/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080822.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 22, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 167 Headlines 3M CO: Interlocutory Review of Bias Suit Certification Allowed 3M CO: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Decatur, Ala. Pollution AETNA LIFE: N.J. Suit Over ERISA & RICO Violations Still Pending AETNA INC: Faces Suit in Connecticut Over Payment of Claims AETNA INC: Continues to Face Pennsylvania Securities Fraud Suit APPLE INC: Faces Lawsuit in Alabama Over "Defective iPhone 3G" BASF CORP: Minnesota Farmers Receive $17 Million Money Judgment BEAR STEARNS: Faces California Lawsuit Over Option ARM Product BEAR STEARNS: Seeks Dismissal of Racial Discrimination Lawsuit BEAR STEARNS: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in California BRISTOL-MYERS: U.S. Judge Allows Shareholders' Suit to Proceed CITIGROUP: Kirby McInerney Named Lead Counsel in Securities Suit CMS ENERGY: Reconsideration of "Breckenridge" Dismissal Sought CMS ENERGY: Faces Natural Gas Purchasers' Lawsuit in Missouri D.R. HORTON: Faces Nevada Lawsuit for Building Defective Homes EXXON MOBIL: High Court Vacates $2.5B Award in Exxon Valdez Suit JACK DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Supplements with Undeclared Content MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certified for Suit Settlement Purposes MERRILL LYNCH: Texas Court Considers Dismissal Motion in "Newby" MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suit Over Guaranteed Investment Contracts MERRILL LYNCH: Wants Securities/ERISA/Derivative Suit Dismissed MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Discovery Underway in Calif. Consumers' Case MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Discovery Ongoing in ERISA Violations Lawsuit PARMALAT: Thorp Reed Secures Dismissal for Pavia in Class Suit PERINI CORP: Mass. Court Denies Expedited Proceedings Request PPG INDUSTRIES: Flat Glass Antitrust Suit Deal Hearing Canceled PPG INDUSTRIES: Faces Pa. Consolidated Flat Glass Antitrust Suit PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS: Recalls Cherry Pies Due to Soya Component RCN CORP: Sued in N.Y. Over "Fast and Uncapped" Internet Service RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Multiple Antitrust Suits Over Natural Gas SANDISK CORP: Calif. Court Considers Motions in Antitrust Suit SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Seeks High Court Review of Lead Pigment Case SUN MAR: Elder Care Operator and Plaintiff Attorney Settle Suit TENET HEALTHCARE: Stills Faces Calif. Labor Law Violations Suits WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Minn. Suit Over Labor Code Violations New Securities Fraud Cases GT SOLAR: Finkelstein Thompson Files N.H. Securities Fraud Suit PERINI CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mass. REDDY ICE: Spector Roseman Commences Michigan Securities Lawsuit Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Resolves ASARCO Confidentiality Issue ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McVay to Help in ASARCO Committee Selection ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites 25,741 Abex Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Faces 1,185 Remaining Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Industries Still Facing Exposure Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Facing 115,000 Claims as of June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exide to Indemnify French Agency for $300T ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $3.541B for Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Still Facing 1,500 Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Corp. Reserves $1.25Bil at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Cites 34,735 Cases at June 27 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Ongoing v. Anadarko Petroleum ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Injury Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noble Corp. Facing 38 Suits as of July 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Facing 848 Claims in W.Va., Pa. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Curtiss-Wright Still Facing Exposure Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd, Units Still Facing Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Enters Joint Proposal with N.Y. PSC ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Cites 29 Cases Set for Trial in 2008 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Actions v. IDEX, Units Ongoing in 30 States ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26,292 Claims Pending v. Harsco at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Facing 192 Claims at June 29 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex Int'l. Still Facing Liability Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 700 Stearns Suits Pending v. RBS at June 28 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Prager Unit Still Facing 2 Injury Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 150 Actions Pending v. Falk Unit at June 28 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases v. Zurn Drop to 6T at June 28 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits Still Ongoing v. BJ Services in Miss. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Actions Ongoing v. Transocean Units ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Unit Facing 976 Suits at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wabtec, Units Still Facing Exposure Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int'l. Units Facing Suits in Miss. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Still Has 365 Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kraton Still Indemnified by Shell Chemicals ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IntriCon Still Facing 122 Suits at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Ongoing v. Imperial Ind. Units ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Locker Facing 45 Lawsuits at May 9 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Va. Worker's Suit Filed v. 13 Firms in Ill. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Glenn's Suit Filed v. 66 Firms in Illinois ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodman's Action Filed v. CSX in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kirk's Suit Filed v. 89 Firms in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LA County Jury Awards $14.876M to Engineer ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Korando Estate Sues Boeing, et al. in Ill. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kelley Estate Sues 13 Firms in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Erie County to Collect $1.2M in Settlement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-BNFL Employee's Widow Gets Compensation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Marine Atlantic Crew Claims to be Expedited ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New Trial For Whisnant Case Set for Feb. 9 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Renfrew Gets GBP130,375 Payout in Scotland ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hospital Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Disabled Woman Awarded GBP160T in Damages ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Huddersfield Plumber Death ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Gov't. Urged to Clean Up Abandoned Mine ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Ruling to Affect Workers Compensation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie's Profits Fall 96% in 1st Qtr. ********* 3M CO: Interlocutory Review of Bias Suit Certification Allowed -------------------------------------------------------------- The Minnesota Court of Appeals granted 3M Co.'s petition for interlocutory review of a decision by the District Court of Ramsey County granting class certification for an age discrimination class action lawsuit against 3M, according to the company's Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. On December 2004, a current and a former employee of the company filed a purported class action suit, seeking to represent a class of all current and certain former salaried employees employed by 3M Co. in Minnesota below a certain salary grade who were aged 46 or older at any time during an applicable period to be determined by the court (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 21, 2008). The plaintiffs in the case are Clifford Whitaker, 60, and Michael Mucci, 55. According to the lawsuit, since at least 2001, the company acted "to elevate younger employees to the company's leadership and to remove employees over the age of 45 -- perceived as less able or willing to accept and apply new business methodologies adopted by the company." The suit also alleges that the company disproportionately selects younger employees for a leadership-training program called "Six Sigma." The complaint asserts that the plaintiffs suffered various forms of employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and seeks injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory damages (which they seek to treble under the statute), including back and front pay, punitive damages (limited by statute to $8,500 per claimant) and attorneys' fees. In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join four additional named plaintiffs. This motion was unopposed by the company and the four plaintiffs were joined in the case, although one claim has been dismissed following an individual settlement. The class certification hearing was held in December 2007. On April 11, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action and defined the class as all persons who were 46 or older when employed by 3M in Minnesota in a salaried exempt position below a certain salary grade at any time on or after May 10, 2003, and who did not sign a document on their last day of employment purporting to release claims arising out of their employment with 3M. No trial date or calendar of pretrial proceedings has been set at this time. On June 25, 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals granted the company's petition for interlocutory review of the District Court's decision granting class certification in the case. All other activity on the case is stayed while the appeal is pending. 3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology company with a global presence in various businesses, including industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics, consumer and office, safety, security and protection services, and electro and communications. 3M CO: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Decatur, Ala. Pollution -------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Co. continues to face two purported class action lawsuits in Alabama over alleged perflourooctanyl pollution at its Decatur facility. 2002 Litigation A former employee filed a purported class action complaint in 2002 before the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, involving perfluorooctanyl chemistry, alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased risk, sub-clinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to perfluorooctanyl chemistry at or near the company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The Circuit Court, in 2005, granted the company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiffs' personal injury-related claims on the basis that such claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers Compensation Act. The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant. 2005 Litigation Also in 2005, the judge in a second purported class action lawsuit -- filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged damage to their property from emissions of perfluorooctanyl compounds from the company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those compounds -- granted the company's motion to abate the case, effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of class certification issues in the action filed in the same court in 2002. Despite the stay, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a purported class. No further action in the case is expected unless and until the stay is lifted. The company reported no further development in the cases in its Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. 3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology company with a global presence in various businesses, including industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics, consumer and office, safety, security and protection services, and electro and communications. AETNA LIFE: N.J. Suit Over ERISA & RICO Violations Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Aetna Life Insurance Co., a unit of Aetna, Inc., continues to face a purported class action lawsuit in New Jersey over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The suit, "Michele Cooper, et al. v. Aetna Life Insurance company, et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 30, 2007, and amended on Oct. 19, 2007. The plaintiffs allege that the company violated state law, the ERISA and RICO Act in connection with various practices related to the payment of claims for services rendered to the company's members by providers with whom it do not have a contract (out- of-network providers), resulting in increased out-of-pocket payments by the company members. The purported classes together consist of all members in substantially all of its health benefit plans who received services from out-of-network providers from 2001 to date for which were allowed less than the full amount billed by the provider. The plaintiffs seek reimbursement of all unpaid benefits, recalculation and repayment of deductible and coinsurance amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages, statutory penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and to disqualify the company from acting as a fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to ERISA. The company reported no development in the matter in its July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "Cooper v. Aetna Health Inc. PA, Corp. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-03541," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Faith S. Hochberg, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Barry M. Epstein, Esq. (bepstein@wilentz.com) Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer 90 Woodbridge Center Drive Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Phone: 732-636-8000 - and - Robert J. Axelrod, Esq. Levinson Axelrod 3641 Highway #9 North Howell, NJ 07731 Phone: 732-730-9600 Representing the defendants is: Michael Xavier McBride, Esq. (mmcbride@connellfoley.com) Connell Foley LLP 85 Livingston Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068-1765 Phone: 973-535-0500 AETNA INC: Faces Suit in Connecticut Over Payment of Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Aetna, Inc., is facing a purported class-action suit in connection with various practices related to the payment of claims for services rendered to the company's members by out-of- network providers, resulting in increased out-of-pocket payments by the members, according to the company's July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit, entitled "Weintraub, et al. v. Ingenix, et al." is a purported nationwide class action lawsuit that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on April 29, 2008. The plaintiff alleges that the company and the other defendants violated state consumer protection laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and federal antitrust laws. The purported classes together consist of all members in substantially all of the company's health benefit plans who received services from out-of-network providers from Jan. 1, 2004, to date for which the company determined amounts payable based on information provided by Ingenix, Inc. The plaintiff seeks actual damages, unspecified damages, treble damages, statutory penalties, and injunctive relief, plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The suit is "Weintraub v. Ingenix Inc. et al., Case No. 3:08-cv- 00654-MR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Mark R. Kravitz, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Christopher M. Burke, Esq. (cburke@scott-scott.com) Scott & Scott, LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-233-4565 Fax: 619-233-0508 Representing the defendants are: Vaughan Finn, Esq. (vfinn@goodwin.com) Shipman & Goodwin One Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06103-2819 Phone: 860-251-5000 Fax: 860-251-5599 - and - Michael P. Shea, Esq. (mpshea@DayPitney.com) Day Pitney LLP 242 Trumbull St. Hartford, CT 06103-1212 Phone: 860-275-0146 Fax: 860-275-0343 AETNA INC: Continues to Face Pennsylvania Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Aetna, Inc., continues to face a purported securities fraud class-action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The purported class action suit was filed on Oct. 24, 2007, by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority on behalf of all purchasers of the company's common stock between Oct. 27, 2005, and April 27, 2006. The plaintiff alleges that the company and three of its current or former officers and directors -- John W. Rowe, M.D.; Alan M. Bennett; and Craig R. Callen -- violated federal and state securities laws and applicable common law. The suit alleges misrepresentations and omissions regarding, among other things, the company medical benefit ratios and its health plan pricing policies, as well as insider trading by Messrs. Rowe, Bennett and Callen. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees, among other remedies. The suit is "Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, et al. v. Aetna Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-04451," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr., presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Grant & Eisenhofer PA 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: 302-622-7000 Fax: 302-622-7100 e-mail: info@gelaw.com - and - Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com APPLE INC: Faces Lawsuit in Alabama Over "Defective iPhone 3G" -------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Inc. is facing a class-action complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama over allegations that it advertised its iPhone 3G model as "twice as fast for half the price" of the previous model, but the phone's Internet connection is slower than advertised and is plagued with dropped calls, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Jessica Smith says that "immediately after purchase Plaintiff soon noticed that her Internet connection, receipt and sending of email, text messages and other data transfers through the device were slower than expected and advertised." The plaintiff was familiar with the speeds at which the previous iPhone operated, the suit says. The defective iPhone 3G appeared to connect to the 3G standard and protocol less than 25% of the time. The suit adds that the plaintiff experienced an inordinate amount of dropped calls. The plaintiff brings the suit as a class action, pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)93) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased a defective iPhone 3G. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether the defendant breached express and implied warranties relating to the sale of its defective iPhone 3Gs; (b) whether the defendant breached any express or implied warranties when they manufactured and sold the defective iPhone 3Gs; (c) the appropriate nature of class-wide equitable relief; and (d) the appropriate measurement of restitution and measure of damages to award to her and the members of the class. The plaintiff requests that the court: -- determine that the claims alleged may be maintained as a class action under Rule 2S(a), (b)(2), and (b)(S) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and issue order certifying the class; -- award all actual, general, special, incidental, statutory, and consequential damages to which plaintiff and class members are entitled; -- award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary relief; -- grant appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief, including without limitation, an order that requires defendant to repair and replace its defective iPhone 3G; -- award reasonable attorney's fees and costs; and -- grant such further and other relief that the court deems appropriate. The suit is "Jessica Alena Smith, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. CV-08-AR-1498-S," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Representing the plaintiff are: Haydn M. Trechsel, Esq. Edward S. Reisinger, Esq. Trimmier Law Firm 2737 Highland Avenue Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-251-3151 205-322-6444 BASF CORP: Minnesota Farmers Receive $17 Million Money Judgment --------------------------------------------------------------- After more than a decade in litigation, which included two U.S. Supreme Court appearances and five trips to the Minnesota Supreme Court, Minnesota farmers will finally receive payments from a class action lawsuit brought against BASF Corporation in 1997 for fraudulent marketing practices. Following a prolonged appeals process and an exhaustive claim validation period, payments totaling $32 million are being mailed to more than 1,137 claimants nationwide. There are 647 approved claimants in Minnesota with a combined payout exceeding $17 million. With claims allocated as a pro rata share of gallons of BASF's Poast herbicide purchased by individual claimants during the 1992-96 claim period, the majority of farmers will receive checks for thousands of dollars. A small number of farmers, including one in Minnesota, will receive payments exceeding $450,000. "This is an enormously successful national class action that rectifies a fraudulent market segmentation scheme," said Douglas J. Nill of Minneapolis, the lead attorney for the farmers. "From their own admission, such marketing practices were common within the industry. For 10 years we fought a 'David and Goliath' battle with the chemical industry. The disbursement of the money judgment is a warning bell to the chemical industry that they cannot market and price herbicides using fraud and intimidation." Case Background The lawsuit was filed in 1997 in Norman County District Court, in Ada, Minnesota, by 11 farmers who accused New Jersey-based BASF Corp. of fraudulently marketing the same herbicide as different products -- POAST and POAST Plus -- at different prices. The lawsuit claimed that this marketing was intended to obtain inflated prices for the same herbicide from minor crop farmers. Minor crop farmers are growers of sugarbeets, sunflowers, potatoes, field beans, fruits and vegetables, and flowers. After a trial and numerous appeals, the farmers prevailed. On Nov. 17, 2006, BASF paid $62.5 million into the Farmers' Common Fund, an interest-bearing bank account approved by the court, to hold farmers' money until distribution. The jury found that the herbicides were essentially the same, but that BASF charged more for Poast (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 15, 2006). The farmers who bought Poast herbicide from 1992 to 1996 are eligible to share in the judgment. The plaintiffs' attorney Douglas Nill estimated that several thousand farmers are eligible. The distribution will be pro rata. The Plan of Distribution in the $62.5 million nationwide settlement of a suit filed by farmers who purchased BASF Corp.'s herbicide POAST(R) was approved at a June 5, 2007 Final Approval Hearing (Class Action Reporter, July 25, 2007). The class action on the Net: http://www.poastclassaction.com/ The suit is "Peterson v. BASF Corp., Case No. C2-97-295," filed in Norman County District Court, Ada, Minnesota. The class is represented by: Douglas J. Nill, P.A. 1100 One Financial Plaza 120 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-1801 Phone: 1-866-573-3669 (Toll-free) Web site: http://www.FarmLaw.com/ BEAR STEARNS: Faces California Lawsuit Over Option ARM Product -------------------------------------------------------------- Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage Corp. is facing a purported class-action suit in California over its Option ARM product, according to Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2007-AR5's Aug. 12, 2008 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit, entitled "Joseph A. Monaco, et al. v. Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage," was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in August 2007. A third amendment to the complaint was filed on Feb. 26, 2008. The case, which involves BSRMC's Option ARM product, alleges that certain aspects of the loan, including the variable rate feature and the possibility of negative amortization, were not properly disclosed. The case brings counts under the Truth-in-Lending Act and under California law prohibiting unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent business practices. The complaint seeks to clarify a class made up of all borrowers who obtained an Option ARM loan from BSRMC secured by their primary residence in the four years prior to the case being filed. The suit is "Joseph A. Monaco, et al. v. Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage, Case No. 2:2007-cv-05607," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge S. James Otero, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: David Mills Arbogast, Esq. (darbogast@law111.com) Arbogast and Berns LLP 19510 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200 Tarzana, CA 91356 Phone: 818-961-2000 Fax: 310-861-1775 - and - Patrick A. DeBlase, Esq. (deblase@kbla.com) Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Phone: 310-854-4444 Representing the defendants is: Mark D. Lonergan, Esq. (mdl@severson.com) Severson & Werson 1 Embarcadero Ctr., Ste. 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-398-3344 Fax: 415-956-0439 BEAR STEARNS: Seeks Dismissal of Racial Discrimination Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Bear Stearns Cos., Inc., is asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut to dismiss a purported class- action suit entitled "Rodriguez v. EMC Mortgage Corporation and The Bear Stearns Companies, Case No. 3:07-cv-01816-JCH." The purported class action complaint was filed on Dec. 10, 2007. It seeks certification of a class made up of African-American and Hispanic borrowers who had a non-prime loan serviced by EMC Mortgage and who were subjected to allegedly improper servicing practices, including imposition of unwarranted fees, pyramiding of late fees, unjustified forced-placing of insurance, failure to properly apply payments, improper reporting of derogatory credit information, and failure to properly administer escrow accounts. EMC and Bear Stearns have filed motions to dismiss and to strike the suit. Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2007-AR5 reported no further development in the matter in its Aug. 12, 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 "Rodriguez, et al. v. Bear Stearns Co Inc., et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-01816-JCH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Janet C. Hall, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Christa L. Collins, Esq. (ccollins@jameshoyer.com) James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich, P.A. -FL 4830 W. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 550 Tampa, FL 33609 Phone: 813-286-4100 Fax: 813-286-4174 - and - M. Hatcher Norris, Esq. (rnorris@bnglaw.com) Butler, Norris & Gold 254 Prospect Ave. Hartford, CT 06106-2041 Phone: 860-236-6951 Fax: 860-236-5263 Representing the defendants are: Mark D. Lonergan, Esq. (mdl@severson.com) Severson & Werson, PC-CA One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-398-3344 Fax: 415-956-0439 - and - James T. Shearin, Esq. (jshearin@pullcom.com) Pullman & Comley 850 Main St., Po Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006 Phone: 203-330-2000 BEAR STEARNS: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage Corp. -- doing business as Encore Credit -- is facing a purported racial discrimination class-action suit that was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 11, 2007, according to Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2007-AR5's Aug. 12, 2008 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On March 7, 2008, a second amended complaint was filed. The complaint names 18 lenders as defendants, including BSRMC. It alleges that each defendant engages in disparate treatment of African-Americans and has adopted facially neutral policies that have a disparate and discriminatory impact on African-Americans. For each lender, the plaintiff seeks certification of a sub- class made up of African-Americans: -- who received subprime loans even though they qualified for loans on more favorable terms, or -- whose variable rate loans were approved based on a low initial "teaser" interest rate but who would not have qualified for the loan based on the anticipated adjusted interest rate during the first four years of the loan. The claims are brought under the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Civil Rights Act. BSRMC anticipates filing a motion to dismiss the complaint. The suit is "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, et al., Case No. 8:07-cv- 00794-AG-AN," filed in the U. S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Andrew J. Guilford, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gary L. Bledsoe, Esq. (garybledsoe@sbcglobal.net) Law Offices of Gary L. Bledsoe & Associates 316 West 12th Street, Suite 307 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: 512-322-9992 Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. (bsk@kbklawyers.com) Kabateck Brown Kellner 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-217-5000 Fax: 213-217-5010 - and - Austin Tighe, Esq. (austin@feazell-tighe.com) Feazeall and Tighe Bridgepoint 2 6300 Bridgepoint Parkway, Suite 220 Austin, TX 78730 Phone: 512-372-8100 Representing the company is: Benjamin B. Klubes, Esq. (bklubes@skadden.com) Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP 1440 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-371-7508 Fax: 202-661-8296 BRISTOL-MYERS: U.S. Judge Allows Shareholders' Suit to Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- Manhattan federal court Judge Paul Crotty ruled in favor of shareholders suing Bristol-Myers Squibb about its disclosures while settling patent litigation with Canadian generic drug maker Apotex Inc over the blood-thinner Plavix, Reuters reports. According to Reuters, Judge Crotty said in his ruling that the shareholders had "plausibly alleged that Bristol Myers' silence with regard to the details of the Apotex settlement made its public statements misleading or false." Bristol-Myers said in an emailed statement to Reuters that its efforts to settle with Apotex "were at all times full, fair and accurate" and that the company "intends to vigorously defend itself as this litigation proceeds." Reuters recounts that Bristol-Myers and Sanofi sued Apotex for patent infringement in March 2002 but a statutory stay of the Canadian company's application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to make a generic form expired in 2005, prompting Apotex to immediately begin making Plavix. Reuters explains that Plavix is jointly manufactured by Bristol- Myers and French pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Avantis to treat and prevent heart attack, stroke, arterial disease, acute coronary syndrome and other heart conditions. The report further recalls that the drugmaker announced a settlement with Apotex in March 2006 but did not disclose that it had agreed to limitations on damages and other provisions, according to the Manhattan class action filed by two pension funds. State regulators rejected the settlement and in 2007, Bristol- Myers pleaded guilty on two counts of making false statements to the Federal Trade Commission and agreed to pay a $1 million fine. Judge Crotty's wrote that the two pension funds -- Ontario Teachers Pension Plan Board and the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association -- "have adequately alleged that a reasonable investor would have considered the undisclosed information material in making investment decisions." In the ruling dated August 19, 2008, Judge Crotty rejected Bristol-Myers' motion to dismiss the class action case and gave the parties 10 days to contact the court to schedule a pretrial conference. The judge separately rejected a lawsuit against Bristol-Myers' board of directors over their actions while the company was trying to reach settlement with Apotex. CITIGROUP: Kirby McInerney Named Lead Counsel in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kirby McInerney LLP has been appointed lead counsel to act on behalf of a group of investors named as lead plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit against Citigroup Inc. The action is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Citigroup between Jan. 2, 2004, and November 21, 2007, inclusive. The lawsuit alleges that during the class period, the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's exposure to losses based upon the Company's creation and sponsorship of numerous off-balance sheet Variable Interest Entities, and that these actions constitute violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The defendants are Citigroup and certain of its officers and directors. Disclosure of the truth regarding exposure to VIE-related risks allegedly caused the price of Citigroup common stock to fall by approximately half, all totaled, $122 billion in shareholder losses, which made Citigroup common stock the worst performing stock in the Dow Jones Industrial Average for 2007. For more information, contact: Roger Kirby, Esq. Ira Press, Esq. Kirby McInerney LLP 825 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-371-6600 e-mail: km@kmllp.com/ CMS ENERGY: Reconsideration of "Breckenridge" Dismissal Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a purported class-action suit, entitled "Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC, et al. v. Oneok Inc., et al.," which names CMS Energy Corp. as a defendant, requested reconsideration of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado's earlier order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The suit was brought on behalf of retail direct purchasers of natural gas in Colorado, and was filed in Colorado state court in May 2006. The defendants, including CMS Energy Corp., CMS Field Services, Inc., and CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Co. are alleged to have violated the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 in connection with their natural gas price reporting activities. The plaintiffs are seeking full refund damages. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on June 12, 2006. An order transferring the case and similar others as a multidistrict litigation proceeding, captioned "In Re: Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566," was entered on Oct. 17, 2006. The court issued an order dated Dec. 4, 2006, denying the motion to remand the case back to Colorado state court. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the case. On Aug. 21, 2007, the court granted the dismissal motion by CMS Energy on the basis of a lack of jurisdiction. However, the court granted the plaintiff's request for reconsideration and allowed jurisdictional discovery to proceed. CMS then re-filed its dismissal motion and is awaiting the court's decision. The remaining CMS Energy defendants filed a summary judgment motion, which the court granted in March 2008 on the basis that the named plaintiffs made no natural gas purchases from any named defendant. The plaintiffs requested reconsideration of the summary judgment order and the court ordered further briefing. The company is awaiting the court's decision on the reconsideration request, according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC, et al. v. Oneok Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Judge Robert E. Blackburn, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: John Preston Baker, Esq. (jbaker@stklaw.com) Philip Wayne Bledsoe, Esq. (pbledsoe@stklaw.com) Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. 1050 17th Street #2300 Denver, CO 80265 Phone: 303-572-9300 Fax: 303-572-7883 Representing the defendants are: Michelle B. Goodman, Esq. Sidley Austin LLP 555 West 5th Street, #4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: 213-896-6014 Fax: 213-896-6600 - and - Mark H. Hamer, Esq. (mark.hamer@dlapiper.com) DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, LLP 401 B Street, #1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-699-4758 Fax: 619-699-2701 CMS ENERGY: Faces Natural Gas Purchasers' Lawsuit in Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------- CMS Energy Corp. is facing a purported class-action suit alleging that the company falsely reported natural gas trades in an effort to artificially raise natural gas prices, according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit, entitled "Heartland Regional Medical Center v. e prime, Xcel Energy et al.," was filed in March 2007 before the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Missouri. The suit was brought on behalf of a purported class of natural gas purchasers alleging that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy and falsely reported natural gas trades in order to artificially raise natural gas prices. The complaint alleges restraint of trade, price manipulation, and violation of Missouri's antitrust laws. The defendants removed this case to Missouri federal court, and it has been conditionally transferred to as a Multidistrict Litigation proceeding in Nevada, captioned, "In Re: Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566." The plaintiffs also filed a motion to remand this case back to state court, but the court has yet to decide on this request. CMS Energy Corp. -- http://www.cmsenergy.com/-- is an energy holding company operating through subsidiaries in the U.S., primarily in Michigan. Its two principal subsidiaries are Consumers and Enterprises. Consumers is a public utility that provides electricity and/or natural gas to almost 6.5 million of Michigan's 10 million residents and serves customers in all 68 counties of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. Enterprises, through various subsidiaries and certain equity investments, are engaged primarily in domestic independent power production. CMS Energy manages its businesses by the nature of services each provides and operates principally in three business segments: electric utility, gas utility and enterprises. D.R. HORTON: Faces Nevada Lawsuit for Building Defective Homes -------------------------------------------------------------- D.R. Horton Inc. is facing a class-action complaint before the U.S. District Court of Clark County, Nevada, alleging the company built 559 defective homes in the Cobblestone Ridge, Cobblestone Cove and Cobblestone Manor developments and refuses to repair them, CourtHouse News Service reports. The plaintiffs bring the action, pursuant to Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23, on behalf of all owners of the subject property. The plaintiffs ask the court for: -- general and special damages in excess of $10,000 including but not limited to, costs of repair, loss of market value, loss of use, loss of financing, loss of investment and out-of-pocket expenses to be determined at time of trial; -- damages in an amount according to proof; -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs according to proof; -- prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all sums awarded, according to proof at the maximum legal rate; -- all damages pursuant to Nevada Revised Statute 40.600 through 40.695, in particular NRS 40.650 and 40.655; -- costs of suit incurred; and -- such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Wesley W. Arndt, et al. v. D. R. Horton, Inc., et al., Case No. A567840," filed in the U.S. District Court of Clark County, Nevada. Representing the plaintiffs are: Duane E. Shinnick, Esq. Megan M. Chodzko, Esq. Eric Ransavage, Esq. Shinnick Law Firm, PC 2881 Business Park Court, Suite 210 Las Vegas, NV 89128 EXXON MOBIL: High Court Vacates $2.5B Award in Exxon Valdez Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the $2.5-billion punitive damage award to victims of the accidental release of crude oil from the tanker Exxon Valdez in 1989, according to Exxon Mobil Corp.'s Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. A number of lawsuits, including class actions, were brought in various courts against Exxon Mobil and certain of its subsidiaries relating to the accident. All the compensatory claims have been resolved and paid. All of the punitive damage claims were consolidated in the civil trial that began in 1994. The first judgment from the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in the amount of $5 billion was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as being excessive under the constitution. The second judgment in the amount of $4 billion was vacated by the Ninth Circuit panel without argument and sent back for the district court to reconsider in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in "Campbell v. State Farm." The most recent district court judgment for punitive damages was for $4.5 billion plus interest and was entered in January 2004. The corporation posted a $5.4-billion letter of credit. ExxonMobil and the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit, which ruled on Dec. 22, 2006, that the award be reduced to $2.5 billion. On Jan. 12, 2007, ExxonMobil petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc of its appeal. On May 23, 2007, with two dissenting opinions, the Ninth Circuit determined not to re-hear ExxonMobil's appeal before the full court. Afterwards, the Ninth Circuit court reconfirmed the $2.5-billion award (Class Action Reporter, June 11, 2007). ExxonMobil filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Aug. 20, 2007. On Oct. 29, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court granted ExxonMobil's petition for a writ of certiorari. On June 25, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the $2.5-billion punitive damage award previously entered by the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case to the Circuit Court with an instruction that punitive damages in the case may not exceed a maximum amount of $507.5 million. Exxon Mobil Corp. recorded an after tax charge of $290 million in the second quarter of 2008 reflecting the maximum amount of the punitive damages. In early July 2008, the plaintiffs filed a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court requesting interest on the punitive damage award from September 1996. ExxonMobil filed a brief opposing interest for the period prior to the Supreme Court's decision in June 2008. The suit is "Sea Hawk Seafoods Inc., et al. v. Exxon Corp., et al., Case No. 3:89-cv-00095-HRH," filed in the U.S. District Court of Alaska, Judge H. Russel Holland, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Charles W. Coe, Esq. Law Office of Charles W. Coe 805 W 3rd Avenue, #10 Anchorage, AK 99501 U.S. Phone: 907-276-6173 Fax: 907-279-1884 e-mail: charlielaw@gci.net - and - Lloyd B. Miller, Esq. (lloyd@sonosky.net) Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Miller & Munson, LLP 900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 700 Anchorage, AK 99501, U.S. Phone: 907-258-6377 Fax: 907-272-8332 Representing the defendants are: John F. Clough, III, Esq. Clough & Associates POB 211187 Auke Bay, AK 99821 Phone: 907-790-1912 Fax: 907-790-1913 - and - Douglas J. Serdahely, Esq. (dserdahely@pattonboggs.com) Patton Boggs LLP 601 West 5th Avenue, Suite 700 Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: 907-263-6300 Fax: 907-263-6345 JACK DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Supplements with Undeclared Content -------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Distribution, LLC, of 1501 Green Road Unit C Pompano Beach, Florida, and its wholesale distributors G & N works, Inc., and Devine Distribution, Inc., are conducting a voluntary nationwide recall of all lot numbers of the company's supplement products sold under the brand names Rize 2 The Occasion and Rose 4 Her. New lots of Rize 2 and Rose 4 Her -- not subject to the recall -- will contain lot numbers beginning in "BL". Jack Distribution is conducting this recall after being informed by representatives of the Food and Drug Administration that lab analysis by FDA of Rize 2 and Rose 4 Her samples of random lots found the product contains potentially harmful, undeclared ingredients. FDA asserts that its chemical analysis revealed that Rize 2 The Occasion and Rose 4 Her contain thiomethisosildenafil, an analog of sildenafil, the active ingredient of a FDA-approved drug used for Erectile Dysfunction. FDA maintains that this ingredient is close in structure to sildenafil and is expected to possess a similar pharmacological and adverse event profile. This undeclared chemical poses a potential threat to consumers because it may interact with nitrates found in some prescription drugs (such as nitroglycerin) and may lower blood pressure to dangerous levels. Consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or heart disease often take nitrates. ED is a common problem in men with these conditions, and consumers may seek these types of products to enhance sexual performance. Customers who have this product in their possession should stop using it immediately and contact their physician if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking this product. Any adverse events that may be related to the use of this product should be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Program by phone at 1-800-FDA-1088, by fax at 1-800-FDA-0178 or by mail at: MedWatch HF-2, FDA 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20852-9787 The company advises that any unused portions can be returned to the place of purchase for a full refund of purchase price. Jack Distribution will manufacture new lots of these products which are not subject to the recall. Those lot numbers will begin with "BL" and will begin to be sold shortly. Rize 2 and Rose 4 Her are sold in adult stores, vitamin & nutrition shops, convenience stores, and via the Internet nationwide. The Rize 2 product is sold as a (single blister pack, three count bottles, twelve count bottles, and thirty count bottles. Rose 4 Her is only available in single blister packs and three count bottles. The Company says it is taking this voluntary action because it is committed and is always concerned with the health of persons who have consumed this product. The Company is reviewing the procedures and policies of all firms involved with the manufacture of the product to ensure that there will be no future issues with regard to Rize 2 and Rose 4 Her pills composition. The Company is working closely with the FDA in the recall process and is committed to the quality and integrity of its products. It says it sincerely regrets any inconvenience to consumers and its other customers. MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certified for Suit Settlement Purposes ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin certified as a class action for purposes of a proposed settlement made by defendants Merge Healthcare (f/k/a Merge Technologies) and Richard A. Linden, Scott T. Veech and David Noshay, valued at $16 million in cash. Between March 22 and April 26, 2006, seven putative securities class action suits were filed on behalf of a class of persons who acquired shares of the company's common stock between Aug. 2, 2005, and March 16, 2006. The defendants in the suit include the company; Richard A. Linden, its former president and chief executive officer; and Scott T. Veech, its former chief financial officer. One of the suits also names Brian E. Pedlar, former president of Cedara Software Corp. who served as interim co-president and co-chief executive officer of Merge from July 2, 2006, to Aug. 18, 2006. One case has been voluntarily dismissed. The cases arise out of the company's March 17, 2006 announcement that it would revise its results of operations for the fiscal quarters ended June 30, 2005, and Sept. 30, 2005, as well as its investigation of allegations made in anonymous letters received by the company. The lawsuits allege that the company and the individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. It seeks damages in unspecified amounts. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the suits on July 16, 2007. The plaintiff filed its response brief afterward (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 21, 2008). In May, Merge Healthcare entered into an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated securities class-action (Class Action Reporter, May 26, 2008). The agreement in principle provides for the settlement, release and dismissal of all claims asserted against Merge and the individual defendants in the litigation. In exchange, Merge Healthcare has agreed to a one-time cash payment of $3,025,000 to the plaintiff and Merge's primary and one of its excess D&O insurance carriers agreed to a one-time cash payment of $12,975,000 to the plaintiffs, for a total of $16 million. The settlement is subject to, among other things, the closing of the financing, the drafting and execution of the final settlement documents, and the approval of the settlement by the court (Class Action Reporter, June 24, 2008). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Rudolph T. Randa at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin at 2:00 p.m. on November 10, 2008, to determine whether the proposed settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, whether the Plan of Allocation is fair and equitable and therefore should be approved in connection with this settlement, and to consider the application of Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses. Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on October 13, 2008. Deadline to file claims is on November 12, 2008. The suit is "Maiden v. Merge Technologies Inc, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00349-RTR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge Rudolph T. Randam, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Daniel M. Shanley, Esq. DeCarlo & Connor 533 S. Fremont Ave., 9th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90071-1706 Phone: 213-488-4100 Fax: 213-488-4180 - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 120 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561-750-3000 Fax: 561-750-3364 Representing the defendants is: David H. Kistenbroker, Esq. (david.kistenbroker@kattenlaw.com) Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 525 W. Monroe St., Ste. 1900 Chicago, IL 60661-3693 Phone: 312-902-5200 Fax: 312-577-4481 MERRILL LYNCH: Texas Court Considers Dismissal Motion in "Newby" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas is considering and has yet to rule on a motion by Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., that sought the dismissal of the case, captioned "Newby v. Enron Corp., et al., Case No. 4:01-cv-03624," according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2008. On April 8, 2002, Merrill Lynch was added as a defendant in the class-action suit. The complaint alleges, among others, that the company engaged in improper transactions in the fourth quarter of 1999 that helped Enron misrepresent its earnings and revenues in the fourth quarter of 1999 (Class Action Reporter, March 8, 2006). The complaint also alleges that Merrill Lynch violated the securities laws in connection with its role as an underwriter of Enron stock, its research analyst coverage of Enron stock, and its role as placement agent for and limited partner in an Enron- controlled partnership called LJM2. The parties are currently awaiting the court's decision on the company's request to dismiss the case based on the U.S. Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit's March 19, 2007 decision rejecting class certification, and the U.S. Supreme Court's Jan. 15, 2008 decision rejecting liability in another case, entitled "Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific Atlanta." Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, provide investment, financing, insurance, and related services to individuals and institutions on a global basis through its broker, dealer, banking, and other financial services subsidiaries. The company's operations are organized into two business segments: Global Markets and Investment Banking (GMI) and Global Wealth Management (GWM). GMI provides service global markets and origination products and services to corporate, institutional, and government clients around the world. GWM creates and distributes investment products and services for individuals, small- and mid-size businesses, and employee benefit plans. MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suit Over Guaranteed Investment Contracts -------------------------------------------------------------- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., is facing a consolidated lawsuit pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in connection with guaranteed investment contracts, according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2008. Between March and July 2008, multiple class action complaints were filed by municipalities against dozens of defendants, including Merrill Lynch, in connection with the municipalities' investments in GICs. The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants conspired to fix prices for GICs and other derivative products in violation of the antitrust laws over a period of more than ten years. On June 16, 2008, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which consolidated several cases under the caption, "Hinds County, Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. et al., Case No. 1:2008-cv- 02516." The consolidated suit is "Hinds County, Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank N.A. et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-02516-VM," pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Victor Marrero, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Magda Maria Jimenez, Esq. (mjimenez@bsfllp.com) Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP 333 Main St. New York, NY 10504 Phone: 212-446-2333 Fax: 212-446-2350 Roland Gustaf Riopelle, Esq. (rriopelle@juno.com) Sercarz & Riopelle, L.L.P. 152 West 57th Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-586-4900 Fax: 212-586-1234 Michael Morris Buchman, Esq. (mbuchman@pomlaw.com) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-661-1100 Fax: 212-661-8665 - and - William Christopher Carmody, Esq. (bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com) Susman Godfrey LLP 654 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10065 Phone: 212-336-8334 Fax: 212-336-8340 MERRILL LYNCH: Wants Securities/ERISA/Derivative Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., is seeking the dismissal of several consolidated principal class action lawsuits under the federal securities laws and the the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act, as well as shareholder derivative actions under state law, that are pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption, "In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Securities, Derivative, and ERISA Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-09633," according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2008. Securities Class Actions On May 21, 2008, the plaintiffs in the securities class action suits filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of persons who acquired Merrill Lynch common stock and certain preferred stock between Oct. 17, 2006, and Jan. 16, 2008. The complaint alleges that the defendants, including Merrill Lynch and certain present and former officers, misrepresented and omitted facts related to Merrill Lynch's exposure to subprime collateralized debt obligations in violation of the federal securities laws. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount related to the drop in value of Merrill Lynch shares. On July 21, 2008, Merrill Lynch and other defendants filed motions to dismiss to the claims. ERISA Class Actions On May 21, 2008, plaintiffs in the ERISA class actions filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of the Merrill Lynch 401(k) Savings and Investment Plan, the Merrill Lynch Retirement Accumulation Plan, and the Merrill Lynch Employee Stock Ownership Plan. The complaint alleges that between Sept. 25, 2006, and May 6, 2008, Merrill Lynch and the individual defendants violated ERISA by permitting employees to invest Plan assets in Merrill Lynch common stock even though they knew or should have known that such investments were unduly risky. The complaint seeks an order compelling defendants to reimburse the plans for losses of an unspecified amount related to the alleged violations. On July 21, 2008, Merrill Lynch and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. Shareholder Derivative Actions On May 21, 2008, plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative actions filed a consolidated amended complaint against Merrill Lynch and certain present and former officers and directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and other alleged violations of state law in connection with Merrill Lynch's exposure to subprime collateralized debt obligations and compensation provided to its former CEO. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and certain corporate governance reforms. On July 21, 2008, Merrill Lynch and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the action. The consolidated suit is "In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Securities, Derivative, and ERISA Litigation, Case No. 07-CV- 09633," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Leonard B. Sand, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jill Sharyn Abrams, Esq. (jabrams@abbeyspanier.com) Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP 212 East 39th Street New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-889-3700 Fax: 212-684-5191 - and - William Edward Bernarduci, Esq. (wbernarduci@izardnobel.com) Schatz and Nobel PC 20 Church Street, Suite 1700 Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: 860-493-6289 Fax: 860-493-6290 Representing the defendants are: Jay B. Kasner, Esq. (jkasner@skadden.com) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Four Times Square New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212-735-3000 Fax: 212-735-2000 - and - Stuart Jay Baskin, Esq. (sbaskin@shearman.com) Shearman & Sterling LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-848-4000 Fax: 646-848-4974 MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Discovery Underway in Calif. Consumers' Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is underway in a putative class-action suit entitled, "Ed Oshaben v. Tickle Inc., Emode.com, Inc., and Monster Worldwide, Inc., Case No. CGC-06-454538," which was filed against Monster Worldwide, Inc., and its Tickle Inc. subsidiary. The suit was filed in July 2006 before the California State Court. An amended complaint was subsequently filed, alleging that Tickle engaged in deceptive consumer practices and purports to be a class action representing all users who purchased a test report from Tickle and received "unauthorized charges." The amended complaint alleges various violations of the California consumer and unfair business practice statutes and seeks, among other things, unspecified restitution for the class, disgorgement of revenues, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and equitable relief. Discovery in this action is underway, according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. Monster Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.monster.com/-- provides a global online employment solution, Monster. With a presence in markets in North America, Europe and Asia, Monster works by connecting employers with job seekers at all levels and by providing personalized career advice to consumers globally. Monster Worldwide delivers targeted audiences to advertisers. The company operates in three business segments: Monster Careers-North America, Monster Careers-International, and Internet Advertising & Fees. MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Discovery Ongoing in ERISA Violations Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a purported class-action suit against Monster Worldwide, Inc., that was filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. A former company employee filed the putative class action suit in October 2006 against the company and a number of its current and former officers and directors. The action purports to be brought on behalf of all participants in the company's 401(k) plan. It alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary obligations to plan participants under Sections 404, 405, 409 and 502 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1104 et seq., by allowing plan participants to purchase and to hold and maintain company stock in their plan accounts without disclosing to those plan participants the historical stock option practices. The complaint seeks equitable restitution, attorneys' fees and an order enjoining defendants from violating the ERISA. At the defendants' behest, the Court, on Dec. 14, 2007, dismissed the ERISA action with prejudice as against the company and certain of the individual defendants including all of the company's current directors who have been named as defendants and without prejudice against certain of the individual defendants including one current employee of the company. On Feb. 15, 2008, the plaintiff (joined by three new proposed class representatives) filed a second amended complaint against the company, three of the individual defendants who had been dismissed from the action without prejudice, and three new defendants who are former employees of the company. The second amended complaint asserts the same allegations. The defendants have moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Discovery is now pending. The suit is "Taylor v. McKelvey, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-08322- AKH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Thomas James McKenna, Esq. (tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com) Gainey & McKenna, LLP 295 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-983-1300 Fax: 212-983-0383 Representing the defendants are: Evan T. Barr, Esq. (ebarr@steptoe.com) Steptoe & Johnson 750 Seventh Avenue, Ste. 1900 New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-506-3918 Fax: 212-506-3961 - and - Geoffrey Shannon Stewart, Esq. (gstewart@jonesday.com) Jones Day 222 East 41st Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-326-3939 Fax: 212-755-7306 PARMALAT: Thorp Reed Secures Dismissal for Pavia in Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Thorp Reed & Armstrong, LLP, has successfully secured a dismissal for independent Italian law firm Pavia e Ansaldo (Pavia) in a major class action suit brought by the shareholders of Parmalat SpA. The suit was brought against a number of independent institutions, including Bank of America, Citigroup and Pavia, following the Italian dairy firm's entering into bankruptcy, the largest in Europe's history. Bank of America and Citigroup were dismissed along with Pavia. The dismissal, handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, was issued on August 7 and made available to the public on August 11. The class action suit sought billions of dollars in damages and was brought on behalf of buyers of shares in Parmalat. Investors accused accounting firms, the banks, and Pavia, of willfully misleading them about the value of shares they purchased in Parmalat prior to the company's collapse in 2003. The collapse of Parmalat has been referred to as the "Enron of Europe." The recent United States Supreme Court decision in Stoneridge vs. Scientific Atlanta provided the basis for the ruling and clarified that Pavia, and the banks involved in the suit, had no liability for the fraud alleged in the Parmalat case. Joe Donley, Esq., the Thorp Reed & Armstrong partner who was lead counsel for Pavia in the case, commented, "The dismissal is extremely satisfying for all of us who worked on the case, but perhaps most importantly, it is an important moral, ethical and legal victory for Pavia e Ansaldo, a highly respected Italian law firm. The firm always maintained that it had no involvement in the Parmalat collapse and that it did not engage in any fraudulent or deceptive conduct, and the evidence showed that. We applaud the decision by Judge Kaplan and his recognition that the plaintiffs' arguments were unfounded in this matter." About Parmalat Headquartered in Milan, Italy, Parmalat S.p.A. -- http://www.parmalat.net/-- sells nameplate milk products that can be stored at room temperature for months. It also has about 40 brand product lines, which include yogurt, cheese, butter, cakes and cookies, breads, pizza, snack foods and vegetable sauces, soups and juices. The company's U.S. operations filed for chapter 11 protection on Feb. 24, 2004 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 04-11139). Gary Holtzer, Esq., and Marcia L. Goldstein, Esq., at Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, represent the Debtors. When the U.S. Debtors filed for bankruptcy protection, they reported more than US$200 million in assets and debts. The U.S. Debtors emerged from bankruptcy on April 13, 2005. Parmalat S.p.A. and its Italian affiliates filed separate petitions for Extraordinary Administration before the Italian Ministry of Productive Activities and the Civil and Criminal District Court of the City of Parma, Italy on Dec. 24, 2003. Dr. Enrico Bondi was appointed Extraordinary Commissioner in each of the cases. The Parma Court has declared the units insolvent. On June 22, 2004, Dr. Bondi filed a Sec. 304 Petition, Case No. 04-14268, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Parmalat has three financing arms: Dairy Holdings Ltd., Parmalat Capital Finance Ltd., and Food Holdings Ltd. Dairy Holdings and Food Holdings are Cayman Island special-purpose vehicles established by Parmalat S.p.A. The Finance Companies are under separate winding up petitions before the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands. Gordon I. MacRae and James Cleaver of Kroll (Cayman) Ltd. serve as Joint Provisional Liquidators in the cases. On Jan. 20, 2004, the Liquidators filed Sec. 304 petition, Case No. 04-10362, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. In May 2006, the Cayman Island Court appointed Messrs. MacRae and Cleaver as Joint Official Liquidators. Gregory M. Petrick, Esq., at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, and Richard I. Janvey, Esq., at Janvey, Gordon, Herlands Randolph, represent the Finance Companies in the Sec. 304 case. PERINI CORP: Mass. Court Denies Expedited Proceedings Request ------------------------------------------------------------- The Massachusetts Superior Court denied the plaintiff's request for expedited proceedings regarding a putative class action suit brought in opposition to a proposed merger between Perini Corporation -- a leading building, civil construction and construction management company -- and Tutor-Saliba Corporation. Earleir, Bull & Lifshitz, LLP, disclosed that a class action lawsuit was commenced in the Massachusetts Superior Court on June 17, 2008, on behalf of shareholders of Perini Corp. against the company, Tutor-Saliba Corporation, and the individual members of Perini's Board of Directors (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 12, 2008). Under the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated April 2, 2008, as amended, in exchange for all the outstanding stock of Tutor-Saliba, Tutor-Saliba shareholders will receive a total of 22,987,293 shares of Perini common stock, representing approximately 45% of the outstanding Perini common stock following the completion of the transaction. The Merger has been approved by Perini's Board of Directors but requires the approval of Perini's common stockholders. Such shareholder approval, among other matters, is being sought by the Perini Board of Directors at the Perini annual meeting of shareholders that will be held on September 5, 2008. The Complaint alleges, among other things, various disclosure violations in the proxy statements issued by Perini in connection with the Merger between Perini and Tutor-Saliba. The plaintiff has alleged that Perini's shareholders are being denied their fundamental right to make an informed decision on whether to vote for or against the Merger. Additionally, the Complaint alleges that the Merger was agreed to without any market check and that the Company's financial advisor is conflicted. The plaintiff intends to seek injunctive relief, inter alia, enjoining the shareholder vote scheduled for September 5, 2008, until additional information is provided in the proxy materials concerning the Merger. On August 13, 2008, the judge denied the plaintiff's request, finding that the plaintiff failed to make colorable claims or demonstrate that she would suffer irreparable harm requiring injunctive relief. The judge noted that the Securities and Exchange Commission's approval of the final Perini proxy on August 6, 2008 "was a particularly persuasive indication that the proxy is adequate to permit shareholders to make an informed choice" regarding the proposed merger. With the Court's denial of the motion, the litigation will proceed in an ordinary process. All defendants have moved to dismiss the litigation. Accordingly, Perini is not aware of any potential legal impediment to holding the shareholder vote on the proposed merger with Tutor-Saliba on schedule. For more information, contact: Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. Bull & Lifshitz, LLP 18 East 41st Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-213-6222 Fax: 212-213-9405 PPG INDUSTRIES: Flat Glass Antitrust Suit Deal Hearing Canceled --------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing in connection with the final approval of a settlement of antitrust claims against PPG Industries, Inc., has has yet to be scheduled. On Nov. 8, 2006, PPG entered into a class-wide settlement agreement to resolve all antitrust claims asserted by indirect purchasers of flat glass in California. PPG agreed to make a payment of $2.5 million, inclusive of attorneys' fees and costs. On Jan. 30, 2007, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The Court has also approved the form of notice to the settlement class. Initially scheduled for July 10, 2007, the hearing was canceled and has not been rescheduled. The company reported no further development in the matter in its July 28, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. PPG Industries, Inc. -- http://www.ppg.com/-- is a global supplier of protective and decorative coatings. The company operates in five segments: Performance Coatings, Industrial Coatings, Optical and Specialty Materials, Commodity Chemicals and Glass. The Performance Coatings and Industrial Coatings segments supply protective and decorative finishes for customers in a range of end use markets, including industrial equipment, appliances and packaging; factory-finished aluminum extrusions and steel and aluminum coils; marine and aircraft equipment; automotive original equipment; and other industrial and consumer products. In addition to supplying finishes to the automotive original equipment market, PPG supplies automotive refinishes to the aftermarket. PPG INDUSTRIES: Faces Pa. Consolidated Flat Glass Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries, Inc., is facing a consolidated antitrust lawsuit in Pennsylvania with regard to flat glass, according to the company's July 28, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. Initially, several complaints have been filed in different federal courts naming PPG and other flat glass producers as defendants in purported antitrust class action complaints. A handful of complaints where PPG is not named have been filed in additional federal courts. The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price and the terms and conditions of sale of flat glass in the U.S. in violation of federal antitrust laws. In June 2008, these cases were consolidated into the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Many allegations in the complaints are similar to those raised in recently concluded proceedings in Europe in which fines were levied against other flat glass producers arising out of alleged antitrust violations. PPG was not involved in any of the proceedings in Europe. PPG divested its European flat glass business in 1998. PPG Industries, Inc. -- http://www.ppg.com/-- is a global supplier of protective and decorative coatings. The company operates in five segments: Performance Coatings, Industrial Coatings, Optical and Specialty Materials, Commodity Chemicals and Glass. The Performance Coatings and Industrial Coatings segments supply protective and decorative finishes for customers in a range of end use markets, including industrial equipment, appliances and packaging; factory-finished aluminum extrusions and steel and aluminum coils; marine and aircraft equipment; automotive original equipment; and other industrial and consumer products. In addition to supplying finishes to the automotive original equipment market, PPG supplies automotive refinishes to the aftermarket. PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS: Recalls Cherry Pies Due to Soya Component -------------------------------------------------------------- Publix Super Markets is issuing a voluntary recall on three codes of No Sugar Added Cherry Pie with a sell-by-date of July 8 to July 27. UPC numbers for the affected product may be found on the back label below the Nutritional Facts panel: * Publix NSA 8inch Cherry Pie, UPC: 41415-65990 * Publix NSA 1/2 Cherry Pie, UPC: 03000-00225 * Publix NSA 1/4 Cherry Pie, UPC: 41415-66990 These products were sold in the retail bakeries and were recalled due to the undeclared soy ingredient. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to soy run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The recall affected stores in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee and Florida stores in Citrus County south through Monroe County, excluding Orlando proper stores. "The packaging error was detected during a routine label review," said Maria Brous, Publix media and community relations director. "As part of our commitment to food safety, we routinely inspect our product labeling for accuracy and for product quality. There have been no reported cases of illness. Customers who have purchased the product may return it to their store for a full refund or replacement. Consumers with questions may contact Publix at 1-800-242-1227." RCN CORP: Sued in N.Y. Over "Fast and Uncapped" Internet Service ---------------------------------------------------------------- RCN Corp. is facing a class-action complaint before the U.S. District Court in Manhattan accusing it of offering subscribers "fast and uncapped" Internet service at "unrivaled speeds," and then intentionally throttling communications, CourtHouse News Service reports. Herndon, Va.-based RCN Corporation is a broadband telecommunications services provider, delivering video, high- speed data and voice services to services primarily to Residential and Small & Medium Business (SMB) customers under the brand names of RCN and RCN Business Services. The Company serves about 416,000 residential and small and medium business customers. RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Multiple Antitrust Suits Over Natural Gas --------------------------------------------------------------- Reliant Energy, Inc., is a party to approximately 30 lawsuits, several of which are class-action suits, filed in state and federal courts in California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. These lawsuits relate to the company's alleged conduct to increase natural gas prices in violation of antitrust and similar laws. The suits also name a number of unaffiliated energy companies as parties. The suits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution and expenses. Reliant Energy, Inc. -- http://www.reliant.com/-- provides electricity and energy services to retail and wholesale customers through two business segments. Retail energy provides electricity and energy services to more than 1.8 million retail electricity customers in Texas, including residential and small business customers and commercial, industrial and governmental or institutional customers. It also serves commercial, industrial and governmental or institutional customers in the PJM Market, which primarily covers Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. Wholesale energy provides electricity and energy services in energy markets in the U.S. through its ownership and operation of or contracting for power generation capacity. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the company had approximately 16,000 megawatts of power generation capacity. On Aug. 20, 2007, the company's Channelview, Texax, power-plant project, filed for bankruptcy. SANDISK CORP: Calif. Court Considers Motions in Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to rule on certain motions filed in the consolidated class-action suit entitled "In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation, Civil Case No. C07-0086," which named SanDisk Corp. as a defendant, according to SanDisk's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2008. Between Aug. 31 and Dec. 14, 2007, SanDisk, along with a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products, was sued before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in eight purported class action complaints. On Feb. 7, 2008, all of the civil complaints were consolidated into two complaints, one on behalf of direct purchasers and one on behalf of indirect purchasers, before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in a purported class action captioned, "In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation, Civil Case No. C07-0086." The plaintiffs allege that the company and a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of NAND flash memory in violation of state and federal laws. The lawsuits purport to be on behalf of purchasers of flash memory between Jan. 1, 1999, through the present. The lawsuits seek an injunction, damages, restitution, fees, costs, and disgorgement of profits. On April 8, 2008, the company, along with its co-defendants, filed motions to dismiss the direct purchaser and indirect purchaser complaints. Also, the company, along with co- defendants, filed a motion for a protective order to stay discovery. On April 22, 2008, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed oppositions to the dismissal motions. The company's, along with co-defendants', reply to the oppositions was filed on May 13, 2008. The court took the motions to dismiss and the motion for a protective order under submission on June 3, 2008, and has yet to rule on the motions. The suit is "In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation, Case No. C07-0086," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Christine Pedigo Bartholomew, Esq. (cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com) Finkelstein Thompson LLP 100 Bush Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-398-8700 Fax: 415-398-8704 C. Donald Amamgbo, Esq. (Donald@Amamgbolaw.com) Amamgbo & Associates, APC 7901 Oakport Street, Suite 4900 Oakland, CA 94621 Phone: 510-615-6000 Fax: 510-615-6024 - and - Robert M. Bramson, Esq. (rbramson@bramsonplutzik.com) Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP 2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Phone: 925-945-0200 Fax: 925-945-8792 Representing the company is: Amy Elise Keating, Esq. (amy.keating@bingham.com) Bingham McCutchen LLP Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-393-2000 x2262 Fax: 415-393-2286 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Seeks High Court Review of Lead Pigment Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Sherwin-Williams Co. and several other defendants in a purported class-action suit in connection with lead pigment in paints filed a petition before the California Supreme Court requesting that it review an earlier decision made by the California Court of Appeal in the case. Initiated in March 2000, the suit names as plaintiffs the County of Santa Clara, County of Santa Cruz, County of Solano, County of Alameda, County of Kern, City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Housing Authority, San Francisco Unified School District, City of Oakland, Oakland Housing Authority, Oakland Redevelopment Agency, and the Oakland Unified School District. The case purports to be a class action on behalf of all public entities in the State of California except the state and its agencies. The plaintiffs' second amended complaint asserts claims for fraud and concealment, strict product liability or failure to warn, strict product liability or design defect, negligence, negligent breach of a special duty, public nuisance, private nuisance and violations of California's Business and Professions Code. Various asserted claims were resolved in favor of the defendants through pre-trial demurrers and motions to strike. In October 2003, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment against the remaining counts on statute of limitation grounds. The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's decision, and on March 3, 2006, the Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate District, reversed in part the demurrers and summary judgment entered in favor of the company and the other defendants. The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of the public nuisance claim for abatement brought by the cities of Santa Clara and Oakland and the City and County of San Francisco, and reversed summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs' fraud claim to the extent that the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had made fraudulent statements or omissions minimizing the risks of low-level exposure to lead. The Court of Appeal further vacated the summary judgment holding that statute of limitations barred the plaintiffs' strict liability and negligence claims, and held that those claims had not yet accrued because physical injury to the plaintiffs' property had not been alleged. The Court of Appeal also affirmed the dismissal of the public nuisance claim for damages to the plaintiffs' properties, most aspects of the fraud claim, the trespass claim and the unfair business practice claim. The plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. On April 4, 2007, the trial court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to bar payment of contingent fees to private attorneys. The plaintiffs appealed this order and the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order. The defendants filed a petition with the California Supreme Court requesting the Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeal, according to the company's July 22, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The Sherwin-Williams Co. -- http://www.sherwin-williams.com/-- is engaged in the manufacture, distribution and sale of paint, coatings and related products to professional, Industrial, commercial and retail customers primarily in North and South America. SUN MAR: Elder Care Operator and Plaintiff Attorney Settle Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Sun Mar Health Care, Inc., Sun Mar Management, and its 18 California skilled nursing homes recently settled for $2 million a class action lawsuit (Case #30-200800037875) by Warren Richardson, by and through his Attorney in Fact Marlene Miller, Esq., on behalf of all California citizens who resided in, or are residing in, one of the company's California facilities from Jan. 9, 2005, through Jan. 9, 2008. The complaint alleges the company's California facilities failed to comply with applicable laws and regulations, which has been addressed and resolved through settlement. "Though we do not admit liability, we chose to settle this case because we are, and have been, firmly committed to the well- being of our residents," said Irving Bauman, president and principal of Brea, Calif.-based Sun Mar Health Care, Inc. "Litigation is a long, expensive process that would take our focus away from where it belongs . . . on our residents." The $2 million settlement will be distributed to class members at a per diem rate for the amount of time that they did reside or still reside in a Sun Mar owned or managed skilled nursing and long-term facility from Jan. 9, 2005, to Jan. 9, 2008. The settlement also mandates that all unclaimed money that revert back to Sun Mar must be utilized for staffing the facilities. "The purpose of a class action suit is to make positive change," says Long Beach, Calif., plaintiff attorney Stephen M. Garcia of The Garcia Law Firm. "We appreciate that Sun Mar is stepping up to the plate and taking action to ensure its compliance with such important regulations as maintaining minimum staffing." Mr. Bauman says that he is agreeing to the appointment of an independent monitor, who will undertake quarterly inspections of select Sun Mar facilities, because Sun Mar management and staff are committed to providing the best possible care to its residents. In fact, Sun Mar management has abdicated all rights to the selection of the monitor. To maintain the monitor's credibility, he will be selected by plaintiff attorney Stephen Garcia, Esq. "This settlement demonstrates how the civil justice system can benefit everybody," says Mr. Garcia. "The elder and infirm adults and their families at Sun Mar's 18 facilities can hopefully now be assured of quality care, and Sun Mar has the opportunity to improve the level of quality care it offers its residents. Should they not, the auditor will act vigilantly." For more information, contact: Geri Wilson, Esq. (gerij9@yahoo.com) The Jonathan Group Phone: 626-403-6741 TENET HEALTHCARE: Stills Faces Calif. Labor Law Violations Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tenet Healthcare Corp. continues to face several purported class-action suits, alleging violations various labor laws, which were coordinated in the Los Angeles Superior Court, according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. McDonough & Tien Litigation On Sept. 28, 2004, the court granted the company's petition to coordinate two pending wage and hour actions, captioned, "McDonough, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation," and "Tien, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation," in Los Angeles Superior Court. The McDonough case was originally filed on June 24, 2003, in the San Diego Superior Court and the Tien case was originally filed on May 21, 2004, in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The plaintiffs in both cases allege that Tenet's hospitals violated certain provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders with respect to meal breaks, rest periods and the payment of one hour's compensation for meal breaks or rest periods not taken. The complaint in the Tien case also alleges that the company have improperly "rounded off" time entries on timekeeping records and that our pay stubs do not include all information required by California law. The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking back pay, statutory penalties, interest and attorneys' fees. Later, the plaintiffs in the McDonough and Tien cases filed motions, which the company opposed, to certify these actions on behalf of virtually all nonexempt employees of our California subsidiaries, as separated into four classes (and one subclass) based on the specific claims at issue. The court issued a ruling on plaintiffs' motions on June 3, 2008. In that ruling, the court denied plaintiffs' request for class certification on the claim that employees missed rest periods. H owever, the court granted plaintiffs' request for class certification on the claims that employees' pay stubs did not contain all information required by California law and hourly employees did not receive appropriate wages due at the time of their termination. The court also certified a subclass of 12-hour shift employees who received missed meal penalties at a reduced rate, but stated that this subclass should be handled in connection with the purported class-action suit, "Pagaduan v. Fountain Valley Regional Medical Center," which was filed with the Orange County Superior Court. Lastly, the court conditionally certified a class of all current or former hourly employees who were allegedly not provided meal periods, for the purpose of determining certain limited preliminary factual issues. A hearing on the company's motion for reconsideration of the court's class certification ruling was held on July 16, 2008, and the company is awaiting the court's decision. Pagaduan & Falck Litigation The company also faces two proposed class-action suits involving allegations regarding unpaid overtime. The suits are: a. "Pagaduan v. Fountain Valley Regional Medical Center," filed with the Orange County Superior Court, and b. "Falck v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation," pending with U.S. District Court for the Central District of California These lawsuits allege that the company's pay practices since 2000 for California-based 12-hour shift employees violate California and, in the Falck case, federal overtime laws by virtue of the alleged failure to include certain payments known as Flexible (or California) Differential payments in the regular rate of pay that is used to calculate overtime pay. These payments are made to 12-hour shift employees when they do not work a shift that is exactly 12 hours. The company contends that these differential payments need only be included in the regular rate of pay when they actually are paid (as opposed to merely being potentially payable), and that they always are included in the regular rate calculation in these circumstances. The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking back pay, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees. In February 2007, the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that the Pagaduan case be coordinated with the previously coordinated McDonough and Tien cases already pending there, as described above. The company is now defending these wage and hour cases in a single court. On Feb. 14, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the Pagaduan case. Since that time, the court has set Oct. 14, 2008, as the date a trial on one of the defendants' principal defenses will begin. Separately, the Falck case, which was first provisionally certified as a collective action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act for the purpose of giving notice to potential class members, was certified as a class action for all purposes on Feb. 12, 2008. Tenet Healthcare Corp. -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is engaged in the provision of healthcare services, primarily through the operation of general hospitals. WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Minn. Suit Over Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Waste Management Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging it violates the Labor Code, CourtHouse News Service reports. The plaintiffs bring the action pursuant to 29 U.S.C Section 216(b), on behalf of all employees of defendant who work or worked as drivers and ride-along loaders or helpers in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid for all overtime hours worked during the applicable statute of limitations. The plaintiffs demand: -- judgment against defendant for an amount equal to plaintiffs' and similarly situated individuals' unpaid back wages at the applicable overtime rate; -- an equal amount to the overtime damages as liquidated damages; -- all costs and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting this claim; -- an award of prejudgment interest (to the extent liquidated damages are not awarded); -- leave to add additional plaintiffs by motion, the filing of written consent forms, or any other method approved by the court; -- leave to amend to add claims under applicable state laws; and -- such further relief as the court deems just and equitable. The suit is "Chuck Saleen, et al. v. Waste Management, Inc., Case No. 08-4959 PJS/AJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Representing the plaintiffs are: Paul J. Lukas, Esq. Michele R. Fisher, Esq. Nichols Kaster, LLP 4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-256-3200 Fax: 612-218-4870 New Securities Fraud Cases GT SOLAR: Finkelstein Thompson Files N.H. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Finkelstein Thompson LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of GT Solar International, Inc., in connection with the Company's July 23, 2008 initial public offering. The complaint alleges that GT Solar and certain of its officers, directors, and underwriters violated the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. On July 23, 2008, GT Solar closed its initial public offering of 30.3 million shares at $16.50 a share. According to the complaint, since June 2005, GT Solar has entered into a number of contracts for the sale of equipment and technology to LDK Solar Co. Ltd. Since then, the importance of GT Solar's relationship with LDK has grown. In the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008, LDK reportedly accounted for 63% of GT Solar's revenue. According to the complaint, GT Solar misrepresented or failed to disclose that it was at a serious risk of losing its contracts with LDK because of delays in shipping equipment to LDK and that this would severely impact GT Solar's business. As a result of Defendants' failure to disclose the material facts concerning LDK, GT Solar's stock sold at inflated levels in the IPO. Once the reality of LDK and GT Solar's relationship came to light, the Company's shares dropped 14% to close at $12.42 per share, a 30% drop from the $16.50 per share price during the Company's IPO. Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 30, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Finkelstein Thompson LLP The Duvall Foundry 1050 30th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20007 Phone: 202-337-8000 877-337-1050 (toll free) Fax: 202-337-8090 e-mail: contact@finkelsteinthompson.com Web site: http://www.finkelsteinthompson.com/ PERINI CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mass. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Perini Corp. common stock during the period between Nov. 2, 2006, and Jan. 17, 2008. The complaint charges Perini and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Perini and its subsidiaries offer general contracting, construction management, and design-build services to private clients and public agencies worldwide. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to disclose: (a) that the developer of Perini's Las Vegas, Nevada projects, including the CityCenter Project, was experiencing financial problems because it failed to secure financing for the entire project and was dependent upon raising the remainder of the financing from the expected sale of residential units. However, the proceeds from the residential unit sales were based on unrealistic and aggressive prices at a time when the condo market in Las Vegas, Nevada was extremely weak; (b) that the Company's Las Vegas projects were being delayed, and could possibly be halted; (c) that the developer was in risk of defaulting on its construction loan; (d) that the Company's future revenue and profit was dependent upon the Las Vegas projects since the projects consisted of approximately 20% of its backlog; and (e) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's ability to maintain its profit margins was in serious doubt. Then, on January 17, 2008, the Company issued a press release announcing that Deutsche Bank "delivered a notice of loan default to the developer of the Cosmopolitan Resort and Casino project under construction in Las Vegas, Nevada." In response to this announcement, shares of the Company's common stock fell $10.05 per share, or 27%, to close at $27.65 per share, on heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Perini common stock during the Class Period. For more information, contact: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 800-449-4900 REDDY ICE: Spector Roseman Commences Michigan Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., commenced a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., between August 10, 2005, through March 6, 2008, inclusive. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial performance and prospects in violation of Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, from at least 2002 to the present, defendants engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade to artificially raise, fix, maintain or stabilize prices for packaged ice in the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1. Additionally, it is alleged that defendants divided up the packaged ice market so that they would not compete with other packaged ice makers, such as Arctic Glacier International, Inc., and Home City Ice Co. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Reddy Ice failed to disclose that: (a) the Company was recognizing significant amounts of revenues derived from illegal activities in violation of the U.S. antitrust laws; and (b) as a result, the Company's financial statements were not a fair presentation of Reddy Ice's results and were presented in violation of U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules. On March 6, 2008, after the markets closed, Reddy Ice issued a press release announcing that "federal officials executed a search warrant at the Company's corporate office in Dallas on March 5, 2008." Upon this news, on the next trading day, shares of the Company's stock fell $7.73 per share, or 33%, to close at $15.38 per share, on heavy trading volume. Interested parties may move the court no later than October 7, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Robert M. Roseman, Esq. Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 888-844-5862 Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Resolves ASARCO Confidentiality Issue ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard Schmidt resolves the objections filed by Mt. McKinley Insurance Company and Everest Reinsurance Company, as well as the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company to the request of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of ASARCO LLC's subsidiaries to prohibit the disclosure of personal information of asbestos claimants. Judge Schmidt ruled that MMIC and FFIC may receive copies of all asbestos claims, including materials and supporting documents for the purpose of prosecuting or defending any interest MMIC may assert against the Debtors; provided that: (a) MMIC and FFIC will maintain copies of the asbestos claims materials on a confidential basis and not disseminate or disclose the information for other purposes; and (b) To the extent that MMIC uses the Asbestos Claims Materials in the Debtors' bankruptcy cases, these will be filed under seal with the Court. Judge Schmidt also ruled that if an entity in possession of the Asbestos Claims Materials receives a subpoena or other request seeking production of Asbestos Claims Materials, that entity will immediately notify the counsel for the Asbestos Committee, indicating the Asbestos Claims Materials sought and enclosing a copy of the subpoena or other request, at least 10 days before the deadline of the requested production or other disclosure. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 79; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McVay to Help in ASARCO Committee Selection ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Trustee for Region 7 Charles F. McVay informs ASARCO LLC that he agrees to cooperate with the Debtors in the selection, addition, and appointment of asbestos claimants to the reconstituted Official Unsecured Creditors Committee for the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors. The U.S. Trustee points out that the Motion seeks the establishment of a sub committee within the reconstituted creditors' committee for the Asbestos Debtors to resolve conflicts, if they arise. He says conflicts should be addressed in the bylaws of the reconstituted committee. Asarco Incorporated and Americas Mining Corporation ask for more time to allow them to conclude negotiations, or allow them to present orally their position on the request. Luc A. Despins, Esq., at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP in New York, tells the Court that Asarco Inc., the Asbestos Subsidiaries' Committee and the Future Claims Representative have been actively engaged in constructive negotiations to settle and resolve the asbestos-related claims. Mr. Despins says that although there is no certainty that a settlement will be reached, the parties are very close to a consensual resolution, which would subsume the issues subject to the Motions. In the event that a settlement cannot be reached, then Asarco Inc. and AMC reserve their rights to take a position with respect to the Motions when considered by the Court. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 79; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites 25,741 Abex Claims at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Industries, Ltd., at June 30, 2008, recorded 25,741 pending asbestos-related claims that are part of its obligation to Pneumo Abex Corporation. At March 31, 2008, the Company recorded 29,599 pending asbestos- related claims that are part of its obligation to Pneumo Abex Corporation. (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2008) In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products business to Federal-Mogul Corporation. These discontinued businesses (including the Abex product line obtained from Pneumo-Abex Corporation in 1994) were operated through subsidiary companies, and the stock of those subsidiaries was sold to Federal-Mogul under a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated Aug. 17, 1998 ("1998 Agreement"). In conjunction with the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified the Company for certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies, including liabilities related to the Abex product line and any potential liability that the Company may have to Pneumo under a 1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between the Company and Pneumo. On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has confirmed Federal-Mogul's plan of reorganization and Federal-Mogul emerged from bankruptcy in December 2007. As part of Federal-Mogul's Plan of Reorganization, the Company and Federal-Mogul have reached a settlement agreement, resolving Federal-Mogul's indemnification obligations to the Company. As part of its obligation to Pneumo for any asbestos-related claims arising from the Abex product line ("Abex Claims"), the Company has rights, confirmed by Pneumo, to significant insurance for such claims. Based on information provided by representatives of Federal- Mogul and recent claims experience, from Aug. 28, 1998 through June 30, 2008, a total of 145,070 Abex Claims were filed, of which 119,329 claims have been resolved. During the six months ended June 30, 2008, 1,536 claims were filed and 5,245 claims were resolved. Since Aug. 28, 1998, the average indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was US$2,100 before insurance. A total of US$138 million was spent on defense costs for the period Aug. 28, 1998 through June 30, 2008. Historically, existing insurance coverage has provided 50 percent to 80 percent of the total defense and indemnity payments for Abex Claims. However, insurance recovery is currently at a lower percentage (about 30 percent) due to exhaustion of primary layers of coverage and litigation with certain excess insurers. Headquartered in Houston, Cooper Industries, Ltd. makes electrical products, tools, hardware, and metal support products. Subsidiary Cooper B-Line makes metal support products that include conduits, cable trays, and fasteners. Customers in the United States provide more than 70 percent of the Company's sales. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Faces 1,185 Remaining Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- CH Energy Group, Inc. says that, as of July 15, 2008, 1,185 asbestos cases remain against its subsidiary Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, out of 3,312 asbestos cases filed. Central Hudson, as of April 15, 2008, had about 1,183 asbestos cases remaining of the 3,310 cases filed against Central Hudson. (Class Action Reporter, May 9, 2008) Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,976 have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 151 cases. Central Hudson is presently unable to assess the validity of the remaining asbestos lawsuits. Accordingly, it cannot determine the ultimate liability relating to these cases. Headquartered in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., CH Energy Group, Inc. provides electricity to the Hudson Valley. Utility subsidiary Central Hudson Gas & Electric provides electricity to 367,000 customers in eight counties of New York State's Mid-Hudson River Valley, and delivers natural gas and electricity in a 2,600- square-mile service territory that extends from New York City to Albany. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Industries Still Facing Exposure Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- NL Industries, Inc. continues to face lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by the Company's former operations containing asbestos, silica and mixed dust. About 470 of these types of cases remain pending, involving a total of about 6,500 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of about 3,400 former plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed from Ohio State Courts. The Company does not expect these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. The Company has not accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if any. The Company faced about 470 pending injury cases, including asbestos, involving a total of about 7,000 plaintiffs and their spouses. (Class Action Reporter, May 9, 2008) Headquartered in Dallas, NL Industries, Inc. operates in the component products industry through its majority-owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. The Company also owns a non-controlling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc. Valhi owns 83 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Facing 115,000 Claims as of June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc. had 115,000 open asbestos-related claims for the nine months ended June 30, 2008, compared with 139,000 claims for the nine months ended June 30, 2007. The Company 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. (Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2008) During the nine months ended June 30, 2008, the Company noted 2,000 claims settled and 20,000 claims dismissed. During the nine months ended June 30, 2007, the Company noted 1,000 claims settled and 26,000 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, a former subsidiary. Although Riley was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos, its industrial boilers contained some asbestos- containing components provided by other companies. Because claims are frequently filed and settled in large groups, the amount and timing of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate significantly from period to period. Since Oct. 1, 2004, the Company has been dismissed as a defendant in 88 percent of the resolved claims. New claims filed for the nine months ended June 30, 2008 were 3,154 claims (3,525 claims for the nine months ended June 30, 2007). During the most recent annual update of this estimate completed during the June 2008 quarter, it was determined that the reserve adjustment for asbestos claims should be increased by US$2 million. Total reserves for asbestos claims were US$580 million at June 30, 2008, compared with US$610 million at Sept. 30, 2007 and US$617 million at June 30, 2007. At June 30, 2008, the Company's receivable for recoveries of litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers amounted to US$468 million, of which US$74 million relates to costs previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to US$488 million at Sept. 30, 2007 and US$490 million at June 30, 2007. The receivable was increased by US$8 million during the June 2008 quarter. Headquartered in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc. 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: Exide to Indemnify French Agency for $300T --------------------------------------------------------------- Exide Technologies, in calendar 2007, had been adjudged liable to indemnify a French governmental agency for about US$300,000 for asbestos claims. From 1957 to 1982, CEAC, the Company's principal French subsidiary, Compagnie Europenne D Accumulateurs (d/b/a CEAC) operated a plant using crocidolite asbestos fibers in the formation of battery cases, which, once formed, encapsulated the fibers. About 1,500 employees worked in the plant over the period. Since 1982, the French governmental agency responsible for worker illness claims received 64 employee claims alleging asbestos- related illnesses. For some of those claims, CEAC is obligated to and has indemnified the agency in accordance with French law for about US$400,000 in calendar 2004. In addition, CEAC has been adjudged liable to indemnify the agency for about US$100,000 during the same period for the dependents of four such claimants. The Company was not required to indemnify or make any payments in calendar years 2005 and 2006. Headquartered in Alpharetta, Ga., Exide Technologies produces and recycles lead-acid batteries. The Company's four business segments, Transportation Americas, Transportation Europe and Rest of World, Industrial Energy Americas, and Industrial Energy Europe and ROW, provide stored electrical energy products and services for transportation and industrial applications. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $3.541B for Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc.'s gross asbestos reserve for losses and loss expenses was US$3.541 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2008, compared with US$4.079 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2007. The Company's gross asbestos reserves for losses and loss expenses were US$3.598 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2008, compared with US$4.313 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2008) The Company's net asbestos reserve for losses and loss expenses was US$1.288 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2008, compared with US$1.596 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2007. Most of the claims arise from policies written in 1984 and prior years. The Company's gross reserve for losses and loss expenses for incurred-but-not-reported asbestos claims was US$2.520 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2008, compared with US$3.068 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2007. The Company's net reserve for losses and loss expenses for IBNR asbestos claims was US$997 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, compared with US$1.279 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2007. For the six months ended June 30, 2008, the Company had 392 claims opened, 97 claims settled, 551 claims dismissed or otherwise resolved, and 6,307 claims at end of period. For the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company had 300 claims opened, 66 claims settled, 544 claims dismissed or otherwise resolved, and 6,568 claims at end of period. The Company's survival ratios for asbestos claims were a gross of 5.7 years (net of 4.3 years) at June 30, 2008, compared with a gross of 8.6 years (net of 7.4 years) at June 30, 2007. Headquartered in New York, American International Group, Inc. provides insurance, financial and investment products and services to both businesses and individuals in more than 130 countries and jurisdictions. The Company's subsidiaries serve commercial, institutional and individual customers through a property-casualty and life insurance and retirement services network. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Still Facing 1,500 Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., at June 30, 2008, faced about 1,500 pending asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company N.V. faced about 1,500 pending asbestos-related claims as of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 9, 2008) The Company is a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work the Company may have performed at various locations. The Company has never been a manufacturer, distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Through June 30, 2008, the Company has been named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,700 plaintiffs. Of those claims, 3,200 have been closed through dismissals or settlements. Through June 30, 2008, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount per claim of about US$1,000. With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, the Company cannot identify a population of potential claimants with sufficient certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of liability, if any. At June 30, 2008, the Company had accrued US$1,335,000 for liability and related expenses. Headquartered in The Hague, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. is a global specialty engineering and construction company that maintains liquefied natural gas storage tanks; petrochemical and gas processing plants; steel pressure vessels for high-temperature applications; and heat transfer equipment. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Corp. Reserves $1.25Bil at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corporation's asbestos claims reserves were US$1.25 billion (net of insurance recoverables of US$724) at June 30, 2008. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's asbestos claims reserves were US$1.30 billion (net of reinsurance recoverables of US$752 million). The Company'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. (Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2008) About 63 percent of the total net asbestos and environmental reserves at June 30, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007 were for incurred but not reported estimated losses. Headquartered in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corporation sells auto, homeowners, property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the United States. The Company's life insurance subsidiaries include Allstate Life, American Heritage Life, and Lincoln Benefit Life. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Cites 34,735 Cases at June 27 ---------------------------------------------------------------- General Cable Corporation, as of June 27, 2008, was a defendant in about 34,735 asbestos cases, in which about 1,253 were non- maritime cases and 33,482 were maritime cases. These cases were brought in various jurisdictions throughout the United States. As of March 28, 2008, the Company was a defendant in about 34,717 asbestos-related cases, in which about 1,269 were non- maritime cases and 33,448 were maritime cases. (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2008) In addition, Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by the Company. As of June 27, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has accrued, on a gross basis, about US$5.2 million and has recorded about US$500,000 of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits. Headquartered in Highland Heights, Ky., General Cable Corporation develops, designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes copper, aluminum, and fiber optic wire and cable products. The Company manages its worldwide operations based on three geographical reportable segments: 1) North America, 2) Europe and North Africa and 3) Rest of World (ROW). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Ongoing v. Anadarko Petroleum --------------------------------------------------------------- Anadarko Petroleum Corporation continues to face various personal injury claims, including claims by employees of third- party contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica and benzene while working at refineries. These refineries were previously owned by predecessors of acquired companies and are located in Texas, California and Oklahoma. Headquartered in The Woodlands, Tex., Anadarko Petroleum Corporation explores for, develops, produces, gathers, processes, and markets natural gas, crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids (NGLs). The Company also engages in the hard minerals business through non-operated joint ventures and royalty arrangements. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Injury Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to face 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 seeks damages from the Company alone. Headquartered in Marysville, Ohio, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company manufactures, markets, and sells lawn and garden care products. The Company's major 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: Noble Corp. Facing 38 Suits as of July 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Noble Corporation, at July 31, 2008, faces 38 asbestos lawsuits, one of which is scheduled for trial in 2008. The Company faces lawsuits that are incidental to its operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury, including claims purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities. These lawsuits have been filed in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. At April 30, 2008, the Company faced about 38 asbestos-related lawsuits, two of which were scheduled for trial in 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2008) Headquartered in Sugar Land, Tex., Noble Corporation is an offshore drilling contractor for the oil and gas industry. The Company performs contract drilling services with its fleet of 62 offshore drilling units located worldwide, including the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, the Middle East, India, Mexico, the North Sea, Brazil, and West Africa. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Facing 848 Claims in W.Va., Pa. -------------------------------------------------------------- Allegheny Energy, Inc.'s asbestos exposure claims, as of June 30, 2008, totaled 848, of which 842 were filed in West Virginia and four were filed in Pennsylvania. As of March 31, 2008, the Company faced 838 claims alleging exposure to asbestos in West Virginia. The Company also faced three claims in Pennsylvania. (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2008) The Company's Distribution Companies (Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company, and West Penn Power Company) have been named as defendants in pending asbestos cases alleging bodily injury involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple sites. These suits have been brought mostly by seasonal contractors' employees and do not involve allegations of the manufacture, sale or distribution of asbestos-containing products by the Company. These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are related to the installation and removal of asbestos-containing materials at the Company's generation facilities. The Company's historical operations were insured by various foreign and domestic insurers, including Lloyd's of London. Asbestos-related litigation expenses have to date been reimbursed in full by recoveries from these historical insurers, and the Company said it believes that it has sufficient insurance to respond fully to the asbestos suits. Certain insurers, however, have contested their obligations to pay for the future defense and settlement costs relating to the asbestos suits. The Company is involved in three asbestos and environmental insurance-related actions: -- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London et al. v. Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733 (Washington County, Md.), -- Monongahela Power Company et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London and London Market Companies, et al., Civil Action No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia County, W.Va.) and -- Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 07-3168-BLS (Suffolk Superior Court, Mass.). The parties in these actions seek a declaration of coverage under the policies for asbestos-related and environmental claims. Headquartered in Greensburg, Pa., Allegheny Energy, Inc. is an integrated energy business that owns and operates electric generation facilities and delivers electric services to customers in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia. The Company's two business segments are the Delivery and Services segment and the Generation and Marketing segment. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Curtiss-Wright Still Facing Exposure Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Curtiss-Wright Corporation or 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 Aug. 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. Headquartered in Roseland, N.J., Curtiss-Wright Corporation 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: ConEd, Units Still Facing Injury Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s utilities still face asbestos- related lawsuits filed in New York State and federal courts, wherein plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The Utilities are: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. In 2006, Con Edison of New York estimated that its aggregate undiscounted potential liability for these suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15 years is US$10 million. In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. Under its current rate agreements, Con Edison of New York is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation claims. At June 30, 2008, the Company's accrued liability for asbestos suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits were US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers' compensation was US$114 million, and its regulatory assets for workers' compensation were US$38 million. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's accrued liability for asbestos suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits were US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers' compensation was US$116 million, and its regulatory assets for workers' compensation were US$41 million. At June 30, 2008, ConEd of New York's accrued liability for asbestos suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits were US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers' compensation was US$108 million, and its regulatory assets for workers' compensation were US$38 million. At Dec. 31, 2007, ConEd of New York's accrued liability for asbestos suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits were US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers' compensation was US$111 million, and its regulatory assets for workers' compensation were US$41 million. Headquartered in New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes electricity to more than 3.2 million residential and business customers in New York City; it also delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million customers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Enters Joint Proposal with N.Y. PSC -------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., in August 2008, entered into a Joint Proposal with the staff of the New York Public State Commission (PSC) and the New York State Consumer Protection Board over the PSC's ongoing proceeding relating to the steam main rupture. Con Edison of New York is a Consolidated Edison, Inc. subsidiary. In July 2007, a Con Edison of New York steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured. It has been reported that one person died and others were injured as a result of the incident. Several buildings in the area were damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos. The response to the incident required the closing of several buildings and streets for various periods. As of June 30, 2008, with respect to the incident, the Company incurred estimated operating costs of US$35 million for property damage, clean up and other response costs, recorded US$21 million in actual and expected insurance recoveries and invested US$12 million in capital, retirement and other costs. Over 50 suits are pending against the Company seeking generally unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, for personal injury, property damage and business interruption. The Company has notified its insurers of the incident and believes that the policies currently in force will cover most of the Company's costs to satisfy its liability to others in connection with the incident. Under the Joint Proposal, which is subject to PSC approval, the Company: -- Will not recover from customers the operating, capital and retirement costs it incurred as a result of the steam main rupture; -- Will, in general, effectively be limited in its recovery from customers of premiums for its excess liability insurance policies for each of the policy years beginning April 2008 through April 2011 to amounts designed to prevent recovery of any premium increase resulting from the steam main rupture; and -- Will be released from all prudence-related claims that were or could have been asserted in any PSC proceeding relating to the steam main rupture other than with respect to any damage to company facilities, or incremental costs, that are neither known nor reasonably foreseeable. The Joint Proposal does not preclude the PSC from pursuing a penalty action for any violations of the Public Service Law or the PSC's regulations or orders. Headquartered in New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes electricity to more than 3.2 million residential and business customers in New York City; it also delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million customers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Cites 29 Cases Set for Trial in 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Belden Inc. says that 29 asbestos personal injury cases are scheduled for trial in 2008, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. At July 28, 2008, the Company was aware of 136 asbestos cases, in which it was 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 July 28, 2008, the Company has been dismissed, or reached agreement to be dismissed, in about 235 similar cases without any going to trial, and with 22 of these involving any payment to the claimant. The Company has insurance that it believes should cover a significant portion of any defense or settlement costs borne by the Company in these types of cases. The Company cited 40 asbestos-related actions scheduled for trial in 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2008) Headquartered in St. Louis, Belden Inc. We 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: Actions v. IDEX, Units Ongoing in 30 States ---------------------------------------------------------------- IDEX Corporation and five of its subsidiaries still face lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related personal injuries in 30 states. 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. These cases were filed stemming from exposure to products manufactured with components that contained asbestos. 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. Headquartered in Northbrook, Ill., 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. The Company has four segments: Fluid & Metering Technologies, Health & Science Technologies, Dispensing Equipment and Fire & Safety/Diversified Products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26,292 Claims Pending v. Harsco at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Harsco Corporation, as of June 30, 2008, faced about 26,292 pending asbestos personal injury claims, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Of these cases, 25,751 were pending in the New York Supreme Court for New York County in New York State. The other claims, totaling 541, 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 June 30, 2008, the Company has obtained dismissal by stipulation, or summary judgment prior to trial, in 17,770 cases. As of March 31, 2008, the Company faced 26,275 pending asbestos personal injury claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, May 23, 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 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. The Company expects to continue to receive additional claims. However, there have been developments during the past several years, both by certain state legislatures and by certain state courts, which could favorably affect the Company's ability to defend these asbestos claims in those jurisdictions. An example is the action taken by the New York Supreme Court (a trial court), which is responsible for managing all asbestos cases pending within New York County in the State of New York. This Court issued an order in December 2002 that created a Deferred or Inactive Docket for all pending and future asbestos claims filed by plaintiffs who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant condition or discernable physical impairment, and an Active or In Extremis Docket for plaintiffs who are able to show such medical condition. As a result of this order, the majority of the asbestos cases filed against the Company in New York County have been moved to the Inactive Docket until such time as the plaintiff can show that they have incurred a physical impairment. As of June 30, 2008, the Company has been listed as a defendant in 396 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County. The Court's Order has been challenged by plaintiffs. Headquartered in Camp Hill, Pa., Harsco Corporation's mill services unit, MultiServ, offers metal reclamation, slag processing, scrap management, and other services for steel and nonferrous metals producers. The Company's Access Services businesses, SGB Group, Hunnebeck Group, and Patent Construction Systems, rent and sell concrete-forming equipment, scaffolding, and bridge-decking products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Facing 192 Claims at June 29 -------------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corporation faced 192 pending asbestos-related claims as of June 29, 2008, compared with 185 pending claims at March 30, 2008 and 175 pending claims at Dec. 30, 2007. The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi. The Company did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos. Rather, it made some limited products, which contained encapsulated asbestos. Those products were provided to industrial users. The Company stopped manufacturing these products in 1987. Of 192 claims pending as of June 29, 2008, 53 claims do not specify the amount of damages sought, 134 claims cite jurisdictional amounts, and five claims (or about 2.6 percent of the pending claims) specify the amount of damages sought not based on jurisdictional requirements. Of these five claims, one claim alleges compensatory and punitive damages, each of US$20 million; two claims allege compensatory and punitive damages, each of US$1 million, and an unspecified amount of exemplary damages, interest and costs; and two claims allege compensatory damages of US$65 million and punitive damages of US$60 million. These five claims name between nine and 76 defendants. Cases involving the Company typically name 50-300 defendants, although some cases have had as few as one and as many as 833 defendants. The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these claims. In the six month period ended June 29, 2008, the Company was able to have about 26 claims dismissed and did not have to settle any claims. For the full year 2007, about 59 claims were dismissed and 12 were settled. The majority of costs have been paid by the Company's insurance carriers, including the costs associated with the small number of cases that have been settled. Those settlements totaled about US$2 million in 2007. Headquartered in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corporation develops and makes high performance, specialty-material-based products for applications in diverse markets including: portable communications, communications infrastructure, computer and office equipment, consumer products, ground transportation, aerospace and defense. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex Int'l. Still Facing Liability Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Superior Essex Inc.'s affiliate, Essex International Inc., and certain subsidiaries have been facing asbestos-related product liability lawsuits since about 1990. These suits were brought by electricians, other skilled tradesmen and others claiming injury, in a substantial majority of cases, from exposure to asbestos found in electrical wire products produced many years ago. Litigation against various past insurers of Essex International who had previously refused to defend and indemnify Essex International against these lawsuits was settled during 1999. Under the settlement, Essex International was reimbursed for substantially all of its costs and expenses incurred in the defense of these lawsuits, and the insurers have undertaken to defend, are currently directly defending and, if it should become necessary, will indemnify Essex International against those asbestos lawsuits, subject to the terms and limits of the respective policies. Under the plan of reorganization, certain of the claimants in these actions will be able to assert claims against the insurers under applicable insurance coverage and related arrangements. Headquartered in Atlanta, Superior Essex Inc. manufactures and supplies wire and cable products for the communications, energy, automotive, industrial, and commercial/residential end-markets. The Company also distributes magnet wire, insulation, and related products sold to smaller original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, and motor repair facilities. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 700 Stearns Suits Pending v. RBS at June 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- RBS Global, Inc. faces 700 asbestos-related lawsuits (about 6,950 claimants) pertaining to its Stearns division or its predecessor owners as of June 28, 2008. These suits are pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by Stearns division or the predecessor owners. Invensys plc and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid 100 percent of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. The Company said that certain subsidiaries have been named as defendants in about 690 asbestos-related lawsuits (with about 6,850 claimants) relating to its Stearns division. (Class Action Reporter, June 6, 2008) Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is a global, diversified, multi-platform industrial company comprised of two strategic segments, Power Transmission and Water Management. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Prager Unit Still Facing 2 Injury Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- RBS Global, Inc.'s Prager subsidiary continues to face two multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due to the presence of asbestos in a product allegedly manufactured by Prager. About 3,700 claimants are in the Prager lawsuits. To date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100 percent of the costs related to the Prager lawsuits. The Company said it believes that the combination of its insurance coverage and the Invensys plc indemnity obligations will cover any future costs of these suits. Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is a global, diversified, multi-platform industrial company comprised of two strategic segments, Power Transmission and Water Management. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 150 Actions Pending v. Falk Unit at June 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- RBS Global Inc.'s Falk unit face about 150 lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by Falk. About 2,230 claimants are in these suits. Hamilton Sundstrand, a division of United Technologies Corporation, is defending Falk in these lawsuits under its indemnity obligations and has paid 100 percent of the costs to date. Falk faced about 130 asbestos-related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, June 6, 2006) Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is a global, diversified, multi-platform industrial company comprised of two strategic segments, Power Transmission and Water Management. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases v. Zurn Drop to 6T at June 28 --------------------------------------------------------------- One of RBS Global, Inc.'s Water Management (WM) subsidiaries, Zurn Industries, LLC, faces about 6,000 asbestos-related cases representing about 45,000 claims as of June 28, 2008. Zurn faced about 6,900 asbestos-related cases representing about 45,000 claims. (Class Action Reporter, June 6, 2008) The suits allege damages in an aggregate amount of about US$14.2 billion against all defendants. Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are being handled under a defense strategy funded by insurers. The Company estimates the potential liability for asbestos- related claims pending against Zurn as well as the claims expected to be filed in the next 10 years is about US$134 million, of which Zurn expects to pay about US$116 million in the next 10 years on those claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years. Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its potential asbestos liability as of June 28, 2008, is about US$280.5 million, and believes that all current claims are covered by this insurance. However, principally as a result of the past insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance carriers, certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company's other carriers have paid the first US$204.5 million of aggregate liabilities. In order for the next US$51 million of insurance coverage from solvent carriers to apply, management estimates that it would need to satisfy US$14 million of asbestos claims. Layered within the final US$25 million of the total US$280.5 million of coverage, management estimates that it would need to satisfy an additional US$80 million of asbestos claims. As of June 28, 2008, the Company recorded a receivable from its insurance carriers of US$134 million, which corresponds to the amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of recovery. However, there is no assurance that US$280.5 million of insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that Zurn's asbestos liabilities will not ultimately exceed US$280.5 million. Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is a global, diversified, multi-platform industrial company comprised of two strategic segments, Power Transmission and Water Management. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits Still Ongoing v. BJ Services in Miss. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos-related lawsuits are still ongoing against BJ Services Company in Mississippi Courts, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In August 2004, certain predecessors of the Company, 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 it was thereby dismissed. Subsequently an individual from one of these lawsuits brought his own action against the Company. As a result, the Company is named as an employer in two of the Mississippi lawsuits. It is possible that as many as 21 other claimants who identified the Company or its predecessors as their employer could file suit against the Company, but they have not done so at this time. Minimal medical information regarding the alleged asbestos- related disease suffered by the plaintiffs in the two lawsuits has been provided. Accordingly, the Company has been unable to estimate its potential exposure to these lawsuits. The Company and its predecessors in the past maintained insurance, which may be available to respond to these claims. 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 its 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 those cases without any payment in settlements or judgments, although some remain pending at the present time. Headquartered in Houston, BJ Services Company provides pressure pumping, well completion, production enhancement and pipeline services to the petroleum industry. 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: Miss. Actions Ongoing v. Transocean Units -------------------------------------------------------------- Several subsidiaries of Transocean Inc. continue to face asbestos-related claims in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi. In 2004, these subsidiaries were named in 21 complaints involving about 750 plaintiffs that alleged personal injury arising out of asbestos exposure in the course of their employment by some of these defendants between 1965 and 1986. The complaints also named as defendants certain subsidiaries of TODCO and certain subsidiaries of Sedco, Inc. to whom the Company may owe indemnity. The complaints also named other unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that allegedly manufactured drilling related products containing asbestos. The complaints alleged that the defendants used asbestos- containing products in connection with drilling operations and included allegations of negligence, strict liability, and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The plaintiffs generally sought awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The Special Master who was appointed to oversee these cases required that each plaintiff file a separate amended complaint and then he dismissed the original 21 complaints. The Company said it believes that it may have a direct or indirect interest in 44 of the resulting complaints. The Company has not been provided with sufficient information in all claims to determine the period of the claimants' exposure to asbestos, their medical condition or the vessels potentially involved in the claims. The Company historically has maintained broad liability insurance, but it is not certain whether its insurance will cover all liabilities arising out of the 44 claims. Headquartered in Houston, Transocean Inc. provides offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. At June 30, 2008, the Company owned, had partial ownership interests in or operated 137 mobile offshore drilling units. The Company's fleet consisted of 39 High-Specification Floaters, 29 Midwater Floaters, 10 High-Specification Jackups, 55 Standard Jackups and four Other Rigs. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Unit Facing 976 Suits at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- An unnamed subsidiary of Transocean Inc., as of June 30, 2008, was a defendant in about 976 asbestos lawsuits, of which 102 were filed during 2007. Some of these lawsuits include multiple plaintiffs and the Company estimates that there are about 3,219 plaintiffs in these lawsuits. As of March 31, 2008, the subsidiary faced about 1,006 lawsuits, of which 102 were filed during 2007. (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2008) The subsidiary is involved in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's involvement in the design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in its litigation, fundings from settlements with the primary insurers and funds received from the cancellation of certain insurance policies. The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. For many of these lawsuits, the Company has not been provided with sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of those claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was filed against this subsidiary in 1990. Through June 30, 2008, the amounts expended to resolve claims (including both attorneys' fees and expenses, and settlement costs) have not been material, and all deductibles with respect to the primary insurance have been satisfied. The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in additional lawsuits and the Company cannot predict the number of additional cases in which it may be named a defendant nor can the Company predict the potential costs to resolve such additional cases or to resolve the pending cases. However, the subsidiary has in excess of US$1 billion in insurance limits. Headquartered in Houston, Transocean Inc. provides offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. At June 30, 2008, the Company owned, had partial ownership interests in or operated 137 mobile offshore drilling units. The Company's fleet consisted of 39 High-Specification Floaters, 29 Midwater Floaters, 10 High-Specification Jackups, 55 Standard Jackups and four Other Rigs. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wabtec, Units Still Facing Exposure Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (d/b/a Wabtec) and certain of its affiliates continue to face claims filed in various jurisdictions across the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos- containing products. Since 2000, the number of those claims has increased and the resolution of these claims may take a significant period of time. Most of these claims have been made against the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation, and are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that the Company acquired any interest in RFPC. On April 17, 2005, a claim against the Company by a former stockholder of RFPC contending that the Company assumed that entity's liability for asbestos claims arising from exposure to RFPC's product was resolved in the Company's favor. Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the asbestos-containing products at issue. Headquartered in Wilmerding, Pa., Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation provides products and services for the global rail industry. Its products are found on virtually all U.S. locomotives, freight cars and passenger transit vehicles, as well as in more than 100 countries. The Company has operations in 12 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int'l. Units Facing Suits in Miss. ------------------------------------------------------------- Certain subsidiaries of Pride International, Inc., since 2004, have been facing several asbestos-related complaints, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These complaints have been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi by several hundred individuals that allege that they were employed by some of the named defendants between about 1965 and 1986. The complaints allege that certain drilling contractors used products containing asbestos in their operations and seek an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Nine individuals of the many plaintiffs in these suits have been identified as allegedly having worked for the Company. Headquartered in Houston, Pride International, Inc. provides offshore contract drilling services. The Company provides these services to oil and natural gas exploration and production companies through the operation and management of 47 offshore rigs. The Company also has three ultra-deepwater drillships under construction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Still Has 365 Claims at June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., at June 30, 2008, is still a co- defendant in about 365 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 8,400 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. At March 31, 2008, the Company was a co-defendant in about 365 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 8,400 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. (Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2008) These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. In every asbestos case in which the Company is named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. There are four asbestos cases, involving 21 plaintiffs, that plead specified damages. In each of the four cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of US$3 million for four separate causes of action and US$1 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of US$10 million. In the other case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of US$20 million for three separate causes of action and US$5 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of US$20 million. Historically, the Company has been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of the Company's subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by the Company or its subsidiaries. The Company's cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date. Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is an industrial Total Supply Management(TM) and diversified manufacturing business, operating in three segments: Supply Technologies, Aluminum Products and Manufactured Products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kraton Still Indemnified by Shell Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shell Chemicals continues to indemnify Kraton Polymers LLC on workplace asbestos exposure claims at the Company's Belpre, Ohio facility, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 12, 2008. Under the sale agreements between the Company and Shell Chemicals relating to the separation from Shell Chemicals in 2001, Shell Chemicals has agreed to indemnify the Company for certain liabilities and obligations to third parties or claims against the Company by a third party relating to matters arising prior to the closing of the acquisition by Ripplewood Chemical. Shell Chemicals has been named in several lawsuits relating to the elastomers business that the Company has acquired. In particular, claims have been filed against Shell Chemicals alleging workplace asbestos exposure at the Belpre, Ohio facility. The Company is indemnified by Shell Chemicals with respect to these claims. In addition, the Company and Shell Chemicals have entered into a consent order relating to certain environmental remediation at the Belpre facility. Headquartered in Houston, Kraton Polymers LLC produces styrenic block copolymers ("SBCs"), specialty chemical products whose chemistry the Company pioneered over 40 years ago. The Company operates in the United States, Germany, France, The Netherlands, Brazil and Japan. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IntriCon Still Facing 122 Suits at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- IntriCon Corporation is still a co-defendant in about 122 asbestos lawsuits as of June 30, 2008, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2007. The Company faced about 122 asbestos-related lawsuits as of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2008) The suits allege that plaintiffs have or may have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more named defendants. Due to the noninformative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know whether any of the complaints state valid claims against it. Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the primary policies for the period Aug. 1, 1970-1973, have been exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide a defense under those policies. The Company has requested that the carriers substantiate this situation. The Company said it believes it has additional policies available for other years, which have been ignored by the carriers. Headquartered in Arden Hills, Minn., IntriCon Corporation (f/k/a Selas Corporation of America) designs, develops, engineers and manufactures body-worn devices. The Company has one operating segment, its precision miniature medical and electronics products segment. The Company focuses on four markets within this segment: medical, hearing health, professional audio and electronics. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Ongoing v. Imperial Ind. Units ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certain of Imperial Industries, Inc.'s subsidiaries (DFH, Inc.; Just-Rite Supply, Inc.; and Premix-Marbletite Manufacturing Co.) face legal actions and claims arising in the ordinary course of its business, including asbestos-related claims. Those claims include five claims against Premix (one of which includes the Company as a defendant) and non-affiliated parties, which allege bodily injury due to exposure to asbestos contained in products manufactured in excess of 30 years ago. The Company has identified at least 10 of its prior insurance carriers that have provided product liability coverage to the Company, including potential coverage for alleged injuries relating to asbestos exposure. The majority of these insurance carriers are providing a defense to Premix and the Company under a reservation of rights in all of these asbestos cases. Further, although a few of these underlying insurance carriers have denied coverage to Premix and the Company on the basis that certain exclusions preclude coverage under the subject insurance policies, the Company said it believes that Premix and the Company have more than adequate insurance coverage for these asbestos claims and those policies are not subject to S.I.R. Requirements. Further, the Company and Premix have substantial umbrella or excess coverage for these claims in addition to the underlying insurance. None of Premix's or the Company's currently manufactured products contain asbestos. Headquartered in Pompano Beach, Fla., Imperial Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells exterior and interior finishing wall coatings and mortar products for the construction industry. The Company also purchases and resells building materials from other manufacturers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Locker Facing 45 Lawsuits at May 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Locker Group Incorporated, as of May 9, 2008, faces about 45 unresolved asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 18, 2008. Beginning in September 1998 and continuing through Aug. 18, 2008, the Company has been named as an additional defendant in about 165 cases pending in state court in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs in each case assert that a division of the Company manufactured and furnished components containing asbestos to a shipyard during the period from 1948 to 1972 and that injury resulted from exposure to such products. The assets of this division were sold by the Company in 1973. During the process of discovery in certain of these actions, documents from sources outside the Company have been produced which indicate that the Company appears to have been included in the chain of title for certain wall panels which contained asbestos and which were delivered to the Massachusetts shipyards. Defense of these cases has been assumed by the Company's insurance carrier, subject to a reservation of rights. Settlement agreements have been entered in about 20 cases with funds authorized and provided by the Company's insurance carrier. Further, over 100 cases have been terminated as to the Company without liability to the Company under Massachusetts procedural rules. Headquartered in Grapevine, Tex., American Locker Group Incorporated sells and rents coin-, key-, and electronically controlled lockers used by the recreation and transportation industries, bookstores, and libraries. The Company also makes a coin- and credit card-operated baggage cart system for use in airports. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Va. Worker's Suit Filed v. 13 Firms in Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sharleen Craig of Virginia, on Aug. 14, 2008, filed an asbestos complaint against 13 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Ms. Craig claims she was employed from 1944 to 1993 as a janitor, waitress, cook and garment inspector at various locations. She was diagnosed with mesothelioma on May 6, 2008. Ms. Craig claims the defendants failed to exercise ordinary care and caution for her safety by including asbestos in their products when adequate substitutes were available. Ms. Craig alleges her disease has disabled and disfigured her, causes great physical pain and mental anguish and has caused and will continue to cause medical expenses. Ms. Craig, who seeks a judgment in excess of US$100,000, is represented by Robert Phillips, Esq., Nicholas Angelides, Esq., John Barnerd, Esq., and Perry Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill. Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack handles all asbestos cases in the county, including Case No. 08 L 719. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Glenn's Suit Filed v. 66 Firms in Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- Seals Glenn, Jr. of Georgia, on Aug. 15, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 66 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Some of the defendants include, Bondex International Inc, CBS Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Electric Company, General Motors Corporation, John Crane Inc., Owens-Illinois, Inc., and Pfizer Inc. Mr. Glenn claims he was employed from 1949 to 1994 as a carpenter's apprentice, deck hand, truck driver, laborer, fabricator and instructor at various locations throughout Illinois and Georgia. Mr. Glenn claims during the course of his employment, he inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers emanating from products he was working with and around. According to the lawsuit, Mr. Glenn was diagnosed with mesothelioma on April 28, 2008. Mr. Glenn seeks damages in excess of US$550,000 for negligence, willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of evidence among other allegations. John Barnerd, Esq., and Randy Cohn, Esq., from SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Glenn. Case No. 08 L 723 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodman's Action Filed v. CSX in Ill. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The estate of Edgar Goodman has filed a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) lawsuit in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., against CSX Transportation Inc., Asbestos.com reports. Mr. Goodman worked as a signalman for CSX Transportation between 1947 and 1951, and was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma several decades later, in July 2005. The complaint states Mr. Goodman worked with and around asbestos-containing materials, which included block and pipe insulation, joint compounds, cement products, gaskets, and brake shoes. Mr. Goodman's family is claiming compensation under FELA, which was designed and implemented with the purpose of providing compensation for railroad employees who are injured during the course of their employment. Mr. Goodman's family believes CSX Transportation either knew or should have known of the dangers associated with asbestos exposure and claims Mr. Goodman's exposure was foreseeable and should have been anticipated by the defendants. Mr. Goodman's family also claims that CSX violated FELA because the Company was negligent in failing to provide Mr. Goodman a safe place to work, proper safety equipment, and failing to warn Mr. Goodman of the dangers of asbestos exposure. In addition, the Goodman family is stating the Company failed to test asbestos-containing products before employees used them, failed to provide adequate ventilation in repair facilities, and failed to require employees to handle asbestos safely. Mr. Goodman's estate claims at least US$250,000 in damages and legal costs. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kirk's Suit Filed v. 89 Firms in Ill. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- William Kirk, a laborer and truck driver from Ohio, on Aug. 11, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 89 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Represented by Brian J. Cooke, Esq., and Drew Sealey, Esq., of SimmonsCooper of East Alton, Ill., Mr. Kirk alleges that he first became aware of his disease on June 2, 2008. Mr. Kirk worked from 1960 until this year, the complaint states. Mr. Kirk claims the defendants, which include CBS Corporation, Chrysler LLC, DuPont Chemical, Ford Motor Company, Honeywell International Inc. and General Electric Company knew or should have known that the asbestos fibers contained in their products had a toxic, poisonous and "highly deleterious" effect upon people who absorbed them. Mr. Kirk claims forum is appropriate in Madison County because defendants John Crane, Inc. and Sprinkmann Sons Corp. are Illinois corporations. In the suit's third count, Mr. Kirk alleges Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. conspired with defendants to suppress and misrepresent the hazards of asbestos exposure. The complaint states, "Plaintiff remained ignorant and uninformed of the hazards of asbestos, failed to take precautions and was thereby exposed to...asbestos fibers, causing him to develop the asbestos disease." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LA County Jury Awards $14.876M to Engineer ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Los Angeles County jury has awarded Amanollah Shahabi, an Iranian-American engineer, US$14.876 million for asbestos exposure that caused his malignant mesothelioma, according to a Waters & Kraus, LLP press release dated Aug. 13, 2008. Mr. Shahabi spent nearly four decades working at oil refineries, including more than 30 years at oil complexes in Iran. Trained as an engineer, Mr. Shahabi's expertise was in pre-commissioning and commissioning major oil refineries for the state-run National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). During his long-standing tenure with NIOC, Mr. Shahabi brought at least three major oil refining complexes online, and was heavily involved in both operations and management. After moving to the United States in the 1980s, Mr. Shahabi worked as a consultant while attaining American citizenship. He later worked for the Chevron oil refinery in El Segundo, Calif. Beginning in 1951 in Tehran, Iran, Mr. Shahabi's work exposed him daily over a period of nearly four decades to asbestos- coated- and asbestos-containing parts. He was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma in June 2007. The jury needed three days to determine that Fluor Corporation and a host of Fluor-affiliated entities were negligent in their engineering procurement and construction on of several oil refineries which contained various asbestos products and components. In considering the liability of manufacturers John Crane Inc. and Fisher, the jury found that Mr. Shahabi was a "sophisticated user" of their equipment by nature of his education and training. The judge ruled this an absolute defense to product liability causes of action; thus those issues were never reached by the jury. Mike Armitage, Esq., Waters & Kraus partner and the lead attorney who filed the case, said, "This case is remarkable on several counts. It may well be the first-known asbestos exposure liability case where the construction contractor was held responsible for the effects of defective products that it installed but did not manufacture." Mr. Shahabi was too ill to appear in court. The family received word of the verdict while at his hospital bedside. The US$14.876 million verdict included US$13.2 million for pain and suffering, and US$1.676 million in economic damages. Fluor was assessed 45 percent liability. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Korando Estate Sues Boeing, et al. in Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- The estate of Wilfred Korando, on Aug. 15, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against various defendants in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Defendants in the case include: The Boeing Company, Chrysler LLC, C.P. Hall, Ford Motor Company, General Electric Company, General Motors Corporation, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited, International Paper Company, John Crane Inc., Maytag Corporation, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, MetLife Inc., Philips Electronics, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce and Whirlpool Corporation. According to the complaint, Mr. Korando was employed from 1954 through 2004 as a mechanic, washer and dryer maintenance man, and commercial window installer at various locations throughout Illinois. During the course of his employment and during home and automotive repairs, Mr. Korando's estate claims he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers emanating from certain products he was working with and around. Mr. Korando's estate, which seeks damages in excess of US$250,000, states he died from his illness on Jan. 21, 2007, after a seven-month battle. John Barnerd, Esq., and Amy Garrett, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Korando's estate. Case No. 08 L 724 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kelley Estate Sues 13 Firms in Ill. Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The estate of Richard Kelley of Indiana, on Aug. 15, 2008, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 13 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Mr. Kelley's estate claims he was employed from 1958 to 1991 as personnel manager and plant manager at various locations. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Sept. 15, 2005, the same day of his death. Mr. Kelley's estate claims the defendants failed to exercise ordinary care and caution for his safety by including asbestos in their products when adequate substitutes were available. The estate alleges that prior to his death, Mr. Kelley's disease disabled and disfigured him, suffered great physical pain and mental anguish and caused large sums of medical expenses. Mr. Kelley's daughter, Florence Kelley, is the administrator of his estate. She seeks a judgment in excess of US$100,000. Mr. Kelley's estate is represented by Robert Phillips, Esq., Nicholas Angelides, Esq., John Barnerd, Esq., and Perry Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill. Madison County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack handles all asbestos cases, including Case No. 08 L 726, in the county. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Erie County to Collect $1.2M in Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Erie County, N.Y., Attorney Cheryl A. Green, Esq., said that the County will collect about US$1.2 million as its share of a lawsuit against makers of asbestos, The Buffalo News reports. Erie County joined the lawsuit years ago, when Dennis T. Gorski was county executive. An army of plaintiffs around the country were filing claims against Celotex Corp. and Carey Canada. Celotex was a major manufacturer and nationwide distributor of building materials containing asbestos. Carey Canada, a Celotex subsidiary, mined and distributed asbestos fiber until it halted operations in 1986. Celotex and Carey Canada sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in October 1990 after being named in thousands of lawsuits filed by people claiming personal injury from asbestos, and by property owners with asbestos materials in their buildings. Erie County was one of those "property damage" plaintiffs, along with dozens of other governments and public institutions. Ms. Green said a class-action settlement was recently cleared and Erie County will collect about US$1.2 million with interest. The amount is not enough to clear county-owned buildings of all of their asbestos. Removing asbestos from one floor of the 16- floor Rath County Office Building two years ago required about US$400,000. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-BNFL Employee's Widow Gets Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Norma Rumney, the widow of 71-year-old Ronald Rumney, who worked at British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), received an undisclosed six- figure compensation, the North-West Evening Mail reports. Mr. Rumney worked for BNFL for 40 years after training to be an electrician with the Company between 1952 and 1957. He returned to work at the Sellafield site in Cumbria, England, in 1960 until he retired in 1994. Mr. Rumney was diagnosed with mesothelioma in April 2007. He died three weeks later. Mr. Rumney felt strongly about claiming compensation for his condition. Mrs. Rumney instructed asbestos claims experts Thompsons Solicitors to take up the claim following his death. Mrs. Rumney, who also worked at Sellafield and was married to Ronald for 50 years, said he would be satisfied the case has now been settled. Joanne Candlish, client representative at Thompsons Solicitors, added, "It was very important for Mrs. Rumney to bring this case to a successful conclusion." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Marine Atlantic Crew Claims to be Expedited ---------------------------------------------------------------- Workers who were exposed to asbestos on a Marine Atlantic ferry will have their claims with the Workers' Compensation Board fast-tracked in the event they become sick due to the exposure, globeandmail.com reports. Sue Irvine, president of Local 4285 of the Canadian Auto Workers union, says this will enable employees who have worked on the Atlantic Freighter to open a claim immediately. The issue surfaced in October 2007 when asbestos was discovered in some areas of the 30-year-old ferry. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New Trial For Whisnant Case Set for Feb. 9 --------------------------------------------------------------- A new trial in the asbestos-related case filed by Willis Whisnant, Jr. against E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company is scheduled for Feb. 9, 2009, The Southeast Texas Record reports. Early in 2008, attorneys for DuPont convinced a Jefferson County jury that the Company was not responsible for Mr. Whisnant's mesothelioma. However, after the judge granted Mr. Whisnant's motion for a new trial, the defendants are back to gathering evidence. A six week trial was held in February 2008 and March 2008 in the court of Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District. The plaintiffs claimed that Mr. Whisnant contracted mesothelioma and died because of his exposure to asbestos at DuPont's Sabine River Works. Mr. Whisnant was a former B.F. Shaw pipe fitter who worked at DuPont back in 1966 as an independent contractor. However, jurors found no negligence on the part of DuPont and awarded nothing to Mr. Whisnant's family. In May 2008, plaintiffs' attorney Glen Morgan, Esq., partner at Beaumont's Reaud, Morgan & Quinn, said during the trial there had been indisputable evidence that DuPont knew of the hazards of asbestos for decades, but failed to provide a reasonably safe place to work or properly warn workers of the danger. Mr. Morgan contended that the jury verdict was completely contradictory to the preponderance of the evidence. He submitted a motion for a new trial. Without giving a reason for his decision, Judge Floyd granted Morgan's motion May 28, 2008. Mr. Morgan has asked Judge Floyd's court coordinator to schedule the new trial for February 2009. After Judge Floyd agreed to the new trial, DuPont's counsel asked the Texas Ninth District Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus, arguing that harmless newspaper reports are not improper communications to a jury, nor should a judge grant a new trial on the "speculative inference that jurors read news articles about the case during the trial." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Renfrew Gets GBP130,375 Payout in Scotland --------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Renfrew, a shipyard worker and a mesothelioma sufferer, won GBP130,375 in damages on Aug. 19, 2008, NEWS.scotsman.com reports. Part of the compensation to Mr. Renfrew is to recognize the care given to him by his wife Margaret since he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. The 63-year-old Mr Renfrew, of Ardrossan, Ayrshire, Scotland, sued two companies, Lithgows and Scotts' Shipbuilding, over his exposure to asbestos while working as a painter in Clydeside yards between 1959 and 1973. The firms admitted liability but disputed the level of damages Mr. Renfrew should receive. The Court of Session was told that Mr. Renfrew began feeling breathless about New Year 2007, and by the summer he had been diagnosed as suffering from mesothelioma. An issue in the case was Mr. Renfrew's life expectancy had he not developed mesothelioma. The longer he could have been expected to live, the greater the award of damages. Mr. Renfrew's lawyers argued he could have lived for another 13 years, while the firms said it would have been about three years. The judge, Lord Woolman, said medical evidence persuaded him 10 years was correct. He set the payment at GBP130,375, of which GBP16,672 was for care given by Mrs. Renfrew. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hospital Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos --------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest in Lancashire, England, heard that the death of 75- year-old hospital employee Walther Thomas Brimelow was linked to asbestos, the Burnley Express reports. Mr. Brimelow started legal proceedings against East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust in 2007 after he developed malignant mesothelioma, which he said developed over years working in maintenance for the Trust's predecessor. From the late 1960s, Mr. Brimelow worked at Burnley General, Victoria, Bank Hall, Hartley and Marsden hospitals, often in the boiler rooms where he would strip boiler doors and pipework of asbestos lagging. Mr. Brimelow moved to Burnley in the 1960s and worked as a bricklayer before getting the hospital maintenance job. His wife, Margaret, told the inquest he had told her he had to remove the lagging with his bare hands and dust would be released into the air. Mr. Brimelow had accused his employers of exposing him to risk of injury, failing to warn him of the risks, failed to damp down dry asbestos, and of not giving him effective protective equipment. Speaking after the inquest, Mrs. Brimelow said since her husband's death the legal action against the Trust had been resolved and the family had received compensation. Dr. Walid Salman, consultant pathologist at Burnley General Hospital, carried out the post-mortem examination, and told the inquest a tumor in the right lung had spread to the chest wall, heart and liver. East Lancashire Coroner Mr. Richard Taylor said, "I have no hesitation in this case that my finding is this is a death caused by industrial disease." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Disabled Woman Awarded GBP160T in Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Doreen Brown, an 84-year-old disabled woman, who has fought for compensation after the death of her daughter five years ago, has been awarded GBP160,000 by the High Court in London, the NorwichEveningNews24 reports. Mrs. Brown, who lives off Old Palace Road, lost her 56-year-old daughter Linda Pyke to mesothelioma in September 2003. Mrs. Pyke died after inhaling asbestos dust when working as a seamstress for Harmer's clothing factory in Havers Road. Mrs. Pyke had sewn firemen's jackets which were lined with asbestos while working at the factory for seven years. The dust had been dormant in her lungs ever since before she developed mesothelioma in 2003. Godfrey Morgan, Mrs. Brown's solicitor, said mesothelioma was a tragic and horrific way to die. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Huddersfield Plumber Death ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, England, heard that the death of 81-year-old plumber and heating engineer Maynard Ineson was linked to exposure to asbestos, The Huddersfield Daily Examiner reports. Mr. Ineson died on Feb. 25, 2008 at Kirkwood Hospice in Dalton. The Huddersfield inquest heard that Mr. Ineson had left school to work as a plumber in his family�s business. He held this role until he was in his 50s, when he became a civil servant. During his earlier career, Mr. Ineson's work involved removing and replacing boilers and pipes with asbestos linings. This caused him to breathe in the lethal fibers. Mr. Ineson had good health until 18 months before his death, when he got a persistent cough. A biopsy showed he was suffering from mesothelioma. Coroner Roger Whittaker recorded a verdict of death by industrial disease. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Gov't. Urged to Clean Up Abandoned Mine ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Asbestos Diseases Foundation has urged the New South Wales Government to clean up an abandoned white asbestos mine at Barraba, New South Wales, Australia, ABC News reports. The site was abandoned in the 1980s, leaving a mountain of tailings containing about 25 million tons of asbestos waste. The Department of Primary Industries says it does not believe the tailings pose any risk to the community. However, Barry Robson from the Asbestos Diseases Foundation says the Government owes it to the community to clean up the site. Mr. Robson said, "It's only been 20 years, roughly 20 odd years since that mine closed. It takes 20, 30, 40 years to come out, the disease. So for people to say it's not dangerous or there's been no health problems associated with this mine, well let's see down the track." The state MP for Tamworth, Peter Draper, says the Government should take urgent action to render the mine safe. He says earlier attempts, over 25 years, have taken a band-aid approach. Meanwhile, the company hoping to develop the Woodsreef asbestos mine near Barraba says it is back on track after years of delay. The chairman of the International Minerals Corporation, Chris Sylvester, says the company's plans to mine for magnesium and silica have been held up because of State Government delays and investor resistance to new technology. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Ruling to Affect Workers Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Connecticut Supreme Court's new ruling may affect more people than the laborer who attempted to claim workers' compensation for developing asbestos-related problems, TransWorldNews reports. The court has ruled if a claimant has lung damage that can partially be attributed to cigarette smoking, that damage can be separated from any damaged caused by asbestos exposure. For the claimant George Deschenes, the ruling means a reduced ability to claim compensation for respiratory diseases like mesothelioma and asbestosis. According to workers' compensation lawyers, these so-called "blended" injuries have resulted in full compensation in the past. The Connecticut Supreme Court reached its ruling after a lengthy reconsideration of a decision issued in Mr. Deschenes' case in 2007. This time round, the justices considered more briefs from lawyers representing injured workers, and have changed the wording of the original ruling to arrive at their new decision. In making the decision, the Court had to consider two important workers' compensation principles: first, the injury must arise in the course of a workers' employment, and second, that an employer takes an employee in the state in which the employer finds him. Essentially, this means all plaintiffs must be treated equally in their right to compensation, regardless of any circumstances that may make them more vulnerable to injury. Mr. Deschenes' case, however, was ruled to be different because he had a history of smoking, which is a known risk factor for many respiratory ailments. The Supreme Court agreed that if Mr. Deschenes had not been a smoker, he would have been entitled to full workers' compensation benefits. The Court also decided that the emphysema Mr. Deschenes developed was not work-related, but was instead related to smoking, and therefore he was not entitled to full compensation. Nathan J. Shafner, who filed a brief on behalf of the New England Health Care Employees Union, said, "For the court to judicially create this apportionment where none had been before really caught the attention of a lot of people. We saw this as a runaway train." Lucas D. Strunk, a representative of Mr. Deschenes' employer, Transco Inc., said of the decision, "I think what the court has done is refresh everyone on what the rules are, in adding on a non-occupational permanent partial disability." Justice Flemming L. Norcott Jr., who wrote the Court's decision, said the question under consideration had never really been asked before. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie's Profits Fall 96% in 1st Qtr. ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Hardie Industries N.V.'s first quarter profits fell by 96 percent on asbestos liabilities and the U.S. Housing downturn, The Australian reports. Net operating profit for the three months to June 30, 2008 plunged to US$1.4 million (AUD1.61 million), from US$39.1 million in the same quarter a year ago, the Company said. Excluding asbestos liabilities, earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) totaled US$64 million, down 39 percent from the last corresponding period. Including asbestos, earnings came in at US$22.9 million, down 69 percent, the building materials supplier said. The Company said, "Results were significantly affected by further declines in the U.S. housing market, where housing starts fell 35 percent in the first quarter, compared to the same period last year." Net sales of its building products fell 14 percent to US$365 million. Chief Executive Officer Louis Gries said, "Our main businesses operated in markets that were affected by downturns, particularly in the U.S., where the downturn was the most severe." Discounting asbestos, market analysts are forecasting the Company to report operating profit from continuing operations in fiscal 2009 of between US$97 million and US$130 million. ********* 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 * * *