avoidance Action to seek the same relief requested in the Omnibus Objection. In September 2007, the Company filed the Third Amended Complaint in the Omnibus Avoidance Action adding new counts that encompass the subject matter and relief requested in the Omnibus Objection. The Third Amended Complaint remains pending. In October 2007, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment in the Omnibus Avoidance Action seeking a ruling that all of the pre-petition settlement agreements, including the Claimant Agreement, were null and void or should be rescinded. Argument on the summary judgment motion was heard in November 2007 and by opinion dated Dec. 28, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion for summary judgment. The Company and the Bondholders' Committee have filed notice of appeal from this decision to the District Court. In February 2008, the State Court expanded the scope of Phase 2 of the Coverage Action trial to include obligations of insurers with respect to the settlement agreement in the Joint Plan with respect to the Avoidance Actions. The State Court has entered a new case management order scheduling further discovery. The Company sought to stay Phase 2 of the Coverage Action trial because of the pendency of the solicitation and balloting and scheduled confirmation hearing on the Joint Plan, but the Bankruptcy Court denied the stay motion, which decision is being appealed to the District Court. The third and final phase of the Coverage Action trial will address bad faith punitive damages, if appropriate. Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corporation specializes in making flooring products for residential and commercial use, including resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it-yourself vinyl tile, and commercial flooring. The Company markets its products through distributors in more than 50 North American locations, as well as directly to large market retailers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Cites $12.27M Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$12,270,000 at March 31, 2008, compared with US$12,600,000 at Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2008. The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos liabilities was US$11,140,000 at March 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007. Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc.'s tape division manufactures adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes and films used to protect materials during handling and storage, as well as for applications in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), automotive, and electrical industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,344 Claims at March ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Biltrite Inc. is a co-defendant with manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products in about 1,344 pending claims involving about 1,899 individuals as of March 31, 2008. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company was a co-defendant with many other manufacturers and distributors of asbestos-containing products in about 1,360 pending claims involving about 1,946 individuals. (Class Action Reporter, April 18, 2008) The claimants allege personal injury or death from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. For the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company noted 181 new claims, five settlements, and 192 dismissals. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 523 new claims, 20 settlements, and 475 dismissals. The Company has primary and multiple excess layers of insurance coverage for asbestos claims. The total indemnity costs incurred to settle claims during the three months ended March 31, 2008 were US$100,000 (US$2.2 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2007), all of which were paid by the Company's insurance carriers under a February 1996 coverage-in-place agreement with the Company's applicable primary layer insurance carriers, as were the related defense costs. The amount of indemnity coverage limits remaining at March 31, 2008 under the Company's primary layer insurance coverage relating to policies underwritten from 1961 to 1985 ("Primary Layer") was about US$135,000 to US$1.3 million, depending on the interpretation of the terms of the coverage-in-place agreement. The Company is negotiating with the three insurance carriers currently providing coverage under the Primary Layer (the "Carrier Group") to determine the amount of coverage remaining under that coverage-in-place agreement. At Dec. 31, 2007, the estimated range of liability for settlement of current claims pending and claims anticipated to be filed through 2013 was US$12.6 million to US$41.4 million. At March 31, 2008, the Company has recorded US$12.7 million for the estimated minimum liability. The Company said it believes that the corresponding amount of insurance probable of recovery is US$11.1 million at March 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007, which has been included in other assets. Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc.'s tape division manufactures adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes and films used to protect materials during handling and storage, as well as for applications in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), automotive, and electrical industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mallinckrodt Inc. Has 10,607 Pending Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Covidien Ltd.'s subsidiary, Mallinckrodt Inc., as of March 28, 2008, faced about 10,607 pending asbestos liability cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008. Mallinckrodt, as of Dec. 28, 2007, had about 10,442 asbestos liability cases pending against it. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 15, 2008) Mallinckrodt is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A majority of the cases involve product liability claims, based on allegations of past distribution of products incorporating asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on Mallinckrodt's property. Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to Mallinckrodt. The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to products containing asbestos. The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because Mallinckrodt did not mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims were never substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims. When appropriate, the Company settles claims. However, amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial. Hamilton, Bermuda-based Covidien Ltd. Covidien Ltd. Supplies health care providers from generic pharmaceuticals and disposable medical products to diagnostic imaging contrast agents and surgical devices. The Company has operations in nearly 60 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Records $622.7M Liability at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Trane Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liability was US$622.7 million as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$628.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008. The Company's long-term asbestos receivable was US$336.2 million as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$336.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2007. Piscataway, N.J.-based Trane Inc. offers customers energy- efficient HVAC systems; dehumidifying and air cleaning products; service and parts support; advanced building controls and solutions. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Inc. Faces 104,642 Pending Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Trane Inc. faces 104,642 open asbestos-related claims during the three months ended March 31, 2008, compared with US$104,333 claims during the year ended 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008. Over the years, the Company has been named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injury claims arising primarily from its historical sales of boilers and railroad brake shoes. From receipt of the first asbestos claim more than 20 years ago through March 31, 2008, the Company has resolved 62,226 claims by settlement or dismissal. The Company and its insurance carriers have paid settlements of about US$114.5 million, which represents an average payment per resolved claim of US$1,839. The average payment per claim resolved during the three months ended March 31, 2008 was US$9,891 (US$8,586 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2007). During the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company recorded 838 new claims filed, 176 claims settled, and 353 claims dismissed. During the year ended 2007, the Company recorded 3,057 new claims filed, 754 claims settled, and 2,074 claims dismissed. The Company's total accrual for asbestos-related liabilities was US$635.7 million at March 31, 2008, compared with US$641.2 million at Dec. 31, 2007. The decrease of US$5.5 million during the first three months of 2008 was due primarily to claims payments made by the Company during the quarter. Piscataway, N.J.-based Trane Inc. offers customers energy- efficient HVAC systems; dehumidifying and air cleaning products; service and parts support; advanced building controls and solutions. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Inc Pursuing Coverage for N.J. Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Trane Inc., f/k/a American Standard Companies Inc., is still in litigation against certain carriers whose policies it believes provide coverage for asbestos claims, in which the case was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County. The insurance carriers named in this suit are challenging the Company's right to recovery. The Company filed the action in April 1999 against various primary and lower layer excess insurance carriers, seeking coverage for environmental claims (NJ Litigation). The NJ Litigation was later expanded to also seek coverage for asbestos related liabilities from 21 primary and lower layer excess carriers and underwriting syndicates. On Sept. 19, 2005, the court granted the Company's motion to add 16 additional insurers and 117 new insurance policies to the NJ Litigation. The court also required the parties to submit all contested matters to mediation. The Company engaged in its first mediation session with the NJ Litigation defendants on Jan. 18, 2006 and has engaged in active discussions since that time. During the mediation, the parties agreed to extensions of discovery deadlines and stays of discovery except for discovery necessary to facilitate the mediation process. The continued stay of discovery was confirmed by agreement at the most recent status conference with the court and mediator, which took place on Nov. 26, 2007. With the addition of the parties and policies, the NJ Litigation would resolve the coverage issues with respect to about 94 percent of the recorded receivable. The remaining six percent of the recorded receivable relates to policies for which the Company has not sought resolution of coverage because such policies were issued by parties whose coverage obligations are triggered at higher excess layers that are not expected to be reached in the near future. The total asbestos receivable was US$342.2 million at March 31, 2008, compared with US$342.9 million at Dec. 31, 2007. Piscataway, N.J.-based Trane Inc. offers customers energy- efficient HVAC systems; dehumidifying and air cleaning products; service and parts support; advanced building controls and solutions. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chemtura Still Subject to Liability Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chemtura Corporation is routinely subject to product liability claims, including claims related to its current products and asbestos-related claims concerning premises and historic products of its corporate affiliates and predecessors. No other details were disclosed in the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008. Middlebury, Conn.-based Chemtura Corporation is a publicly- traded specialty chemical company operating in the United States. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 14T Claims Still Pending v. Owens-Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- Owens-Illinois, Inc., as of March 31, 2008, is a named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving about 14,000 plaintiffs and claimants, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company faced 14,000 pending asbestos- related claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2008) The Company is a defendant in lawsuits filed in numerous state and federal courts by persons alleging bodily injury (including death) as a result of exposure to dust from asbestos fibers. From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units commercially produced and sold about US$40 million of a high- temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and block insulation business in April 1958. Of the lawsuits pending as of Dec. 31, 2007, about 89 percent of plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an amount sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial court. About nine percent of plaintiffs specifically plead damages of US$15 million or less, and one percent of plaintiffs specifically plead damages greater than US$15 million but less than US$100 million. Fewer than one percent of plaintiffs specifically plead damages US$100 million or greater but less than US$123 million. The Company said that as of March 31, 2008 there are about 1,100 claims against other defendants which are likely to be asserted some time in the future against the Company. These claims are not included in the pending "lawsuits and claims" totals. The Company is also a defendant in other asbestos-related lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants. Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of March 31, 2008, has disposed of the asbestos claims of about 361,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per claim of about US$7,000. Certain of these dispositions have included deferred amounts payable over a number of years. Deferred amounts payable totaled about US$31.8 million at March 31, 2008 (US$34 million at December 31, 2007) and are included in the foregoing average indemnity payment per claim. Beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of about US$3.22 billion through 2007, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-related liability. Perrysburg, Ohio-based Owens-Illinois, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is the successor to a business established in 1903. The Company is a manufacturer of glass containers, with markets in Europe, North America, Asia Pacific and South America. On July 31, 2007, the Company completed the sale of its plastics packaging business for about US$1.825 billion. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 117T Claims Pending v. Ashland at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc. recorded 117,000 open asbestos claims filed against it for the six months ended March 31, 2008, compared with 145,000 for the six months ended March 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008. The Company recorded 120,000 open asbestos claims for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 151,000 claims for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2006. For the year ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded 134,000 asbestos claims. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 15, 2008) For the six months ended March 31, 2008, the Company noted 1,865 new claims filed, 1,000 claims settled and 18,000 claims dismissed. For the six months ended March 31, 2007, the Company noted 2,586 new claims filed, 1,000 claims settled, and 19,000 claims dismissed. The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Those claims result primarily from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley Stoker Corporation, a former subsidiary. Riley's industrial boilers contained some asbestos-containing components provided by other companies. Since Oct. 1, 2004, the Company has been dismissed as a defendant in 88 percent of the resolved claims. A progression of activity in the asbestos reserve is presented in the following table. Total reserves for asbestos claims were US$589 million at March 31, 2008, compared with US$610 million at Sept. 30, 2007 and US$619 million at March 31, 2007. The Company has estimated that it is reasonably possible that total future litigation defense and claim settlement costs on an inflated and undiscounted basis could range as high as about US$1 billion. At March 31, 2008, the Company's receivable for recoveries of litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers amounted to US$473 million, of which US$73 million relates to costs previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to US$488 million at Sept. 30, 2007 and US$479 million at March 31, 2007. Covington, Ky.-based Ashland Inc., a diversified, global chemical company, provides quality products, services and solutions to customers in more than 100 countries. The Company operates through four divisions: Ashland Performance Materials, Ashland Distribution, Valvoline, and Ashland Water Technologies. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alamo Reserves for Liability Still at $325T ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alamo Group Inc.'s reserve still amounts to US$325,000 concerning a potential asbestos issue at the Gradall facility, in New Philadelphia, Ohio, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008. Certain other assets of the Company contain asbestos that may have to be abated in the future. Seguin, Tex.-based Alamo Group Inc.'s Alamo Industrial and Tiger hydraulically powered tractor-mounted mowers are primarily sold to government entities. The Company's Rhino and M&W subsidiaries sell rotary cutters and other equipment to farmers and ranchers for pasture maintenance. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Court Favors Defendants in Marley Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division, denied the Motion for Remand filed by David A. Marley and his wife, in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed against Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc. and Viad Corporation. The case is styled David A. Marley, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Elliot Turbomachinery Co., Inc., et al. Defendants. District Judge Adalberto Jordan entered judgment of Case No. 07- 23042-CIV-JORDAN on March 13, 2008. This action is a dispute about the defendants' ability, under their contract with the Navy, to warn Mr. Marley that unprotected asbestos exposure could cause mesothelioma and other ailments. The defendants were retained by the Navy in the 1940s to manufacture numerous ship parts and devices for the U.S.S. Lake Champlain. The manufactured products contained asbestos but did not have any type of warning about the dangers of unprotected asbestos exposure. Mr. Marley was a Navy sailor assigned to the Lake Champlain from 1959-1983. During his assignment, he was allegedly exposed to the asbestos contained in the defendants' products. As a result of this exposure, he allegedly developed mesothelioma. This suit was brought by Mr. Marley and his wife. Elliot and Viad removed this action, invoking federal officer jurisdiction. In support of removal, Elliot filed the affidavits of retired Admiral Ben J. Lehman and retired Admiral Roger B. Horne. Viad joined Elliot's removal filings. The District Court said that while Admiral Lehman's and Admiral Horne's affidavits fall far short from establishing that the defendants were not able to warn Mr. Marley about the danger of unprotected asbestos exposure, they are sufficient to "advance" a colorable government contractor defense and establish a nexus between this action and the defendants' official duties. Removal was appropriate. Accordingly, the Marleys' motion to remand was denied. Case A. Dam, David Aaron Jagolinzer, Ferraro Law Firm, Miami, Fla., represented Plaintiffs. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling to Favor Gomez ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, 6th District, Fulton County, reversed the Fulton County Court of Common Pleas' ruling, which granted summary judgment to Sauder Woodworking Company, in an asbestos-related action filed by Rogelio R. Gomez. The case is styled Rogelio R. Gomez, Appellant v. Sauder Woodworking Co., et al., Appellee. Judges Peter M. Handwork, Mark L. Pietrykowski, and Thomas J. Osowik entered judgment of Case No. F-07-028 on May 16, 2008. This case arose when Mr. Gomez filed a workers' compensation claim against two former employers, Sauder and ConAgra Grocery Product Company, LaChoy Division, and the Bureau of Workers' Compensation. Mr. Gomez alleged that he was entitled to workers' compensation benefits because he was exposed to asbestos during his employment by both Sauder and ConAgra, which caused him to develop asbestos-related injuries. His claim was denied at all administrative levels. On Feb. 24, 2005, Mr. Gomez appealed the denial of his claims by filing a complaint in the common pleas court against both of his former employers, and the Bureau. On Nov. 7, 2007, attorneys for Mr. Gomez, ConAgra, and the Bureau filed a joint stipulation dismissing Mr. Gomez's claims against ConAgra. On Aug. 13, 2007, Sauder filed a motion for summary judgment and a memorandum in support, in which it asserted that Mr. Gomez's injuries were not caused by asbestos exposure that occurred while he was working for Sauder. On Sept. 26, 2007, Mr. Gomez filed a memorandum in opposition to summary judgment in which he asserted that, contrary to Sauder's position, there was evidence to support that he was exposed to asbestos while working at Sauder. Mr. Gomez stated that he was a smoker until 1974, and he served in Vietnam from 1967 to 1969. On Oct. 2, 2007, Sauder filed a reply. Mr. Gomez filed a motion for leave to file a sur-reply. However, the motion was never granted by the trial court, and was therefore presumed to have been denied. On Oct. 5, 2007, the trial court filed a judgment entry in which it found that Mr. Gomez failed to present any evidence that he was exposed to asbestos while working for Sauder. Ultimately, the trial court concluded that, although Mr. Gomez undoubtedly suffered from an asbestos-related disease, Mr. Gomez was "unable to support any of his allegations of exposure to asbestos while working at Sauder." Accordingly, the trial court granted summary judgment to Sauder and dismissed Mr. Gomez's claim for workers' compensation benefits. A timely notice of appeal was filed on Nov. 2, 2007. The Appeals Court reversed the judgment of the Fulton County Court of Common Pleas, and the case was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this decision and judgment entry. Marc G. Williams-Young and William R. Menacher represented Rogelio R. Gomez for appellant. Christopher C. Russell represented Sauder Woodworking Co. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 299 Claims Pending v. Nevamar Co. at March --------------------------------------------------------------- Panolam Industries International, Inc. states that its subsidiary, Nevamar Company LLC, as of March 31, 2008, continues to face 299 workers' compensation claims alleging injury due to asbestos exposure and unidentified chemicals of which about 195 claimants are current Nevamar employees. During 2006, Nevamar was named a defendant in numerous workers compensation claims filed on behalf of current and former employees at the Hampton, S.C., facility alleging injury in the course of employment due to alleged exposure to asbestos and unidentified chemicals. Under the ownership of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, the Hampton, S.C.-based facility manufactured asbestos-based products until about 1975. In 2004 and 2005, Nevamar, Westinghouse and International Paper Company settled 10 workers' compensation claims related to alleged asbestos exposure. Under a 2005 agreement with International Paper, Nevamar's liability for workers compensation claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos brought by employees hired before July 1, 2002, is capped at 15 percent of any damages it shares with International Paper until Nevamar has paid an aggregate of US$700,000, at which point the Company has no responsibility for any additional shared damages. Employees hired by Nevamar after July 1, 2002 and who file claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos are not covered by this indemnity agreement. About eight 8 of the 299 claimants were hired by Nevamar after July 1, 2002. The Company said it believes these claims are occupational disease claims and those claims are non-compensable under current South Carolina law until a claimant can demonstrate a wage-loss disability. The Company said it believes that the 195 claimants who are current employees cannot demonstrate a wage-loss disability and therefore these claims should be dismissed. Shelton, Conn.-based Panolam Industries International, Inc. designs, manufactures and distributes decorative overlay products, primarily thermally fused melamine panels and high- pressure laminate sheets, throughout Canada and the United States. The Company markets its products through independent distributors and directly to kitchen and bathroom cabinet, furniture, store fixtures and original equipment manufacturers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3 Applica Lawsuits Still Pending v. Salton --------------------------------------------------------------- Salton, Inc. continues to be a defendant in three asbestos lawsuits in which the plaintiffs have alleged injury as the result of exposure to asbestos in hair dryers distributed by affiliate Applica Incorporated over 20 years ago. Although Applica never manufactured such products, asbestos was used in certain hair dryers sold by it prior to 1979, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2008. There are numerous defendants named in these lawsuits, many of whom actually manufactured asbestos containing products. At this time, the Company said it does not believe it has coverage under its insurance policies for the asbestos lawsuits. Miramar, Fla.-based Salton, Inc. markets and distributes small kitchen and home appliances, pet products and pest products. The Company has a portfolio of brand names, including Black & Decker, George Foreman, Russell Hobbs, Toastmaster, LitterMaid, and Farberware. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 10 Suits Ongoing v. Katy Industries in Ala. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Katy Industries, Inc. continues to face 10 lawsuits filed in state court in Alabama by a total of about 324 individual plaintiffs, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2008. There are over 100 defendants named in each case. In all 10 cases, the Plaintiffs claim that they were exposed to asbestos in the course of their employment at a former U.S. Steel plant in Alabama and, as a result, contracted mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer or other illness. They claim that they were exposed to asbestos in products in the plant which were manufactured by each defendant. In eight of the cases, Plaintiffs also assert wrongful death claims. The liability of the Company cannot be determined at this time. Arlington, Va.-based Katy Industries, Inc. makes and markets maintenance products, including cleaning supplies, abrasives, and stains. Its Continental Commercial Products subsidiary operates five divisions: Contico, Disco, Glit, Wilen, CCP Canada, and Gemtex. The Contico business includes the Continental, Contico, and Container names. CCP operates in the U.S. in Missouri, California, and Georgia, as well as in Canada. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Ind. Cites 2,426 Sterling Fluid Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Katy Industries, Inc. says that Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) has tendered over 2,426 asbestos cases pending in Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Nevada, Mississippi, Wyoming, Louisiana, Georgia, Massachusetts and California to the Company for defense and indemnification. With respect to one case, Sterling has demanded that the Company indemnify it for a US$200,000 settlement. Sterling bases its tender of the complaints on the provisions contained in a 1993 Purchase Agreement between the parties whereby Sterling purchased the LaBour Pump business and other assets from the Company. Sterling has not filed a lawsuit against the Company in connection with these matters. The tendered complaints all purport to state claims against Sterling and its subsidiaries. The Company and its current subsidiaries are not named as defendants. The plaintiffs in the cases also allege that they were exposed to asbestos and products containing asbestos in the course of their employment. Each complaint names as defendants many manufacturers of products containing asbestos, apparently because plaintiffs came into contact with a variety of different products in the course of their employment. Plaintiffs claim that LaBour Pump Company, a former division of an inactive subsidiary of the Company, and/or Sterling may have manufactured some of those products. With respect to many of the tendered complaints, including the one settled by Sterling for US$200,000, the Company has taken the position that Sterling has waived its right to indemnity by failing to timely request it as required under the 1993 Purchase Agreement. With respect to the balance of the tendered complaints, the Company has elected not to assume the defense of Sterling in these matters. The Company said that Sterling had tendered over 2,367 asbestos- related cases to it for defense and indemnification. (Class Action Reporter, April 11, 2008) Arlington, Va.-based Katy Industries, Inc. makes and markets maintenance products, including cleaning supplies, abrasives, and stains. Its Continental Commercial Products subsidiary operates five divisions: Contico, Disco, Glit, Wilen, CCP Canada, and Gemtex. The Contico business includes the Continental, Contico, and Container names. CCP operates in the U.S. in Missouri, California, and Georgia, as well as in Canada. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 388 Actions Pending v. LaBour Pump in N.J. --------------------------------------------------------------- LaBour Pump Company, a former division of an inactive subsidiary of Katy Industries, Inc., has been named as a defendant in over 388 asbestos-related cases in New Jersey, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2008. These cases have also been tendered by Sterling Fluid Systems (USA). The Company has elected to defend these cases, many of which have been dismissed or settled for nominal sums. LaBour Pump faced over 383 asbestos-related cases in New Jersey. (Class Action Reporter, April 11, 2008) Arlington, Va.-based Katy Industries, Inc. makes and markets maintenance products, including cleaning supplies, abrasives, and stains. Its Continental Commercial Products subsidiary operates five divisions: Contico, Disco, Glit, Wilen, CCP Canada, and Gemtex. The Contico business includes the Continental, Contico, and Container names. CCP operates in the U.S. in Missouri, California, and Georgia, as well as in Canada. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ballantyne Facing Stehmans' Case in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. continues to be a defendant in an asbestos case entitled Larry C. Stehman and Leila Stehman v. Asbestos Corporation, Limited and Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. individually and as successor in interest to Strong International, Strong Electric Corporation and Century Projector Corporation, et al. The case was filed on Dec. 8, 2006 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. The plaintiffs have made no monetary demand upon the Company, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2008. It is possible that an adverse resolution of this case could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position. Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries Strong Westrex, Inc., Strong Technical Services, Inc., and Strong Digital Systems, Inc., design, develop, manufacture, service and distribute theater and lighting systems. The Company's products are distributed to movie exhibition companies, sports arenas, auditoriums, amusement parks and special venues. The Company is based in Omaha, Nebr. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 536 Claims Pending v. Constellation & BGE -------------------------------------------------------------- Constellation Energy Group, Inc. and its subsidiary Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) face about 536 asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008. The Company and BGE faced about 538 asbestos-related claims. (Class Action Reporter, March 7, 2008) Since 1993, BGE and certain Company subsidiaries have been involved in several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE and the Company knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard. In addition to BGE and the Company, numerous other parties are defendants in these cases. Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other defendants may also be filed against BGE and the Company in these actions. To date, most asbestos claims against the Company have been dismissed or resolved without any payment and a small minority have been resolved for amounts that were not material. The remaining claims are pending in state courts in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Baltimore-based Constellation Energy Group, Inc. is an energy company that conducts its business through various subsidiaries including a merchant energy business and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Cites 40 Cases Set for Trial in 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Belden Inc. records 40 asbestos-related actions scheduled for trial in 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2008. The Company had 38 asbestos-related actions scheduled for trial in 2008. (Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2008) The Company is a party to various legal proceedings and administrative actions that are incidental to its operations. These proceedings include personal injury cases, about 134 of which the Company was aware at April 28, 2008, in which it is one of many defendants. Electricians have filed a majority of these cases, primarily in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, generally seeking compensatory, special and punitive damages. Typically in these cases, the claimant alleges injury from alleged exposure to heat-resistant asbestos fiber. The Company's alleged predecessors had a small number of products that contained the fiber, but ceased production of those products more than 20 years ago. Through April 28, 2008, the Company has been dismissed, or reached agreement to be dismissed, in about 225 similar cases without any going to trial, and with only 20 of these involving any payment to the claimant. The Company has insurance that it said it believes should cover a significant portion of any defense or settlement costs borne by the Company in these types of cases. St. Louis-based Belden Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets signal transmission solutions, including cable, connectivity and active components for mission-critical applications in markets ranging from industrial automation to data centers, broadcast studios, and aerospace. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Richards Widow Names 30 Firms in W.Va. Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Widow Eleanor Richards, on April 18, 2008, filed an asbestos- related lawsuit against 30 companies in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Mrs. Richard claims that these 30 companies are responsible for her husband's illness and subsequent death. The suit was filed on behalf of her late husband, Charles Richards. According to the suit, Mr. Richards was employed as a molder at the J.C. Hart foundry in Clarksburg, W.Va., where he was allegedly exposed to the asbestos products. As a result of the asbestos exposure, Mr. Richards developed lung cancer, the suit says. The suit says the companies failed to provide Mr. Richards with a safe environment because their products contained asbestos. It says, "At all times relevant ... it was feasible for the defendants to have adequately warned Charles Richards, tested their asbestos containing products, designed safer asbestos containing products or substitute asbestos free products." Mrs. Richards claims her husband suffered from lung cancer and subsequent death because of the companies' negligence. She also claims she suffered sorrow, mental anguish and loss of her husband's companionship, as well as medical and funeral expenses. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Attorney Victoria L. Antion is representing Mrs. Richards. Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 08-C-756 will be assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Issues $18,500 Penalty to Ariz. Company ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fined Portable Practical Education Preparation, Inc. US$18,500 for alleged violations of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, according to an EPA press release dated May 15, 2008. The company holds charters for 12 Arizona charter schools. Arizona Charter schools are public, state-funded schools constituted within the state of Arizona. In May 2006, the EPA inspected the Celestino Fernandez Learning Center and found that the school was unable to present an asbestos management plan. The EPA found PPEP had not conducted inspections nor had asbestos management plans for some of its schools. The Alice S. Paul school, which had an asbestos management plan, was not re-inspected within the three year time frame required by federal law. "Organizations responsible for charter schools need to understand their facilities must meet all of the federal asbestos in schools requirements, as failure to do so can result in penalties," said Katherine Taylor, associate director for the Communities and Ecosystems Division in the EPA's Pacific Southwest region. Ms. Taylor added, "Asbestos can potentially endanger the health of students, teachers, and maintenance workers at schools, so we are pleased the PPEP charter schools have now conducted inspections and its asbestos management plans are in place." In August 2006, accredited inspectors conducted asbestos inspections at "Lito" Pena Learning Center, Manuel Bojorquez Learning Center, Raul H. Castro Learning Center, Cesar Chavez Learning Center, Jose Yepez Learning Center, Celestino Fernandez Learning Center, John David Arnold Learning Center, Victor Soltero Learning Center, Eugene Lopez Learning Center, and Robles Junction Learning Center. The Raul H. Castro Learning Center and the Celestino Fernandez Learning Center were each found to have about 600 square feet of asbestos containing building materials, while about 500 square feet of asbestos containing building materials was found at the Manuel Bojorquez Learning Center. No asbestos was found at the other schools. Management plans for each of these schools were prepared in August 2006. PPEP also holds the charter for the Arizona Virtual Academy, where an asbestos inspection was conducted on Aug. 7, 2007 and Aug. 9, 2007. No asbestos was found. Management plans for the two locations of the Arizona Virtual Academy offices were prepared in September 2007. Federal law requires schools to conduct an initial inspection using accredited inspectors to determine if asbestos-containing building material is present, and develop a management plan to address asbestos materials found in school buildings. Schools that do not contain asbestos-containing material must still develop a management plan that identifies a designated person, and includes an architect's statement or building inspection, and the annual notification to parents, teachers, and employees regarding the availability of the plan. The EPA's rules also require the school to appoint a designated person who is trained to oversee asbestos activities and ensure the school complies with federal regulations. Finally, schools must conduct periodic surveillance and re-inspections, properly train maintenance and custodial staff, and maintain records in the management plan. Local education agencies must keep an updated copy of the management plan in its administrative office and at the school, which must be made available for inspection by parents, teachers and the general public. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Workers Seek JPY6.6Bil from Japanese Gov't. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Construction workers and next of kin of deceased workers, on May 9, 2008, filed a lawsuit in Tokyo, Japan, seeking damages of about JPY6.6 billion (about US$444 million) from the Japanese Government and manufacturers related to illnesses stemming from exposure to asbestos, Afriquenligne reports. Plaintiffs, numbering to 178, including construction workers and family members filed the suit in Tokyo District Court against 46 building manufacturers and the Government of Japan. According to the Mainichi Daily News, the class action suit is the first that has been filed in Japan related to health damages caused by asbestos exposure at construction sites. The plaintiffs hail from the Japanese prefectures of Tokyo, Saitama and Chiba. The plaintiffs state that after inhaling asbestos in the workplace, 172 people have developed lung cancer or mesothelioma, and that almost half of those afflicted are now dead. Plaintiffs argue that the government and health ministry did not act quickly enough after international organizations issued warnings in 1972 that asbestos could be a carcinogen. Plaintiffs also blame the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry for sanctioning the use of asbestos under Japanese Industrial Standards, and with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport for approving the use of materials comprised of asbestos and other substances under Japan's Building Standards Law. Kazuo Miyajima, 78, who heads the groups of plaintiffs, said, "We will do our utmost until we win the suit." Lawyers for the plaintiffs released a statement saying, "We seek complete relief for the victims by clarifying the liability of the state and the manufacturers." About 40 construction workers from Kanagawa Prefecture plan to file a similar lawsuit in June 2008 in Yokohama District Court. After a 2005 revelation that residents who lived near a factory in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture developed diseases related to asbestos, the government implemented a law in 2006 which provides monetary assistance to asbestos victims and relatives of deceased family members. The plaintiffs argue that the amount of financial assistance given to families and victims of asbestos-related diseases is not sufficient. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court OKs $3.9M Verdict v. Crane Co. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Baron & Budd, P.C., in its press release dated May 16, 2008, announced that the California Court of Appeals, on March 11, 2008, affirmed a US$3.9 million wrongful death verdict against Crane Co. Attorneys John Langdoc and Renee Melancon from Dallas' Baron & Budd represented the wife and adult children of Joseph Henson Norris, who died in August 2006 from mesothelioma. The lawsuit itself was unique in that Mr. Norris contracted the disease through "bystander exposure" and Crane Co. was not a manufacturer of asbestos products, but a user of asbestos components. "John, Renee and our entire trial team have not stopped working to prove, first to the jury, then to the Court of Appeals, how the defendants could have prevented this terrible tragedy," says Russell W. Budd, managing shareholder of Baron & Budd. "The Court ruled unanimously that a company cannot use a dangerous component, then disclaim responsibility for the harm it inflicts on innocent people." Mr. Norris was exposed to asbestos while working as a gunner's mate in the U.S. Navy from 1955 to 1957. Crane, a manufacturer of industrial products, previously manufactured valves with asbestos gaskets and asbestos packing materials that were used aboard Mr. Norris' ship, the U.S.S. Bremerton. Crane Co. also sold its own line of asbestos-containing gasket materials from 1920 until 1972. Nearly 50 years passed before Mr. Norris began exhibiting symptoms of mesothelioma. He was diagnosed in April 2005, and lived 16 months after learning he had the disease. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Has 6,191 Mesothelioma Claims Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- ASARCO LLC filed a report to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, disclosing that 6,191 mesothelioma claims have been filed against its estate and other Debtors: -- 3,385 claims against one or more Debtors, -- 2,511 claims against ASARCO and potentially other debtors, -- 191 claims solely against ASARCO, and -- 104 claims against ASARCO are asserting liability-based claims and products liability-based claims. Asarco Incorporated filed under seal its objections to 26 asbestos-related claims against ASARCO LLC and the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors, each asserting US$1 million or more. Under Court orders, the claims objections were filed under seal to protect the identities of the asbestos claimants, their social security numbers, and their medical information. From the Court filings, Asarco Inc. disclosed that the claimants are all males, aged between 45 and 90, and alleged that they have been exposed to asbestos-containing products produced by the Asbestos Debtors due to the nature of their jobs. The exposure ranges for the period from the late 1930s to the early 1980s. Some claimants are deceased. Most claimants live or formerly lived in New York. Other claimants live in California, Oregon, North Carolina, and Arizona. Most of the claimants are represented by the law firm Lipsitz & Ponterio LLC. Charles A. Beckham, Jr., at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, in Houston, Tex., relates that Asarco Inc.'s review of a sample of asbestos-related claims has uncovered glaring facial deficiencies throughout the Debtors' asbestos claim universe, rebutting any presumption of validity. The Debtors have previously asserted that the asbestos claims should be presumed valid at their face value unless objections to those claims are filed and sustained. Asarco Inc. asserts that the Claims should be expunged, or in the alternative, reduced, for one or more of these reasons: (a) The Claim lacks any evidence that the claimants has any asbestos-related physical impairment, that the claimant was exposed to any asbestos, or that the claimant was exposed to any asbestos as a result of the operations of the Asbestos Debtors; (b) The Claim lacks any supporting evidence and fails to specify any injury that the claimants have suffered; (c) The Claims are barred by the state's statute of limitations; (d) The Claim relies on a report by Ray A. Harron, M.D., of Bridgeport, W.Va., a known "banned doctor;" and (e) The Claim was not filed by the Sept. 30, 2006 Bar Date. Mr. Beckham says that Dr. Harron's medical reports have been completely discredited and ruled inadmissible in "other proceedings" and Dr. Harron has reportedly surrendered his medical license. Dr. Harron, one of the diagnosing doctors in In re Silica Prods. Liability Litig., 398 F. Supp. 2d 563 (S.D. Tex. 2005), is at the center of an ongoing fraudulent silicosis diagnoses investigation initiated by the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Mr. Beckham adds that the Johns-Manville Corporation Asbestos Trust banned all reports submitted by Dr. Harron due to the pending fraudulent silicosis diagnoses investigation. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 72; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grumley Settles w/ Garlock Sealing for $12M ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. announced that James Grumley and his family have settled with former asbestos manufacturer Palmyra, N.Y.-based Garlock Sealing Technologies for a confidential amount following a jury verdict of US$12 million in damages, according to a Baron & Budd press release dated May 16, 2008. Mr. Grumley contracted mesothelioma after working for decades as a boiler mechanic at a Johnsonburg paper mill. Baron & Budd attorney John Langdoc said, "Jim Grumley's cancer was entirely preventable. Asbestos was just too profitable for Garlock. The worst thing about it is that instead of promptly eliminating asbestos from their gaskets and packing once they knew what asbestos could do, Garlock chose to spend decades devising ways to cover up the cancers its asbestos products cause." Mr. Langdoc and colleagues Ryan Leggiero and Melissa Fair tried the case on behalf of the family. The irreversible harm done by years of exposure to the paper mill's boilers, which were covered in asbestos cement, and to asbestos gaskets and asbestos rope packing that were used on turbines and steam pipes became apparent in 2006 when Mr. Grumley was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Prior to contracting mesothelioma, the 84-year-old Mr. Grumley played sports with his grandchildren and shared his love of athletics, music and dancing with his wife of 55 years, Pat Grumley, and their children Cindy, Bob and Jim. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chason Case v. Marathon Filed in Tex. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cynthia Leigh Chason filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against Marathon Petroleum Company and other businesses in Galveston County District Court, Tex., on May 8, 2008, The Southeast Texas Record reports. BASF Corporation and Todd Shipyards Corporation were also named defendants. The plaintiff's original petition states, "Ms. Chason was exposed to asbestos through household contact from her father, Loy Garner, who was employed by Marathon from 1969 through at least 1979. "In addition, Ms. Chason was exposed through her father who also worked at Smith Douglass in Texas City from 1961 to 1969; and additionally he did some short-term contracting work in the 1970s for BASF in Freeport, Todd Shipyard in Galveston, and Monsanto in Texas City." The suit contends Ms. Chason "was exposed to large quantities of asbestos from the products and/or machinery manufactured, sold, designed, supplied, distributed, mined, milled relabeled, resold, processed, applied, or installed by the above-named Defendants." Ms. Chason's father "was required to handle asbestos containing products and/or machinery containing asbestos" thus was subjected to other asbestos products and/or machinery present in the workplace attributed to the accused. It is also asserted that he came into contact with others who may have worked directly with the asbestos containing products or machinery. The suit argues the defendants were aware of the potential health risk the asbestos and its related products presented, but failed to give any type of warning. Alongside negligence, conspiracy and "the Defendants' acts or omissions were a producing cause of the Plaintiff's injuries and damages." Ian P. Cloud represents Ms. Chason. They placed a request for a jury the same day the suit was filed. Case No. 08V0486 has been assigned to Judge David Garner, 10th District Court. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs $3.2M Verdict v. Parsons, Jacobs --------------------------------------------------------------- Fifteen months after winning a US$3.2 million verdict against contractors Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group, Inc. and Jacobs Constructors, Inc. on behalf of Ray Rando, Baron & Budd, P.C. announced the verdict has been affirmed by the Louisiana 1st Circuit Court of Appeal, according to a Baron & Budd press release dated May 19, 2008. Mr. Rando, a former welder and pipefitter, contracted mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure while he worked for the defendants. Mr. Rando was represented at trial by attorneys Cameron Waddell and Jody Alderman of Baton Rouge's LeBlanc & Waddell. Baron & Budd's Renee Melancon was appellate counsel for Mr. Rando. Managing shareholder of Baron & Budd Russell W. Budd said, "Ray Rando's employers tried repeatedly to evade responsibility for his injuries, but these committed attorneys convinced the trial court, and then the Court of Appeal, that these companies were responsible to their employees for exposing them to dangerous levels of asbestos." In addition to confirming that Louisiana's 1952 Workers' Compensation Act does not cover mesothelioma and so does not bar suits by mesothelioma victims against their employers, the Court of Appeal ruled that Mr. Rando's case was not barred by Louisiana's 10-year preemptive period to bring claims for injuries arising from deficiencies in the construction of improvements to real property. The court ruled that, because Mr. Rando's employer, a contractor who did major "turn-key" construction jobs at a chemical plant- had control over the construction at the time of Mr. Rando's asbestos exposure, Mr. Rando's claims against his employer fell within the statute's exception and were not untimely. Ms. Melancon said, "Mr. Rando's employers did not protect him from the clouds of asbestos in which he worked, even though basic prevention methods have been known since the 1930s. This man has had to accept that the disease that will kill him was preventable, but his employers did nothing to protect him." Mr. Rando worked as a pipefitter from 1965 until 1985. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2006 and continues to fight his disease from his home in Ponchatoula, La. Foster Wheeler Tops List of Companies with Open Asbestos Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick Maryland, May 9, 2008 -- Foster Wheeler Ltd. remains to be the company with the most number of open asbestos claims, according to a study by the Lloyds Asbestos Litigation Reporter. Lloyds Asbestos Litigation Reporter today reveals the Top Ten Companies with the most number of open asbestos-related claims. Managing editor Stephanie Tolentino says that 131,340 open cases for the year ended Dec. 28, 2007, Foster Wheeler is number 1, but Ashland Inc. is not very far behind with 120,000 open asbestos claims, while Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co follows with 117,400 open cases. The remaining includes Pfizer, Ingersoll Rand, and Union Carbide Corp. Tolentino explains that the list is a compilation derived from stories about asbestos-related litigation as it appeared in the Lloyds Asbestos Litigation Reporter in the first quarter of 2008. The full list is available for download at: http://www.litigationdatadepot.com/Lloyds_Asbestos_Litigation_Re porter_-_Mos.pdf The Lloyds Asbestos Litigation Reporter is a new publication from the Beard Group. visit http://www.litigationdatadepot.com/lloydsAsbestosLitigation.php for details. ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent research, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Janice M. Mendoza, Leah R. Felisilda, Stephanie Tolentino-Umacob, Freya Natasha F. Dy, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2008. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *