/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080926.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, September 26, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 192 Headlines AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Scams Members, California Lawsuit Alleges BLOCKBUSTER INC: Faces Lawsuit in California Over Gift Cards CALIFORNIA: UCSF Violated Medical Privacy, Lawsuit Alleges CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Seeks High Court Review of "Tawney" Award CHEVY CHASE: 7th Circuit Decertifies Class in Mortgage Loan Suit CKX INC: Parties Tentatively Settle Del. Lawsuit Over 19X Merger DEPT. OF HEALTH: Faces Lawsuit Seeking to Postpone Dix Closure DRUG COS: Violate Prescribing Doctors' Orders, Ala. Suit Claims DYNEX CAPITAL: Amended Complaint Filed in N.Y. Securities Suit GALVESTON CITY: Sued for Denying People to Go Home After Typhoon GLS CAPITAL: Pa. Lawsuit Over Delinquency Fees Remains Stayed GRETNA POLICE: Katrina Victims Want Blockade Lawsuit Certified HUGHES COMMS: Misrepresented Broadband Service, $75M Suit Claims ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Suit Over Sale of NEGI Still Pending in Del. INTEGRATED SILICON: Settles SRAM Antitrust Suits & Faces Others KOREAN BANKS: Companies Plan to Sue Over KIKO Options LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Del. Lawsuits Over Merger Agreement LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Wage & Hour Lawsuit in California LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Suits Over CEO's Purchase Bid Consolidated MEL HARRIS: Faces Debt Collection Lawsuits in California METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Faces Oklahoma Suit Over Medical Expenses NEVADA CHEMICALS: $94MM Sale Fought by Shareholder in Utah Suit PRINCETON REVIEW: Sued Over Data Breach of Student Information RADIAN GROUP: Wants Pennsylvania Securities Complaint Dismissed RADIAN GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Pa. ERISA Violations Lawsuit SECURITY PLAN: Policyholder's Lawsuit Still Pending in Louisiana SECURITY PLAN: Dismissed From Hurricane Katrine-Related Lawsuit SECURITY PLAN: Insurance Coverage Suit Ongoing in Louisiana VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mass. WACHOVIA CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York Court WACHOVIA CORP: Faces "Lipetz" Securities Fraud Suit in New York WACHOVIA CORP: Faces Seven ERISA Violations Lawsuits in New York WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Court Mulls Motions in Home Loans Lawsuit WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Discovery Ongoing in Interchange Fee Lawsuit WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Wash. WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Washington WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Court Yet to OK $336-Mln. Antitrust Suit Deal * Government Health Care Denies Choice to Patients * Shareholder Lawsuits Certain to Follow Financial Crisis New Securities Fraud Cases LEHMAN BROTHERS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit NOVATEL WIRELESS: Brodsky & Smith Files Calif. Securities Suit RESERVE PRIMARY: Girard Gibbs Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit SPECTRANICS CORP: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Halts Demolition in Chester, W.Va. Site ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Laurel City Council OKs $92,000 for Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: John Crane Moves to Set Aside $4Mil Verdict ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of W.Va. Post Office ASBESTOS LITIGATION: North Wales Policeman's Death Due to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Navy Officer's Daughter to Get Payout ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TOAST Asbestos Cleanup Estimated at $3.8Mil ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defendants' Motion Denied in Moeller Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota Corp. Expends JPY1.090B at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Desnoyers Indicted for Clean Air Act Breach ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Files Plan, Disclosure Statement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brookshiers File Suit in Ill. v. 124 Firms ASBESTOS LITIGATION: E-MOSAIC Seen as Possible Cancer Treatment ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Derbyshire Support Team Seeking Out Victims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Exposed in Wolverhampton Infirmary ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Peabody, Mass., Holiday Inn ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Rules v. Crown Cork in Braley Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zerkle Files Suit in Madison v. 62 Firms ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mo. Couple Sue 92 Firms in Madison County ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lyon Suit Filed v. 13 Firms on Sept. 16 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Superior Court Rules v. Georgia-Pacific ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Lawyer for Hardie to Testify in Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cal Max Charged GBP10T for Disposal Breach ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Conman to Pay Fine for Botched Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Linked to Ellesmere Port Man's Death ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Glatfelter's Motion Denied in Olin Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ike Advisory Released on Sept. 22 in Texas ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Local to Pay $2T for Cleanup Breaches ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Nursing Home Settles w/ Gruzs for $100T ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Schmidt OKs Asarco's Plan in Sept. 23 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Raises Concern in Wonthaggi Plant ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup in Glace Bay, Canada School Ongoing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bradley Urges Canadian Gov't. to Ban Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Weitz & Luxenberg Informs Public on Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Derelict Building in Basildon Has Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling to Diaz Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Rules on Asarco LLC Estimation Issues ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $2.7B Deposit Request in ASARCO Case Denied ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Moves to Create Solicitation Measure ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Seeks to Settle w/ Pacific Freeholds ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Seeks to Settle w/ Pa. Hospital ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Settles Univ. of California Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Awaits Decision on Jameson Settlement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Paddock Family to Get Compensation in 2009 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Occidental Petroleum Uses $715T for Reforms ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illinois School Board to Pursue Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard in Tex. School Raises Health Concern ********* AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Scams Members, California Lawsuit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- The Automobile Club of Southern California is facing a class- action complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging the company made millions of dollars by rewarding its tow-truck drivers for selling batteries that stranded drivers did not need, CourtHouse News Service reports. According to the report, Automobile Club headquarters allegedly ordered drivers to sell a new battery to at least 26% of customers who called with battery-related problems, whether the customers needed it or not. Automobile Club enforced its plan by stripping non-compliant drivers of their towing territory, the suit says. Automobile Club also based an incentive program on whether drivers met the quota, according to the complaint. Named plaintiff Paul Davis-Miller claims that after an Automobile Club driver persuaded him to buy a new battery, he had his old one tested. He says that contrary to the truck- driver's claims, the battery could still hold a charge. The class claims that Automobile Club forced about 300 tow-truck drivers to comply with strict quotas demanding they talk customers into replacing their batteries "well before [the end of] their expected useful life." The class wants statutory and punitive damages, interest, costs and attorney fees. Representing the plaintiff is: Thomas Ferlauto, Esq. (kingferlauto.com) King, William - King & Ferlauto 1880 Century Park E Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-552-3366 BLOCKBUSTER INC: Faces Lawsuit in California Over Gift Cards ------------------------------------------------------------ Blockbuster Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging it cheats customers by failing to redeem gift cards when the value sinks below $10, CourtHouse News Service reports. CourtHouse did not report on any further detail or development regarding the case. Based in Dallas, Texas, Blockbuster Inc. (NYSE: BBI, BBI.B) -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a leading global provider of in-home movie and game entertainment, with over 7,800 stores throughout the Americas, Europe, Asia and Australia. The company maintains operations in Brazil, Mexico, Denmark, Italy, Taiwan, and Australia. CALIFORNIA: UCSF Violated Medical Privacy, Lawsuit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- The University of California, San Francisco, is facing a class- action complaint filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda, over allegations that it gave confidential medical information about 30,000 UCSF medical school patients to Target America, a fund raiser, which published 6,000 people's confidential medical records on the Internet, CourtHouse News Service reports. The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose confidential medical information was disclosed by the defendant to Target America. The plaintiff says the UCSF did not inform its patients of the security breach until six months after it found out about it. The complaint claims that UCSF paid Target America $12,000 a year to use its list to solicit donations from rich people. "Target America maintains a database of '7+ million wealthy individuals' and advertises on its Web site that it allows health care organizations to screen their patients against Target America's database as well as the client's donor database on a monthly, weekly, or daily basis," the complaint states. The complaint further claims UCSF paid Target $12,000 a year "between 2004 and 2007" and supplied it "with information about approximately 30,000 UCSF patients including, but not limited to, patients' names, addresses, medical record numbers, dates of treatment, and the specific clinics and physicians from whom the patients received treatment." "In 2007, Target America exposed and published on the Internet confidential medical information for approximately 6,000 of the 30,000 patients whose info Defendants had disclosed to Target America. The confidential medical information made available on the Internet included patients' names, addresses, medical record numbers, dates of treatment, and the specific clinics and physicians from whom the patients received treatment," the complaint adds. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants unlawfully disclosed plaintiff's and class members' confidential medical information; (b) whether defendants used plaintiff's and class members' confidential medical information for unlawful purposes; (c) whether defendants violated plaintiff's and class members' constitutional rights of privacy; (d) whether defendants failed to notify plaintiff and class members that their confidential medical information was disclosed to Target America; (e) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to nominal damages in the amount of $1000; and (f) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to equitable relief, including but not limited to injunctive relief and declaratory relief. The plaintiff asks the court for: -- an order certifying the class pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 and appointing plaintiff and his counsel to represent the class; -- statutory nominal damages in the amount of $1,000 per person; -- injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from disclosing confidential medical information and prohibiting defendants from using confidential medical information for unlawful purposes; -- declaratory relief; -- attorneys' fees, costs and expenses of suit, including expert witness fees; and -- such other relief as the court may deem appropriate. The suit is "Thomas W. Smith, et al. v. The Regents of the University of California, et al., Case No. RG0940004," filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda. Representing the plaintiff are: Amanda M. Steiner, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Girard Gibbs LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415-981-4800 Fax: 415-981-4846 CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Seeks High Court Review of "Tawney" Award ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., a unit of Chesapeake Energy Corp., intends to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in August 2008 in connection with the $404.3-million judgment handed down by a West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County jury in the matter "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.," which named the company as a defendant, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The class-action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Roane County, West Virginia, in 2003 by royalty owners who allege that Chesapeake Appalachia, formerly known as Columbia Natural Resources LLC, underpaid royalties by improperly deducting post-production costs, failing to pay royalty on total volumes of natural gas produced and not paying a fair value for the natural gas produced from their leases. The plaintiff class consists of West Virginia royalty owners receiving royalties after July 31, 1990, from Columbia Natural. Chesapeake Energy acquired Columbia Natural in November 2005, and the seller acquired Columbia Natural in 2003 from NiSource, Inc. NiSource, a co-defendant in the case, has managed the litigation and indemnified Chesapeake against underpayment claims based on the use of fixed prices for natural gas production sold under certain forward sale contracts and other claims with respect to Columbia Natural's operations prior to September 2003. On Jan. 27, 2007, the Circuit Court jury returned a verdict against the defendants of $404 million, consisting of $134 million in compensatory damages and $270 million in punitive damages, against the defendants. Most of the damages awarded by the jury relate to issues not yet addressed by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, although in June 2006 that Court ruled against the defendants on two certified questions regarding the deductibility of post- production expenses. The jury found fraudulent conduct by the defendants with respect to the sales prices used to calculate royalty payments and with respect to the failure of CNR to disclose post-production deductions. On June 28, 2007, the Circuit Court sustained the jury verdict for punitive damages, and in September 2007, it denied all post- trial motions, including the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial. On Dec. 5, 2007, the Circuit Court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to stay the judgment pending appeal conditioned upon filing an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $50 million. The irrevocable letter of credit was filed on Jan. 4, 2008. On Jan. 24, 2008, the defendants filed their initial Petition for Appeal in the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, and in April 2008, the plaintiffs filed a response, a cross petition and other motions. On May 22, 2008, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals refused to hear the appeal. NiSource and Chesapeake intend to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in August 2008, asserting among other things that their constitutional rights were violated by the manner in which punitive damages were awarded, the amount of punitive damages, and the lack of meaningful state court appellate review of the punitive damages award. The U.S. Supreme Court may or may not decide to accept the appeal. The suit is "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.," filed in the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County, Judge Thomas Evans III, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Marvin Masters, Esq. 181 Summers Street Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: 304-342-3106 Fax: 304-342-3189 Representing the defendants is: Timothy Miller, Esq. 400 Fifth Third Center, 700 Virginia St. P.O. Box 1791 Charleston, WV 25326 Phone: 304-344-5800 Fax: 304-344-9566 CHEVY CHASE: 7th Circuit Decertifies Class in Mortgage Loan Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit brought by Wisconsin couple Susan and Bryan Andrews, who accused Chevy Chase Bank FSB of deceptive lending practices and wanted to cancel their home loan, has been stripped of class-action status by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Martha Graybow writes for Reuters. According to the report, in a 2-to-1 decision, a panel of the 7th Circuit overturned a lower court ruling that had allowed other borrowers to join the Andrews as plaintiffs against Chevy Chase. Reuters relates that the case had been seen as having far- reaching implications for other banks if the appeals court had agreed that borrowers could join together in the lawsuit and get their loans rescinded under the federal Truth in Lending Act. Case Background As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 24, 3008, the case was brought as a class action on behalf of borrowers of five-year option ARMs (Adjustable-Rate Mortgages) for the period April 20, 2004, to the date of class certification, who had received the same disclosure documents as the Andrews. Reuters says that the Andrews claimed in their 2005 lawsuit that Chevy Chase had hidden the true terms of their loan, which they obtained in June 2004 to refinance their home in Cedarburg, Wisconsin. They said the loan's interest rate had more than doubled by their second monthly payment from the 1.95% rate they thought was locked in for five years. U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, who sits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, had said the Andrews could rescind their loan and have their attorneys' fees paid by the bank, Reuters recounts. In a key decision, Judge Adelman also allowed about 8,000 other borrowers who had obtained adjustable-rate mortgages from Chevy Chase to join the case. With respect to a remedy, no actual damages were alleged and the court concluded that the violations did not give rise to statutory damages. According to the CAR report, the court, however, said that the affected borrowers were entitled to be given the option under the TIL Act to rescind their loans. The court clarified that the rescission remedy is available only for certain loans that are secured by a principal residence but were not used to purchase the residence, principally refinancings. The court further excluded borrowers who had received a different version of the TIL disclosure document than had been received by the Andrews. The precise parameters and members of the class will depend upon further court proceedings. Appeals Court Reverses Class Certification The defendant appealed the ruling. Industry groups, including the American Bankers Association and Mortgage Bankers Association, had earlier argued that allowing the case to proceed as a class-action could have dire consequences for financial services firms, Reuters says. Allowing the plaintiffs to sue collectively "would saddle the mortgage lending industry and secondary market with billions of dollars of class-action exposure," the groups said in an amicus brief. Thus, subsequently, the appeals court reversed Judge Adelman's decision, saying that while the Andrews' loan was complex and "a potential trap for the unwary," that didn't mean other borrowers could undo their mortgages en masse. According to Reuters, the 7th Circuit said that such class- actions were not spelled out through the Truth in Lending Act, a 1968 federal statute designed to protect consumers against fraud by requiring clear disclosure of loan terms and costs. As a result of the ruling, the claims of the Andrews and those filed by any other individual borrowers would now proceed as individual lawsuits, Reuters says. "We're obviously very pleased" with the ruling, said Jeffrey Sarles, Esq., a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown, who represented the bank in the appeal. Request for Supreme Court Review "This decision is a gift to certain members of the banking industry at the expense of the consumers who were misled," the Andrews' attorneys, from law firm Demet & Demet in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, said in a statement, adding they would ask for a rehearing by the full appeals court and for a U.S. Supreme Court review. The suit is "Andrews, et al. v. Chevy Chase Bank FSB, Case No. 2:05-cv-00454-LA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge Lynn Adelman, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Michael J. Aprahamian, Esq. (maprahamian@foley.com) Foley & Lardner LLP 777 E. Wisconsin Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53202-5300 Phone: 414-297-5516 Fax: 414-297-4900 Representing the defendants is: Kevin J. Demet, Esq. (KDemet@Sprintmail.com) Demet & Demet SC 815 N. Cass St., Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: 414-291-0800 Fax: 414-291-9560 CKX INC: Parties Tentatively Settle Del. Lawsuit Over 19X Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in a consolidated lawsuit against CKX, Inc., over a merger agreement with 19X Inc. and 19X Acquisition Corp. have reached a tentative settlement in the matter, according to CKX's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. Initially, a lawsuit was filed on Dec. 14, 2007, with the Delaware Chancery Court against the company, its directors, 19X Inc. and 19X Acquisition Corp. It was filed by a purported stockholder of the company, and it seeks class-action status to represent all of the company's public stockholders. The complaint alleges that the sale price is too low and that the company's directors have therefore breached their fiduciary duties by approving the transaction. It also seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing the defendants from consummating the merger. Alternatively, if the merger is consummated, the complaint seeks rescission or recessionary damages in an unspecified amount. In addition, the complaint seeks "Class compensatory damages" in an unspecified amount, as well as the costs and disbursements of the action, experts' fees and the fees of plaintiff's attorneys. On Feb. 1, 2008, another summons and complaint was filed with the Delaware Chancery Court against the defendants by another purported shareholder of the company. The complaint is identical to the complaint filed on Dec. 14, 2007. The two cases have been consolidated and, on April 18, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. In order to resolve the litigation and avoid further cost and delay, CKX and the individual defendants, without admitting any wrongdoing, signed a memorandum of understanding on May 27, 2008, reflecting a tentative settlement agreement with the plaintiffs and memorializing the amended terms to the Merger Agreement and the related management cooperation agreement, as requested by counsel for the plaintiffs in the litigation. It is anticipated that once the terms of the settlement agreement are finalized, all parties will cooperate in seeking dismissal of the litigation. Such dismissal, including an anticipated request by plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees, will be subject to court approval. CKX, Inc. -- http://ir.ckx.com/-- is a company founded on Feb. 7, 2005, that owns and develops entertainment content and intellectual property. CKX holds, among other assets, the rights to the name, image and likeness of Elvis Presley; the operations of Graceland; and an 80% interest in the name, likeness, trademarks, and licensing agreements of Muhammad Ali including Ali's "Greatest Of All Time" (or G.O.A.T.) slogan. DEPT. OF HEALTH: Faces Lawsuit Seeking to Postpone Dix Closure -------------------------------------------------------------- A class-action lawsuit was filed seeking to postpone the closure of Dorothea Dix Hospital, Michael Biesecker writes for The News & Observer. In the lawsuit, filed earlier this week, lawyers for Disability Rights North Carolina detailed 15 safety issues at Central Regional Hospital, the new Butner facility where the bulk of Dix's patients are scheduled to be transferred in about two weeks. Vicki Smith, the executive director of Disability Rights North Carolina, said a hearing was held yesterday at the Wake County Courthouse by Superior Court Judge Allen Baddour regarding the advocacy group's request for a temporary restraining order against the state Department of Health and Human Services. The report explains that Disability Rights is a nonprofit group that has a federal mandate to investigate conditions independently in state hospitals. DRUG COS: Violate Prescribing Doctors' Orders, Ala. Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- CVS Caremark, Rite Aid, Wal-Mart and Walgreen, are facing a class-action complaint filed in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Alabama, for filling prescriptions with generic medicine, in violation of the prescribing doctors' orders, CourtHouse News Service reports. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff brings this action on behalf of: (1) each and every resident of the State of Alabama who has had a "Dispense as Written" prescription for a brand name medication filled by one or more of the defendants in the State of Alabama with a generic drug without the express permission of the prescribing physician in the four years leading up to the date of filing of this action; and (2) each District Attorney in the State of Alabama who has one or more residents in his circuit who has had a "Dispense as Written" prescription for a brand name medication filled by one of the defendants in the State of Alabama with a generic drug without the express permission of the prescribing physician in the four years leading up to the date of filing of this action. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants sold and dispensed generic drugs to members of the plaintiff class in lieu of "Dispense as Written" brand name medications prescribed by the plaintiff class members' physicians without the prescribing physicians' express permission in the four years leading up to the date of filing of this action; (b) whether defendants violated the pharmacy statute, Code of Alabama Section 34-23-8, as alleged; (c) whether defendants violated the ADTPA, Code of Alabama Sections 8-19-1, et seq. as alleged; (d) whether defendants' unlawful, unfair and deceptive conduct harmed members of the plaintiff class as alleged; (e) whether plaintiff and the members of the plaintiff class are entitled to compensatory, equitable, statutory and injunctive relief under the Pharmacy Statute; and (f) whether plaintiff and the members of the plaintiff class are entitled to compensatory, equitable, statutory and injunctive relief under the ADTPA. The plaintiff asks the court to: -- determine that this case may be maintained as a statewide class action with respect to the class of individual Alabama residents identified and all other similarly situated District Attorneys in the State of Alabama pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 23; -- designate and appoint plaintiff to serve as a class representative of the plaintiff class and plaintiff's counsel to serve as class counsel for the plaintiff class; -- declare, adjudge and decree that defendants' conduct as alleged is unlawful pursuant to Ala. Code Section 34-23-8; -- declare, adjudge and decree that defendants' conduct as alleged is unlawful pursuant to Ala. Code Section 8-19-5(2); -- declare, adjudge and decree that defendants' conduct as alleged is unlawful pursuant to Ala. Code Section 8-19-5(5); -- declare, adjudge and decree that defendants' conduct as alleged is unlawful pursuant to Ala. Code Section 8-19-5(7); -- declare, adjudge and decree that defendants' conduct as alleged is unlawful pursuant to Ala. Code Section 8-19-5(27); -- grant plaintiff and the members of the plaintiff class awards of actual, compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages in such amount as a jury may assess and as provided by applicable law; -- grant plaintiff and the members of the plaintiff class awards of statutory penalties, attorneys fees, and costs pursuant to Ala. Code Sections 34-23-1 et seq. and 8-19-7-1, et seq.; -- grant plaintiff and the members of the plaintiff class their costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys fees and expenses as provided by law; -- enjoin defendants from further violating Ala. Code Section 34-23-8 as set forth; -- enjoin defendants from further violating the ADTPA as set forth; -- suspend or revoke defendants' license to engage in business in this state and enjoin defendants from engaging in business in this state pursuant to Ala. Code Section 8-19-8(c); -- enter an Order perfecting the plaintiff's right to commence a Quo Warranto action against defendants pursuant to Ala. Code Section 6-6-590; -- enter an Order vacating defendants' character to conduct business in this state pursuant to Ala. Code Section 6-6-590, provided that defendants do not comply with the injunctive relief and the equitable relief ordered by the court; and -- grant plaintiff and the members of the plaintiff class such other, further and different relief as the nature of the case may require or as may be determined to be just, equitable and proper by the court. The suit is "Arthur Green, et al. v. CVS Caremark Corporation, et al.," filed in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Alabama. Representing the plaintiffs are: W. Lee Gresham, III, Esq. Clay Hornsby Henninger Garrison Davis, LLC 2224 1st Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: 205-326-3336 Fax: 205-326-3332 DYNEX CAPITAL: Amended Complaint Filed in N.Y. Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- An amended complaint was filed in a purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit pending against Dynex Capital Inc. and its subsidiary, MERIT Securities Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to Dynex Capital, Inc.'s Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. On Feb. 11, 2005, a putative class-action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws and various state common law claims was filed against: -- Dynex Capital, Inc., -- subsidiary MERIT Securities Corp., -- Stephen J. Benedetti, the company's executive vice president, and -- Thomas H. Potts, the company's former president and a former director. The Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit purported to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of MERIT Series 13 securitization financing bonds, which are collateralized by manufactured housing loans. On May 31, 2005, Teamsters filed an amended class action complaint. The amended complaint dropped all state common law claims but added federal securities claims related to the MERIT Series 12 securitization financing bonds. On July 15, 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On Feb. 10, 2006, the District Court dismissed the claims against the company's former president and its current chief operating officer, but did not dismiss the claims against the company or MERIT. The company and MERIT petitioned for an interlocutory appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit granted the company's petition on Sept. 15, 2006, and heard oral argument on the appeal on Jan. 30, 2008. On June 27, 2008, the Second Circuit ruled in the company's favor ordering the District Court to dismiss the litigation against the company and MERIT but with leave for Teamsters to amend and replead. Teamsters filed an amended complaint on Aug. 6, 2008, with the District Court. The suit is "Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund, et al. v. Dynex Capital, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01897- HB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Harold Baer, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Joel P. Laitman, Esq. (joel@spornlaw.com) Christopher Lometti, Eqs. (chris@spornlaw.com) Samuel P. Sporn, Esq. (samuel@spornlaw.com) Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., Esq. 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406 New York, NY 10038 Phone: 212-964-0046 Fax: 212-267-8137 Representing the company are: Monica Shelton Call, Esq. (mcall@hunton.com) Eric Harrison Feiler, Esq. (efeiler@hunton.com) Edward Joseph Fuhr, Esq. (efuhr@hunton.com) Terence James Rasmussen, Esq. (trasmussen@hunton.com) Joseph John Saltarelli, Esq. (jsaltarelli@hunton.com) Hunton & Williams, LLP 951 East Byrd Street Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: 804-788-8632 Fax: 804-788-8218 GALVESTON CITY: Sued for Denying People to Go Home After Typhoon ---------------------------------------------------------------- Galveston city officials are facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas alleging they are unconstitutionally allowing wealthy and connected people to return to their hurricane-damaged homes, but denying that privilege to average citizens, CourtHouse News Service reports. According to the report, Mayor Lyda Thomas allegedly announced that "citizens with resources" could return -- without defining that -- and put "people with influence" on a secret list that lets them stay and work, but won't allow average Joes to secure and clean up their houses. Named plaintiff Anthony Griffin is an attorney. He says the city has prohibited him from entering his home to retrieve his docket book, computer and other material he needs to continue his practice from outside the drowned city. Mr. Griffin says private contractors, including swimming pool companies, are allowed to stay and work, but he and others without influence cannot. Mr. Griffin also says he has seen "prominent Galvestonians" being allowed to return while he and others are barred. He claims police prohibited him from entering because his name was not on a "list for essential personnel". Mr. Griffin claims a police officer told him that if he wants to return "that he should try to get on a special list that was maintained by the City for those who did not fall under the essential emergency personnel but should be allowed entry." He claims the city refuses to provide information about who is on the list, or why, or how anyone else can get on it. Mr. Griffin prays for a temporary restraining order and that the City's policies be declared illegal and contrary to Texas law. The suit is "Anthony Griffin, et al. v. Mayor Lyda Ann Thomas et al., Civil Action No. 08-2801," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Representing the plaintiff is: Anthony P. Griffin, Esq. (agriffin@agriffinlawyers.com) A Griffin Lawyers 1115 Moody Galveston, TX 11550 Phone: 409-763-0386 1-800-750-5034 Fax: 409-763-4102 GLS CAPITAL: Pa. Lawsuit Over Delinquency Fees Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action suit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, against GLS Capital, Inc., a subsidiary of Dynex Capital Inc., remains stayed. The plaintiffs allege that GLS illegally charged the taxpayers of Allegheny County certain attorney fees, costs and expenses and interest, in the collection of delinquent property tax receivables owned by GLS which were purchased from Allegheny County. In 2007, the Court of Common Pleas stayed this action pending the outcome of another lawsuit, which was filed before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in which GLS is not directly involved but has filed an Amicus brief in support of the defendants. Several of the allegations in that lawsuit are similar to those being made against GLS in this litigation. The plaintiffs have not enumerated their damages in this matter, according to Dynex Capital, Inc.'s Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. Dynex Capital, Inc. -- http://www.dynexcapital.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, is a specialty finance company organized as a real estate investment trust that invests in loans and securities consisting principally of single-family residential and commercial mortgage loans. GRETNA POLICE: Katrina Victims Want Blockade Lawsuit Certified -------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge must decide whether a lawsuit over a police blockade after Hurricane Katrina will become a class action, Biloxi Sun Herald reports. This police blockade had stopped hundreds of people from crossing a bridge out of flooded New Orleans after Katrina. According to Sun Herald, proposed class representative plaintiff Cathey Golden told the judge that she was in a crowd of more than 300 people trying to cross the Crescent City Connection into suburban Jefferson Parish when police from the city of Gretna blocked their path. Ms. Golden, a Boston resident who was visiting relatives in New Orleans when Katrina struck in August 2005, said one of the officers on the bridge fired a shotgun blast in the air. The report says that Ms. Golden's lawyers, who sued Gretna, its police department and Police Chief Arthur Lawson, claim racial bias figured into the decision to stop people from walking across the bridge because most of the people in the crowd were black. They are seeking class action status, which U.S. District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon did not immediately rule upon. Sun Herald recounts that in the months after Katrina, the blockade episode spurred two protest marches across the bridge by national civil rights organizations. In October 2007, however, an Orleans Parish grand jury declined to indict a Gretna police officer on a criminal charge over his actions on the bridge. Police Chief Lawson had explained that one of his officers, whom he declined to name, fired a warning shot after some of the people in the crowd threatened to throw him off the bridge, the report notes. Meanwhile, Gretna's lawyers said that restricting bridge traffic to cars protected the safety of pedestrians. The plaintiffs' attorneys, however, argued that people had a right to walk across because it was one of the few escape routes after Katrina flooded most of New Orleans. "In fact," they added, "the safety issue is but a ruse to hide a more insidious plot which was primarily to keep African-Americans from New Orleans from coming into Gretna and Jefferson Parish." Franz Zibilich, Esq., a lawyer for Gretna, asked Judge Lemmon to dismiss the part of the lawsuit that claims the bridge blockade violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights to interstate travel. "Whether we like it or not, us citizens have less rights during a catastrophe," Mr. Zibilich reasoned, noting that the bridge wasn't the only way out of New Orleans after Katrina. "We do have a right to travel. We don't have a right to travel in the mode we want to, whenever we want to." HUGHES COMMS: Misrepresented Broadband Service, $75M Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hughes Communications and HughesNet are facing a a $75-million class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania over allegations that they misrepresented the speed and capabilities of their broadband service, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff David L. Scasta, M.D., brings this class action for breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The plaintiff brings this case as a class action, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of all consumers, subscribers, businesses, users, recipients and customers of HughesNet satellite, broadband and Internet equipment and services. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendant HughesNet breached its contract with its members, including its HughesNet broadband Internet users, consumers, subscribers, recipients and customers, by selling and offering, reliable, consistent, high-speed and accessible HughesNet Internet broadband satellite service and providing unreliable, inconsistent, significantly slow and delayed inaccessible HughesNet Internet broadband satellite service; (b) whether defendant HughesNet misrepresented to its broadband Internet users, consumers, subscribers, recipients, and customers, the maximum upload and download speeds of its HughesNet service, plan, satellite and broadband connections; (c) whether HughesNet misrepresented to its HughesNet broadband Internet users, consumers, subscribers, recipients, and customers, the download threshold -- i.e. the volume of data that can be downloaded continuously, of its HughesNet service, plan, satellite and broadband connections; (d) whether defendant misrepresented to its broadband Internet users, consumers, subscribers, recipients, and customers, the maximum upload and download capability of its satellite and broadband service subscriber equipment and hardware, including but not limited to modems, network, and wireless cards; (e) whether defendant oversold its bandwidth to third- parties thereby adversely affecting satellite, broadband and Internet access of consumers, subscribers, recipients, customers and businesses; (f) whether defendant, interfered with consumers, subscribers, recipients, customers, and Internet users ability to access lawful Internet content and to use the applications of their choice, including but not limited to Peer-to-Peer (P2P) connections, by deploying equipment throughout its network to monitor the content of Internet connections and selectively block specific type of connections; (g) whether defendant fraudulently induced consumers, subscribers, recipients, customers, and Internet users, to subscribe and otherwise purchase its broadband satellite services by misrepresenting the speed, accessibility, functionality and connectivity of its broadband satellite services; (h) whether defendant fraudulently induced consumers, subscribers, recipients, customers, and Internet users, to upgrade and incur additional fees, early termination and costs by misrepresenting the speed, accessibility, functionality and connectivity of its broadband satellite services; and (i) whether defendant acted deliberately, willfully, intentionally, and fraudulently, in the contracting with its consumers, subscribers, recipients, customers, and Internet users as described. The plaintiff claims compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of $75 million, exclusive of interest and allowable costs of suit. The suit is "David L. Scasta, M.D., et al. v. HughesNet, Inc., Case Number: 2:2008cv04596," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Representing the plaintiff are: Harris L. Pogust, Esq. Derek T. Branslow, Esq. Tobias L. Millrood, Esq. Robert N. Wilkey, Esq. Pogust, Braslow, & Millrood, LLC 161 Washington Street, Suite 1520 Conshohocken, PA 19428 ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Suit Over Sale of NEGI Still Pending in Del. --------------------------------------------------------------- Icahn Enterprises, L.P., is still facing a purported stockholder derivative and class-action lawsuit, styled "Andrew T. Berger v. Icahn Enterprises LP, et al., Case No. 3522-VCS." The suit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against National Energy Group, Inc., as a nominal defendant, as well as against Icahn Enterprises L.P., and various individuals, including one of Icahn Enterprises' current directors. Icahn Enterprises indirectly beneficially own 50.1% of NEGI's outstanding common stock. The suit alleges, among other things, that certain of NEGI's current and former officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to NEGI and its stockholders in connection with NEGI's previously announced Nov. 21, 2006 sale to NEG Oil & Gas, LLC, or NEG Oil & Gas, of NEGI's former unconsolidated non- controlling 50% limited liability company interest in NEG Holding, LLC, as a result of the exercise by NEG Oil & Gas of its contractual redemption option under the operating agreement governing NEG Holding. The company reported no further development regarding the case in its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. Icahn Enterprises L.P. -- http://www.icahnenterprises.com/-- formerly American Real Estate Partners, L.P. is a holding company owning subsidiaries engaged in the operating businesses, which includes Investment Management, Metals, Real Estate and Home Fashion. INTEGRATED SILICON: Settles SRAM Antitrust Suits & Faces Others --------------------------------------------------------------- Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc., settled several lawsuits in the U.S. relating to the sale and pricing of static random access memory products. However, the company continues to face three similar cases. Initially, 33 purported class action lawsuits were filed by U.S. Direct-Purchaser and U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs against the company and other SRAM suppliers in various U.S. Federal courts, alleging violations of the Sherman Act, violations of state unfair competition laws, and unjust enrichment. The U.S. lawsuits have been consolidated in a single federal court for coordinated pre-trail proceedings. The suits seek treble damages for the alleged damages sustained by purported class members, in addition to restitution, costs and attorneys' fees, as well as an injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct. As of Aug. 30, 2007, the company was voluntarily dismissed from 29 of the 33 pending lawsuits pursuant to a Tolling Agreement between the company and the U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs. The U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs agreed not to name the company as a defendant unless the Tolling Agreement is terminated according to terms specified in that agreement. On Jan. 9, 2008, the company was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice from one more lawsuit, which was brought by the U.S. Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs. However, it remains a defendant in three remaining suits brought by the U.S. Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs. The company reported no further development in the matter in its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. -- http://www.issi.com/-- is a fabless semiconductor company that designs and markets high- performance integrated circuits for various markets, such as digital consumer electronics, networking, mobile communications and automotive electronics. The company's primary products are high-speed and low-power static random access memory and low- and medium-density dynamic random access memory. It also designs and markets electrically erasable programmable ready only memory, SmartCards, controller chips for flash memory sticks and card reader- writers, and wireless chipsets. KOREAN BANKS: Companies Plan to Sue Over KIKO Options ----------------------------------------------------- More than 130 companies will file class action lawsuits for billions of won against banks that sold "knock-in, knock-out (KIKO)" currency options, with the options reportedly incurring losses exceeding KRW1 trillion (US$866 million) this year alone, The Dong-A Ilbo reports. "Banks did not properly explain the risks of KIKO. We plan to file both a lawsuit and take other legal action invalidating liability," the Joint Countermeasure Committee of KIKO Victims told Dong-A Ilbo yesterday. The committee said banks forced companies to purchase KIKO options under unfair provisions. The report says that on behalf of 136 companies that say they suffered from KIKO options, the committee is working with DeRyook International Law Firm, Logos Attorneys at Law, Ahnse Law Office and Prime Law to sue about a dozen banks, including Shinhan, Korea Exchange and Citibank. The Financial Supervisory Service pointed out that 39 conglomerates lost KRW270 billion and 480 small and medium companies KRW800 billion from the currency options, the report notes. As losses are expected to keep snowballing unless the dollar weakens, the amount of compensation companies will seek through lawsuits will likely reach hundreds of billions of won. LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Del. Lawsuits Over Merger Agreement --------------------------------------------------------------- Landry's Restaurants, Inc., is facing two purported class-action lawsuits in Delaware following the announcement of the company's entering into a merger agreement with Fertitta Holdings, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. These lawsuits are: -- "James F. Stuart, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 3856-VCL," filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on June 26, 2008; and -- "David Barfield v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 3860-VCN," filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on June 27, 2008. The suits are pled as putative class-action lawsuits in which the company and the members of its Board of Directors are named as defendants, along with Fertitta Holdings, Inc., and Fertitta Acquisition Co. On July 29, 2008, both of these cases were consolidated into one action and the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint. The plaintiffs allege that the merger agreement has several terms that unduly hinder shareholders from obtaining the best and highest value for their shares and that the proposed transaction is grossly unfair to shareholders and that Fertitta Holdings, Inc., is not paying a fair or adequate price. The plaintiffs also allege multiple material misrepresentations and omissions in the Preliminary Proxy which fail to provide shareholders with the information they require to make an informed decision regarding the proposed transaction. The plaintiffs allege that the individual defendants have breached their fiduciary duty to shareholders by entering into the transaction and also by failing to make proper disclosures in the Preliminary Proxy. They also allege that Fertitta Holdings, Inc., and Fertitta Acquisition Co. assisted the individual defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek to enjoin the transaction and damages. Landry's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.landrysrestaurants.com/ -- is a diversified restaurant hospitality and entertainment company principally engaged in the ownership and operation of full-service, casual dining restaurants, primarily under the names of Rainforest Cafe, Saltgrass Steak House, Landry's Seafood House, The Crab House, Charley's Crab and The Chart House. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the company owned and operated over 179 full-service and certain limited-service restaurants in 28 states. It offers concepts ranging from upscale steak and seafood restaurants to casual theme-based restaurants. The company is also engaged in the ownership and operation of select hospitality businesses, including hotel and casino resorts that provide dining, leisure and entertainment experiences, including the Golden Nugget Hotels and Casinos in downtown Las Vegas and Laughlin, Nevada. The company operates its restaurants through three divisions: Landry's Division, Rainforest Cafe, and Saltgrass Steak House. LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Wage & Hour Lawsuit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Landry's Restaurants, Inc., settled a purported class-action suit filed against certain of its restaurants in the Superior Court of California in San Diego, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The lawsuit, filed by Kyle Pietrzak, alleges that Joe's Crab Shack - San Diego Inc. violated wage and hour laws, including the failure to pay hourly and overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods and rest periods, failing to provide minimum reporting time pay, failing to compensate employee for required expenses, including the expense to maintain uniforms, and violations of the Unfair Competition Law. In June 2006, the lawsuit was amended to include Kristina Brask as a named plaintiff and named Crab Addison, Inc. and Landry's Seafood House - Arlington, Inc. as additional defendants. The company denies plaintiffs' claims. The company has reached a settlement agreement, which has been approved by the Court and fully accrued the amount. Landry's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.landrysrestaurants.com/ -- is a diversified restaurant hospitality and entertainment company principally engaged in the ownership and operation of full-service, casual dining restaurants, primarily under the names of Rainforest Cafe, Saltgrass Steak House, Landry's Seafood House, The Crab House, Charley's Crab and The Chart House. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the company owned and operated over 179 full-service and certain limited-service restaurants in 28 states. It offers concepts ranging from upscale steak and seafood restaurants to casual theme-based restaurants. The company is also engaged in the ownership and operation of select hospitality businesses, including hotel and casino resorts that provide dining, leisure and entertainment experiences, including the Golden Nugget Hotels and Casinos in downtown Las Vegas and Laughlin, Nevada. The company operates its restaurants through three divisions: Landry's Division, Rainforest Cafe, and Saltgrass Steak House. LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Suits Over CEO's Purchase Bid Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- Landry's Restaurants, Inc., is facing a consolidated class- action lawsuit in connection with a proposal to acquire all of the company's outstanding common stock. On Jan. 27, 2008, the company's board of directors received a letter from Tilman J. Fertitta, chairman, president and CEO of the company, proposing to acquire all of the company's outstanding common stock for $23.50 per share in cash, representing a 41% premium over the closing price of the company's common stock on Jan. 25, 2008. On April 4, 2008, Mr. Fertitta revised his offer to acquire all of the outstanding common stock to a cash purchase price of $21.00 per share, representing a 37% premium over the closing price of the company's common stock on April 3, 2008. Immediately following the announcement of Mr. Fertitta's offer to acquire the company's outstanding common stock, the following lawsuits were filed: -- "Dennis Rice, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc., et al., Cause No. 2008-05211," filed in the 157th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, on Jan. 28, 2008; -- "Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc., et al., Cause No. 2008-07100," filed in the 11th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, on Feb. 1, 2008; -- "Robert Reynolds v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc., et al., Cause No. 2008-07484," filed in the 113th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, on Feb. 5, 2008; -- "Robert Caryer, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc., et al., Cause No. 2008-007677," filed in the 113th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, on Feb. 6, 2008. -- "Matthew and Wendy Maschler, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated v. Tilman J. Fertitta, et al., Cause No. 2008-09042," filed in the 164th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, on Feb. 13, 2008. The suits each seek to be classified as a putative class action in which the company and the members of its Board are named as defendants. The plaintiffs allege that the company and the individual defendants have breached or will breach fiduciary duties to its shareholders with regard to the presentation or consideration of Mr. Fertitta's proposal to acquire all of its outstanding common stock. The Caryer suit purports to assert an additional claim of alleged aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the company. The Maschler case purports to assert an additional claim for indemnification. The plaintiffs seek to enjoin in some form the consideration or acceptance of Mr. Fertitta's proposal. The amount of damages initially sought is not indicated by any plaintiff. On March 26, 2008, all of these cases were consolidated into one action. The company reported no further development regarding the matter in its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. Landry's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.landrysrestaurants.com/ -- is a diversified restaurant hospitality and entertainment company principally engaged in the ownership and operation of full-service, casual dining restaurants, primarily under the names of Rainforest Cafe, Saltgrass Steak House, Landry's Seafood House, The Crab House, Charley's Crab and The Chart House. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the company owned and operated over 179 full-service and certain limited-service restaurants in 28 states. It offers concepts ranging from upscale steak and seafood restaurants to casual theme-based restaurants. The company is also engaged in the ownership and operation of select hospitality businesses, including hotel and casino resorts that provide dining, leisure and entertainment experiences, including the Golden Nugget Hotels and Casinos in downtown Las Vegas and Laughlin, Nevada. The company operates its restaurants through three divisions: Landry's Division, Rainforest Cafe, and Saltgrass Steak House. MEL HARRIS: Faces Debt Collection Lawsuits in California -------------------------------------------------------- La Crescenta, CA, September 24, 2008 -- On behalf of its client, David Youssefyeh, Southern California's Premiere Consumer Protection law firm, Brennan, Wiener & Associates, has filed a class action lawsuit against the large New York debt collector Mel Harris & Associates, alleging fraud in service of debt collection complaints upon California consumers. David Youssefyeh, a Los Angeles attorney, was understandably shocked and upset when his bank, Washington Mutual, levied his accounts in January 2008. As someone who minded his debts and had no outstanding judgments against him, he was mystified as to where this came from or how it happened. So, he began to pull the string back and found a lot more than he expected to find. Mr. Youssefyeh learned that the judgment came from the State of New York. T his was strange to him: other than perhaps a few short visits over the years, Mr. Youssefyeh had no business there, no property there, no family there--in other words, beyond stopping over there a few times, he had nothing whatsoever to do with the State of New York. And he certainly had never been served with a lawsuit there. Being an attorney, Mr. Youssefyeh knew that creditors and debt collectors could enforce "sister state" judgments against a person in their home state. In other words, if a creditor or a debt collector had a valid judgment against a person in a court in, say, Virginia, that judgment could be enforced against the debtor in the state where he or she lives. However, Mr. Youssefyeh also knew that the judgment had to be a valid judgment--served upon a defendant with valid service of the complaint and not with false or fraudulent service designed to hide, not reveal, the lawsuit to the consumer. Mr. Youssefyeh dug further into the mystery and discovered that the plaintiff who had taken out the judgment against him was Mel Harris & Associates, a very large debt collection company operating in the New York metropolitan area. A bit of research by Mr. Youssefyeh confirmed for him what he has stated in his class action complaint: that Mel Harris & Associates allegedly has a business practice of somehow "serving" debt collection complaints on consumers who live outside of New York, within New York. This practice is as old as litigation itself, and is known widely in legal circles as "sewer service," after the practice by some process servers of throwing the summons and complaint into the sewer outside of the defendant's home and then claiming to have served them with the complaint. The effect, of course, is to deprive the consumer of any notice of the lawsuit. The first notice many consumers have of such lawsuits is a levy on their outside-of-New York bank accounts, as happened with Mr. Youssefyeh. As many debt collection lawsuits involve small sums of money, most consumers have neither the time nor the resources to hire a New York attorney to fight or otherwise straighten out bogus lawsuits or false attempts to serve debt collection complaints. Mr. Youssefyeh knew, however, that a class action in California against Mel Harris & Associates could, if successful, put a stop this alleged practice, at least for California consumers. Each California consumer would have remedies through the class action which he or she would not have on an individual basis because of cost. "I'm pursuing this lawsuit to teach Mel Harris & Associates a lesson: consumers deserve proper service of complaints and due process just like large corporations do. Just because my name isn't Microsoft is no reason that I don't deserve protections under the laws of the United States and California. In my opinion, Mel Harris & Associates seems to think that consumer debtors are second-class citizens who can be tricked in fooled, and I intend with this lawsuit to teach Mel Harris & Associates that this is definitely not the case in California." Mr. Youssefyeh has hired the La Crescenta, California firm of Brennan, Wiener & Associates to prosecute the class action in a California court. "My clients are understandably outraged," commented Robert F. Brennan, lead counsel for the plaintiff class. So far, Brennan has collected much anecdotal evidence with which he intends to prove in court that what Mel Harris & Associates allegedly did to Mr. Youssefyeh has been done to many California consumers, as well as consumers from other states. The suit is "Afshin David Youssefyeh and Liza Youssefyeh v. Mel Harris & Associates, et al., Case No. BC 398 315, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Faces Oklahoma Suit Over Medical Expenses ---------------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance is facing a class- action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma alleging it cheats policyholders of medical expenses after auto wrecks, CourtHouse News Service reports. This class-action complaint seeks to remedy the unfair, unlawful, deceptive and fraudulent conduct of Metropolitan in connection with its business practices of not properly reimbursing medical expenses under medical payment provisions appearing in automobile insurance policies issued by Metropolitan. The plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure No. 23 on behalf of all persons in the United States who submitted a claim for benefits under the "Automobile Medical Expenses" (Med-Pay) coverage of a Metropolitan automobile insurance policy who received an explanation of benefits under this coverage in which Metropolitan paid its insured an amount less than their Med-Pay claim that was usual, customary, and reasonable for necessary medical treatment. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether Metropolitan utilized unfair, unlawful and deceptive business practices by paying less than the amount of an insured's Med-Pay claim based on a "First Health owned contract" or based on a "Preferred Provider Network" discount (Payment Code 340 and 341); (b) whether Metropolitan's conduct constitutes a violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act; (c) whether Metropolitan omitted and misrepresented material facts in connection with handling of first party Med-Pay claims; and (d) whether Metropolitan failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose to the consumer that it has a systematic business practice of paying less than the amount of an insured's Med-Pay claim based on, among other things, a "First Health owned contract" or based on a "Preferred Provider Network" discount (Payment Code 340 and 341). The plaintiff asks the court for: -- restitution and disgorgement; -- compensatory damages sustained by plaintiff and all others similarly situated; -- punitive damages; -- injunctive relief; -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; -- reasonable attorney fees; -- costs of suit; -- such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "John Robert Simon, et al. v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Case Number: 5:2008cv01008," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Representing the plaintiff are: Derek K. Burch, Esq. Kelly A. George, Esq. Burch & George PC 1500 City Place Building 204 N. Robinson Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: 405-239-7711 Fax: 405-239-7795 NEVADA CHEMICALS: $94MM Sale Fought by Shareholder in Utah Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- PowerRating -- Sept. 24, 2008 -- A shareholder of Sandy- based Nevada Chemicals Inc. is trying to block a proposed $94 million buyout of the company that produces sodium cyanide for the gold mining industry. Nevada Chemicals earlier this month announced it had signed an acquisition agreement with Calypso Acquisition Corp. and a fund managed by the U.S. private equity firm Oaktree Capital Management that want to buy the company through a $13.37 per share tender offer. However, shareholder Irving S. Braun, in a proposed class action lawsuit filed in Utah's 3rd District Court, contends the offering price is inadequate and argues several of the company's top executives failed to disclose all the information necessary for shareholders to make an informed decision. Mr. Braun is demanding Nevada Chemicals retain "truly" independent advisers or appoint an independent special committee to ensure shareholders receive a "fair process and fair price in connection with any transaction" involving the company. He is represented by the Salt Lake City law firm of Anderson & Karrenberg. Nevada Chemicals was founded in 1979. It owns a 50% interest in a plant near Winnemucca, Nev., that produces sodium cyanide. The chemical is used in a gold recovery process known as heap leaching. In the process, ground ore is placed upon an impermeable pad and a diluted solution of sodium cyanide, which attaches itself to gold molecules, is allowed to percolate down through the ground rock. The solution is collected and the gold removed. Nevada Chemicals Chief Executive John Day takes exception to the allegations in the lawsuit, which he argues was filed before the details of the tender offer were filed Monday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Com- mission. "All the details of the transaction, its history and how it evolved are now on file with the SEC," Mr. Day said. "We also hired an independent outside examiner to give us a fairness opinion on the transaction." He also noted the $13.37 price offered for each of the company's 7 million outstanding shares represented a 36% premium over the closing stock market price of Nevada Chemical's stock on the day the buyout was announced. Nevada Chemical's shares have not traded as high as $13.37 for at least the past 15 years, according to data from Bloomberg News. Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah Nevada Chemicals -- http://www.nevadachemicals.com/-- is the premier producer of strategic chemicals for the gold mining industry of the United States. PRINCETON REVIEW: Sued Over Data Breach of Student Information -------------------------------------------------------------- A Sarasota attorney, Bill Partridge, Esq., has filed a lawsuit against the Princeton Review, which was hired by the Sarasota County School District to make tests and do analysis of student's performance, WWSB.com reports. The suit was filed on behalf of students involved in a security breach. The report recounts that this summer, the names, dates of birth and in some cases Social Security numbers of 34,000 Sarasota County students were on a Web site that was not password protected. According to WWSB.com, if a judge certifies the lawsuit as a class action, students involved will automatically be part of the suit. The suit seeks monetary damages and an injunction to keep another breach from happening. For more info on the lawsuit, contact: Law Offices of Grossman, Roth and Partridge 1800 Second Street, Suite 777 Sarasota, FL 34236 Phone: 365-6666 RADIAN GROUP: Wants Pennsylvania Securities Complaint Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Radian Group, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of an amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud class-action suit against the company that is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In August and September 2007, two purported stockholder class action complaints were filed against Radian Group and certain individuals. The suits are: * "Cortese v. Radian Group Inc.," and * "Maslar v. Radian Group Inc." The complaints, which are substantially similar, allege that Radian Group was aware of and failed to disclose the actual financial condition of C-BASS prior to Radian Group's declaration of a material impairment to its investment in C-BASS. On Jan. 30, 2008, the Court ordered that the cases be consolidated into "In re Radian Securities Litigation," and appointed the Institutional Investors Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund and the City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiffs in the case. On April 16, 2008, a consolidated and amended complaint was filed, adding one additional defendant. On June 6, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case, which request the plaintiffs have opposed through a memorandum of law filed with the court on July 25, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "John Cortese, et al. v. Radian Group Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2007-cv-03375," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Mary A. McLaughlin, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert P. Frutkin, Esq. (rpf@bernardmgross.com) Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross 450 John Wanamaker Bldg. Juniper & Market Sts. Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 215-561-3600 Fax: 215-561-3000 David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (DRosenfeld@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 - and - David Seamus Kaskela, Esq. (skaskela@sbtklaw.com) Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 Representing the defendants is: Leslie J. Abrams, Esq. (labrams@skadden.com) Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP 1440 New York Avenue Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-371-7977 RADIAN GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Pa. ERISA Violations Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Radian Group, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a purported class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The purported class-action suit was filed on April 29, 2008, against Radian Group, the Compensation and Human Resources Committee of the company's board of directors, and certain individuals. The suit alleges violations of the ERISA as it relates to the company's Savings Incentive Plan. The named plaintiff is a former Radian employee. On July 25, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "Johnson, et al. v. Radian Group Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2008cv02007," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Mary A. McLaughlin, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Debra S. Goodman, Esq. (dsg@weiserlawfirm.com) The Weiser Law Firm 121 N. Wayne Avenue Wayne, PA 19087 Phone: 610-225-0273 Fax: 610-225-2678 Representing the defendants is: David Smith, Esq. (dsmith@schnader.com) Schnader Harrison Segal and Lewis LLP 1600 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-751-2190 Fax: 215-972-7409 SECURITY PLAN: Policyholder's Lawsuit Still Pending in Louisiana ---------------------------------------------------------------- Security Plan Fire Insurance Co. -- a wholly owned subsidiary of Citizens, Inc. -- is still facing a purported class-action lawsuit styled "Lilac Todd vs. Security Plan Life Insurance Company." The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 8, 2005, on behalf of Lilac Todd, alleging that SPFIC failed to pay Ms. Todd's claim for medical expenses arising out of the amputation of one of her limbs. On Dec. 20, 2007, a Supplemental and Amended Petition for Damages was filed pursuant to which the plaintiff has asserted class action allegations. The purported class is defined as all Louisiana insureds of SPFIC whose policies contained an incontestability provision identical or similar to Ms. Todd's policy, and whose claims were denied within 10 years of the petition filing on the basis of illnesses, injuries or diseases diagnosed or which occurred at any time preceding the incontestability. SPFIC has responded by filing Exceptions of Vagueness and of Improper Use of the Class Action Procedure, as well as an Answer to the Supplemental and Amended Petition for Damages. SPFIC has also recently filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, according to Citizen's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. Citizens, Inc. -- http://www.citizensinc.com/-- is an insurance holding company serving the life insurance needs of individuals in the U.S. and in more than 35 countries. The company's core operations include issuing and servicing, which intern include ordinary whole life insurance policies predominantly to high net worth, high income foreign residents, principally in Latin America and the Pacific Rim, through approximately 2,600 independent marketing consultants; ordinary whole life insurance policies to middle income households in the Midwest and the southern U.S. through approximately 600 independent marketing consultants; and final expense and limited liability property policies to middle to lower income households in Louisiana through approximately 300 employee agents in its home service distribution channel. The Company's business consists of three primary operating business segments: Life Insurance, Home Service Insurance, and Other Non-insurance Enterprises. SECURITY PLAN: Dismissed From Hurricane Katrine-Related Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Security Plan Fire Insurance Co., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Citizens, Inc., was dismissed as a defendant from the matter captioned "In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation." Initially, SPFIC was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, asserting allegations on behalf of a purported class. The suit was filed on Aug. 28, 2006, and was initially styled, "Connie Abadie, et al. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., et al." Most of the property and casualty insurers in Louisiana were also named in this lawsuit. It sought payments for claims denied by SPFIC and other declaratory relief related to Hurricane Katrina. It is presently unclear how many plaintiffs are insureds of SPFIC. In order to expedite the handling of all the litigation related to Hurricane Katrina, the court consolidated "Connie Abadie" into an action styled "In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation," or the "Katrina Consolidated Litigation." On March 15, 2007, a Master Class Action Insurance Complaint was filed in the Katrina Consolidated Litigation. On March 27, 2007, "Connie Abadie" was administratively closed by the Court and superseded by the Master Class Action Insurance Complaint. One of the defenses that certain defendants in the Katrina Consolidated Litigation have asserted is that their insurance policies excluded claims for flood damage, even though the floods resulting from Hurricane Katrina may have been caused by negligence. On Aug. 2, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in the Katrina Consolidated Litigation that the flood exclusion language in certain property insurance policies was effective to preclude claims for flood damage by policyholders whose policies include such an exclusion. Although SPFIC was not a party to that lawsuit, its policies do exclude flood damage claims. On Sept. 30, 2007, the judge presiding over the Katrina Consolidated Litigation issued a ruling holding that specific named peril policies that do not list flooding as one of the named perils, do not provide coverage for flooding. SPFIC's policies are named peril policies that do not list flooding as one of the named perils. SPFIC intends to continue to vigorously defend any claims resulting from flood damage on the grounds, among others, that its policies do not cover such damage. In May 2008, SPFIC was dismissed as a defendant from these lawsuits by order of the court, according to Citizen's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. Citizens, Inc. -- http://www.citizensinc.com/-- is an insurance holding company serving the life insurance needs of individuals in the U.S. and in more than 35 countries. The company's core operations include issuing and servicing, which intern include ordinary whole life insurance policies predominantly to high net worth, high income foreign residents, principally in Latin America and the Pacific Rim, through approximately 2,600 independent marketing consultants; ordinary whole life insurance policies to middle income households in the Midwest and the southern U.S. through approximately 600 independent marketing consultants; and final expense and limited liability property policies to middle to lower income households in Louisiana through approximately 300 employee agents in its home service distribution channel. The Company's business consists of three primary operating business segments: Life Insurance, Home Service Insurance, and Other Non-insurance Enterprises. SECURITY PLAN: Insurance Coverage Suit Ongoing in Louisiana ----------------------------------------------------------- The Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans has yet to rule on the Exceptions of No Cause of Action, No Right of Action, Vagueness, Prescription and Failure to Meet Class Action Requirements filing by Security Plan Fire Insurance Co., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Citizens, Inc., in relation to a purported class-action lawsuit over insurance coverage. The suit was filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans on behalf of Karen Cheneau in August 2006. It stems from damages Ms. Cheneau sustained during Hurricane Katrina. In November 2007, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Petition to Assert Class Allegations Against SPFIC. The purported class consists of Louisiana citizens who purchased homeowner's insurance coverage and contents insurance coverage from SPFIC, whose homes and property covered by these policies were damaged as a result of Hurricane Katrina and who timely submitted claims to SPFIC for their losses, and who either received no recovery or received less than the proper value of their valued policies as a result of their claims. SPFIC has responded to the Amended Petition by filing Exceptions of No Cause of Action, No Right of Action, Vagueness, Prescription and Failure to Meet Class Action Requirements. In April 2008, the plaintiff's local counsel in Louisiana filed an Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw from the case. Currently, the plaintiffs are without local counsel to file pleadings and attend hearings on their behalf. The Exceptions have not yet been set for hearing, according to Citizen's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. Citizens, Inc. -- http://www.citizensinc.com/-- is an insurance holding company serving the life insurance needs of individuals in the U.S. and in more than 35 countries. The company's core operations include issuing and servicing, which intern include ordinary whole life insurance policies predominantly to high net worth, high income foreign residents, principally in Latin America and the Pacific Rim, through approximately 2,600 independent marketing consultants; ordinary whole life insurance policies to middle income households in the Midwest and the southern U.S. through approximately 600 independent marketing consultants; and final expense and limited liability property policies to middle to lower income households in Louisiana through approximately 300 employee agents in its home service distribution channel. The Company's business consists of three primary operating business segments: Life Insurance, Home Service Insurance, and Other Non-insurance Enterprises. VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mass. --------------------------------------------------------------- Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. Initially, on March 13, 2008, a purported shareholder class- action lawsuit, captioned "Waterford Township Police Fire Retirement System v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al.," was filed, naming the company and certain of its officers as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the company made material misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in its disclosures leading up to its Nov. 2, 2007 press release immediately preceding the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases meeting, all in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5). On April 18, 2008, a further class action complaint based on the same factual allegations and naming the same defendants, but including further allegations of insider trading violations during the class period by three of the company's officers, was filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. These complaints were consolidated into a single lawsuit on May 29, 2008. A consolidated and amended complaint was filed on July 21, 2008, and seeks certification as a class action, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and unspecified equitable or injunctive relief. The suit is "Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated et al., Case No. 1:08-cv- 10414-RGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Richard G. Stearns, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Suite 200, 58 South Service Road Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 - and - Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. (tshapiro@shulaw.com) Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-439-3939 Fax: 617-439-0134 Representing the defendants is: John C. Blessington, Esq. (john.blessington@klgates.com) K & L Gates LLP One Lincoln Street State Street Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 Phone: 617-261-3108 Fax: 617 261-3175 WACHOVIA CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Wachovia Corp. is facing a purported securities fraud class- action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, according to Wachovia's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The purported class-action lawsuit, entitled "Miller, et al. v. Wachovia Corporation, et al.," was specifically filed against Wachovia and its board of directors and certain senior officers before the New York Supreme Court for the County of Nassau. The suit was later removed by Wachovia to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suit is in relation to Wachovia's May 2007 issuance of trust preferred securities. The plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 as a result of allegedly misleading disclosures relating to the Golden West Financial Corp. mortgage portfolio. The suit is "Miller v. Wachovia Corporation et al., Case No. 2:2008cv00879," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Joanna Seybert, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 - and - Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. (jfruchter@aftlaw.com) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky One Penn Plaza, Suite 2850 New York, NY 10119 Phone: 212-279-5050 Fax: 212-279-3655 Representing the defendants are: Israel David, Esq. (israel.david@friedfrank.com) Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson, LLP One New York Plaza New York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-859-8000 Fax: 212-859-4000 - and - Patrick M. McGuirk, Esq. (pmcguirk@sidley.com) Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-839-5300 Fax: 212-839-5599 WACHOVIA CORP: Faces "Lipetz" Securities Fraud Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- Wachovia Corp. is facing a purported securities fraud class- action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit, captioned "Lipetz v. Wachovia Corporation, et al.," was filed by purported Wachovia shareholders on July 7, 2008, alleging violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Among other allegations, the plaintiffs allege Wachovia's common stock price was artificially inflated as a result of allegedly misleading disclosures relating to the Golden West Financial Corp. mortgage portfolio, Wachovia's exposure to other mortgage related products such as collateralized debt obligations, control issues and auction rate securities. The suit is "Lipetz, et al. v. Wachovia Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:2008cv06171," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Richard J. Sullivan, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Evan J. Smith, Esq. (esmith@brodsky-smith.com) Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C. 240 Mineola Blvd. Mineola, NY 11501 Phone: 516-741-4977 Representing the defendants is: Israel David, Esq. (israel.david@friedfrank.com) Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson One New York Plaza New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-859-8000 Fax: 212-859-4000 WACHOVIA CORP: Faces Seven ERISA Violations Lawsuits in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wachovia Corp., its board of directors and certain senior officers are facing seven purported class-action suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of Wachovia employees who held shares of Wachovia common stock in their Wachovia Savings Plan accounts, according to Wachovia's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty under the mployee Retirement Income Security Act, among other things, claiming that the defendants should not have permitted Wachovia common stock to remain an investment option in the Savings Plan because alleged misleading disclosures relating to the Golden West Financial Corp. mortgage portfolio, exposure to collateralized debt obligations and other problem loans, and other alleged misstatements made its stock a risky and imprudent investment for employee retirement accounts. Wachovia Corp. -- http://www.wachovia.com/-- is a financial holding company and a bank holding company. It provides commercial and retail banking, and trust services through full- service banking offices in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Washington, D.C. It also provides various other financial services, including mortgage banking, investment banking, investment advisory, home equity lending, asset-based lending, leasing, insurance, international and securities brokerage services, through other subsidiaries. The company's retail securities brokerage business is conducted through Wachovia Securities, LLC, and operates in 49 states. WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Court Mulls Motions in Home Loans Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to rule on several motions filed in a purported class action lawsuit against Washington Mutual, Inc., over home loans. The class-action lawsuit was filed on Feb. 8, 2008, against the company and other defendants on behalf of a putative class of persons in the U.S. who obtained home loans from the company and "received an appraisal performed by" appraisal management companies eAppraiseIT and Lender's Service, Inc. The suit was filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It asserts that an alleged conspiracy to inflate appraisals by the company, eAppraiseIT and Lender's Service Inc. violated Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Section 17200 of California's Business and Professions Code, and California's Consumer's Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs also bring various common law claims. They seek, among other things, the recovery of actual and treble damages, restitution, an injunction, and costs and attorneys' fees. An amended complaint was filed in the action on March 28, 2008. Motions to dismiss the amended complaint are pending, as is the plaintiffs' motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "Spears v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No. C08-00868-HRL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Howard R. Lloyd, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael David Braun, Esq. Braun Law Group, P.C. 12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 109 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-442-7755 Fax: 310-442-7756 e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com - and - Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq. (jnk@ssem.com) Specter Specter Evans & Manogue, P.C. The 26th Floor Koppers Building 436 Seventh Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412-642-2300 Fax: 412-642-2309 Representing the defendants are: Robert J. Pfister, Esq. (rpfister@stblaw.com) Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 29th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-407-7500 Fax: 310-407-7502 - and - Martin L. Fineman, Esq. (martinfineman@dwt.com) Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111-6533 Phone: 415-276-6500 Fax: 415-276-6599 WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Discovery Ongoing in Interchange Fee Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a lawsuit captioned "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee Litigation, MDL 1720," which names Washington Mutual, Inc., and Washington Mutual Bank as defendants, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The purported class-action lawsuit was filed on June 22, 2005, by a group of retail merchants against the MasterCard and Visa Associations and several member-banks alleging, among other things, that the defendants conspired in violation of the antitrust laws to fix the level of interchange fees. Providian Financial Corp. and Providian National Bank were named as defendants; after Washington Mutual acquired Providian in Oct. 1, 2005, the company was added as a defendant. The suit is entitled, "Photos Etc. Corporation, et al. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 305-CV-1007, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Since then, approximately 48 similar complaints have been filed on behalf of merchants against the Associations and, in some cases, against member banks, including Washington Mutual Bank. On Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order coordinating the cases for pretrial proceedings, under the caption "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee Litigation, MDL 1720," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On April 24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint. The case is now in discovery. The company reported no further development regarding the case in its regulatory filing. Washington Mutual, Inc. -- http://www.wamu.com/-- is a consumer and small business banking company with operations in U.S. markets. The company is a savings and loan holding company. It owns two banking subsidiaries, Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) and Washington Mutual Bank fsb, as well as numerous non-bank subsidiaries. The Company operates in four segments: the Retail Banking Group, which operates a retail bank network of 2,257 stores in California, Florida, Texas, New York, Washington, Illinois, Oregon, New Jersey, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Idaho and Connecticut; the Card Services Group, which operates a nationwide credit card lending business; the Commercial Group, which conducts a multi-family and commercial real estate lending business in selected markets, and the Home Loans Group, which engages in nationwide single-family residential real estate lending, servicing and capital markets activities. WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Wash. -------------------------------------------------------------- Washington Mutual, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Initially, on Nov. 5, 2007, two securities class-action suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its officers. The suits are: -- "Koesterer v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CIV-9801," (S.D.N.Y. Filed Nov. 5, 2007); -- "Abrams v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CIV-9806," (S.D.N.Y. Filed Nov. 5, 2007). A third suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Nov. 7, 2007, under the caption "Nelson v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C07- 1809." The Koesterer case sought relief on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's publicly traded securities between July 19, 2006, and Oct. 31, 2007. The Abrams case sought relief on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock between Oct. 18, 2006, and Nov. 1, 2007. The Nelson case sought relief on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock between April 18, 2006, and Nov. 1, 2007. The plaintiffs in these cases assert that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by allegedly making false and misleading statements and omissions concerning, among other things, the conspiracy with eAppraiseIT as alleged by the Attorney General as well as various aspects of the Company's performance and accounting in light of that alleged conspiracy and of changing conditions in the home lending and credit markets. A fourth lawsuit, entitled "Garber v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Dec. 20, 2007. It made nearly identical allegations on behalf of persons who purchased the securities of Washington Mutual, Inc., from April 18, 2006, through Dec. 10, 2007. On May 13, 2008, plaintiff Brockton Contributory Retirement System filed a fifth securities complaint, which it termed "a placeholder complaint to preserve" various rights and claims for potential inclusion in a forthcoming consolidated, amended complaint. On allegations similar to those in the previously-filed securities action, the case asserts that the company and various co-defendants violated the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 with respect to the company's public offerings of debt in August 2006 and October 2007 and of depositary shares in September 2006. The Nelson case has been dismissed. The Koesterer, Abrams, Garber, and Brockton cases remain pending. On Nov. 28, 2007, the company moved before the Federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation for an order that those of cases be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The MDL Panel granted the company's motion on Feb. 21, 2008. All of the federally filed cases have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which on May 7, 2008. The suits were consolidated into a single case, entitled "In re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C08-387 MJP." The Court held an initial status conference on June 9, 2008, and issued a comprehensive scheduling order on July 25, 2008, settling the first trial for May 2, 2011. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Aug. 5, 2008. The complaint purports to set out claims under the U.S. Exchange Act and the U.S. Securities Act, with a defined class period of Oct. 19, 2005, through July 23, 2008. In addition to the company, the defendants in the consolidated amended complaint include certain current and former officers and directors, and various other co-defendants. The company intends to move to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint by Oct. 6, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "In re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C08-387 MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert Craig Finkel, Esq. (rfinkel@wolfpopper.com) Wolf Popper LLP 845 Third Ave New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-759-4600 - and - Jeffrey C. Grant, Esq. (jeffrey@aoki-sakamoto.com) Aoki Sakamoto Grant 701 Pike St., Ste. 1525 Seattle, WA 98101-1001 Phone: 206-624-1900 Representing the defendants are: Robert Jerrod Pfister, Esq. (rpfister@stblaw.com) Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 29th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-407-7500 Fax: 310-407-7502 - and - Steven P. Caplow, Esq. (stevencaplow@dwt.com) Davis Wright Tremaine 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101-3045 Phone: 206-757-8018 Fax: 206-757-7700 WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Washington --------------------------------------------------------------- Washington Mutual, Inc., is facing a consolidated class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Beginning on Nov. 20, 2007, nine ERISA class-action suits were filed against the company, certain of its officers and directors, and, in some cases, the Washington Mutual, Inc., Human Resources Committee, and the Plan Administration and Plan Investment Committees of the WaMu Savings Plan. The suits are: 1. "Bushansky v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No. C07-1874," (W.D. Wa. Filed Nov. 20, 2007); 2. "Bussey v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No. C07-1879," (W.D. Wa. Filed Nov. 21, 2007); 3. "Alexander v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No. C07-1906," (W.D. Wa. Filed Nov. 29, 2007); 4. "Mitchell v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No. C07-1938," (W.D. Wa. Filed Dec. 5, 2007); 5. "Ware v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No. C07-1997," (W.D. Wa. Filed Dec. 13, 2007); 6. "Rosenblatt v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No. C07-2025," (W.D. Wa. Filed Dec. 18, 2007); 7. "McDonald v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No. C07-2055," (W.D. Wa. Filed Dec. 21, 2007); 8. "Marra v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No. C07-2076," (W.D. Wa. Filed Dec. 27, 2007); 9. "Sloan v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No. C08-471," (W.D. Wa. Filed Mar. 24, 2008). The plaintiffs assert that the defendants were fiduciaries of the WaMu Savings Plan and breached their duties to Plan participants by, among other things: -- failing to manage the Plan for the exclusive benefit of its participants or to use the care, skill, diligence, and prudence necessary to manage the Plan; -- continuing to offer company stock as an investment option in the plan despite that they knew or should have known that the stock no longer was a suitable and appropriate investment for the Plan; -- failing to conduct an appropriate investigation of the merits of continued investment in company stock; and -- failing to provide complete and accurate information regarding the Plan to the Plan's participants. On Nov. 28, 2007, the company asked the Federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation to transfer the actions to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The JPML granted the Company's motion on Feb. 21, 2008. All of the federally filed cases have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which on May 7, 2008, consolidated the actions into a single case, entitled "In re Washington Mutual, Inc. ERISA Litigation, No. C07-1874 MJP." The Court held an initial status conference on June 9, 2008, and then issued a comprehensive scheduling order setting the first trial for May 2, 2011. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in the consolidated suit on Aug. 5, 2008. The complaint purports to set out six claims for breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA, with a defined class period of Oct. 19, 2005, to the present. In addition to the company, the defendants in the consolidated amended complaint include certain current and former members of the Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors and members of the Plan Investment Committee and Plan Administration Committee of the WaMu Savings Plan. The company intends to move to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "In re Washington Mutual, Inc. ERISA Litigation, No. C07-1874 MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. (eciolko@sbtklaw.com) Schiffrin Barroway Topaz Kessler LLP 280 King of Prussia Rd. Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 - and - Robert I. Harwood, Esq. (rharwood@hfesq.com) Harwood Feffer LLP 488 Madison Ave. 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-935-7400 Representing the defendants are: Barry Robert Ostrager, Esq. (bostrager@stblaw.com) Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017-3909 Phone: 212-455-2655 - and - Ronald L. Berenstain, Esq. (rberenstain@perkinscoie.com) Perkins Coie 1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4800 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206-359-8477 WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Court Yet to OK $336-Mln. Antitrust Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to approve a $336-million settlement reached by Washington Mutual, Inc., and several other defendants in the matter "In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1409 (S.D.N.Y.)." In and around February 2001, a number of cardholder class actions were filed against the MasterCard and Visa Associations, and several member-banks alleging, among other things, that they had conspired, in violation of antitrust laws, to fix the price of currency conversion services for credit card purchases made in a foreign currency by U.S. cardholders. Providian Financial Corp. and Providian National Bank were named as defendants; after Washington Mutual acquired Providian in Oct. 1, 2005, the company was added as a defendant. Pursuant to orders of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the cases were consolidated or coordinated for pretrial purposes, under the caption "In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1409 (S.D.N.Y.)." In July 2006, the parties agreed to settle the case for $336 million. The Company's share of the settlement, which has been paid into an escrow account, was covered by existing reserves. The Court has set the hearing on the entry of Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal for March 31, 2008. The Court has not yet issued its ruling. The company reported no further development regarding the case in its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. A Web site -- http://www.ccfsettlement.com/-- has been created to provide information about the lawsuit and settlement, and to allow class members to file their claims on-line. This Web site contains Court Orders and other important documents concerning the settled litigation (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 16, 2008). Washington Mutual, Inc. -- http://www.wamu.com/-- is a consumer and small business banking company with operations in U.S. markets. The company is a savings and loan holding company. It owns two banking subsidiaries, Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) and Washington Mutual Bank fsb, as well as numerous non-bank subsidiaries. The Company operates in four segments: the Retail Banking Group, which operates a retail bank network of 2,257 stores in California, Florida, Texas, New York, Washington, Illinois, Oregon, New Jersey, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Idaho and Connecticut; the Card Services Group, which operates a nationwide credit card lending business; the Commercial Group, which conducts a multi-family and commercial real estate lending business in selected markets, and the Home Loans Group, which engages in nationwide single-family residential real estate lending, servicing and capital markets activities. * Government Health Care Denies Choice to Patients -------------------------------------------------- Fort Worth, Texas, Sept. 24, 2008 -- When examples of the failure of socialized medicine in the United Kingdom and Canada are not enough to dissuade the advocates of nationalized health care, just ask Florida Medicaid recipients who are forced to live in nursing homes instead of living at home with home health aides. According to a September 21, 2008, Associated Press article by Matt Sedensky that appeared on Yahoo.com's news page, politicians in the sunshine state have succumb to pressure by nursing homes to put disabled or elderly patients in their facilities instead of allowing them the option of home health care. The nursing homes, according to the article, don't want to lose tax dollars to community health care businesses that visit patients in their own homes. The issue sparked a federal class action lawsuit on behalf of over 8,000 Florida Medicaid recipients, who are forced to live in nursing homes instead of being able to have home health aides care for them in their own homes, according to the article. The suit aims to break the special-interest stranglehold of the nursing home industry that forces people into institutions instead of getting community health care services. The article cited a 1999 Supreme Court decision that allows Medicaid recipients the option of choosing community health services over nursing homes. Known as the 'Olmstead decision,' the ruling went in favor of two women who wanted community, instead of institutionalized, health care, according to the article. Since the landmark court decision, states have been allocating more of their funds toward community health care services, according to the article, but not fast enough to keep up with the demand of Medicaid recipients who want the home health care option. * Shareholder Lawsuits Certain to Follow Financial Crisis --------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Sept. 24, 2008 -- An attorney who represents pension funds, unions, individuals and others in class-action securities cases says shareholder lawsuits against investment banks and other failed financial institutions are almost certain to follow the financial meltdown on Wall Street. Jeffrey Zwerling, Esq., of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, in New York says such lawsuits would seek recoveries for smaller investors who are facing millions of dollars in losses based on the financial institutions' claims that their underlying investments were sound. "The people who invested in these stocks or mortgage-backed securities weren't high-stakes gamblers," Mr. Zwerling says. "They're like you and me. They invested a dollar and expected to receive a dollar's worth of value in return." "But because the executives at some of these financial institutions, investment banks and mortgage houses were treating their businesses as if they were their own personal casinos, the investors didn't receive the value they thought they paid for," he says. "All they received was an illusion." Mr. Zwerling represents the lead plaintiff in the securities class-action case involving auction rate securities underwritten or sold by Citigroup in auctions it managed. After the market for auction rate securities shut down early this year, investors were left with no access to their money. Since then, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has forced Citigroup and other institutions to make good on the auction rate securities, but still unknown is whether pension funds and the individual workers they represent will receive any money. In Michigan, Mr. Zwerling represents the Wayne County Employees Association in a class-action securities lawsuit against the MGIC Investment Corporation, a provider of private mortgage insurance. The lawsuit claims MGIC failed to warn investors of large financial losses it was experiencing as a result of the worsening credit crisis and problems in the home mortgage industry. Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP � http://www.zsz.com/ -- successfully represents pension funds, unions, individuals and others in legal battles against those accused of corporate malfeasance. The firm handles high-profile and ground breaking class actions involving securities fraud, antitrust violations, and far-reaching consumer fraud. New Securities Fraud Cases LEHMAN BROTHERS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Sept. 24, 2008 -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the Preferred Series "J" stock of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (OTC: LEHJQ or LEHMQ) from the date of the Company's public offering on February 5, 2008, and all purchasers traceable thereto against certain officers and directors of Lehman and certain Underwriters of the Offering, pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77k, 77l and 77o. The Underwriters include: -- Bank of America SecuritiesLLC, -- Citigroup Global Markets Inc., -- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., -- Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., -- UBS Securities LLC, and -- Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC. The Complaint asserts that Lehman's Prospectus contained both material misstatements and omissions, which Plaintiff and the Class relied upon to their detriment. The representations made in the Company's Prospectus were materially false and misleading because at the time of the Offering, Lehman was already suffering from several adverse factors that were not revealed and/or adequately addressed in the document; including the failure to set aside adequate allowances to cover the Company's ever increasing portfolio of underperforming sup-prime related products and to adequately write-down commercial and residential mortgage and real estate assets. These factors were already causing a material adverse affect on Lehman's business and directly led to Lehman's September 15, 2008 announcement that it was seeking protection under the Federal Bankruptcy Code in the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history. The Complaint alleges that Defendants could have -- and should have -- discovered the material misstatements and omissions in the Company's Prospectus prior to its filing with the SEC and distribution to the investing public. Instead, they failed to do so as a result of a negligent and grossly inadequate due diligence investigation. On September 15, 2008, Lehman filed a voluntary petition to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the largest bankruptcy filing in history and largely wiping out the investment interests of the Class. As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading statements set forth in the complaint, the market price of Lehman Preferred J was artificially inflated during the Class Period. In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements described in the complaint, plaintiff and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price of Lehman Preferred J. Had plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said securities, or would not have purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid. Interested parties may move the court no later than November 24, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Gustavo Bruckner, Esq. Martin Restituyo, Esq. Derek Behnke, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: 800-575-0735 e-mail: classmember@whafh.com Web site: http://www.whafh.com/ NOVATEL WIRELESS: Brodsky & Smith Files Calif. Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- BALA CYNWYD, PA, Sept. 24, 2008 � The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, commenced a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Novatel Wireless, Inc., between February 5, 2007, and August 19, 2008. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating the price of Novatel. For more information, contact: Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. Brodsky & Smith, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Toll Free: 877-LEGAL-90 e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com RESERVE PRIMARY: Girard Gibbs Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 19, 2008 -- The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or reinvested in any class of shares of the Reserve Primary Fund between September 28, 2007, and September 16, 2008, inclusive. The action is brought against the Reserve Fund, the Primary Fund, The Reserve, Reserve Management Company, Inc., the Board of Trustees of the funds, and certain officers of the companies. The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making untrue statements and omissions of material fact in the Primary Fund's Prospectus and elsewhere about the fund's business, operations, investments, internal controls and redemption practices, which artificially inflated asset values of shares of the Primary Fund. The Complaint also alleges that Defendants violated the Investment Company Act of 1940 by causing the Primary Fund to deviate from its fundamental investment policy of preserving capital and liquidity by investing in securities that provided higher rates of return, but exposed investors to increased risks. Investors who purchased shares of the Primary Fund expected that, when they sold their shares, they would receive their principal in full, plus any accrued interest or dividends. On September 16, 2008, Defendants announced that the Primary Fund had "broken the buck" and that its net asset value ("NAV") had fallen to $0.97 per share due to huge losses in Lehman Brothers Holdings' debt securities. Contrary to the Prospectus, Defendants had allowed certain investors to redeem $40 billion of their shares at the previous day's NAV of $1.00 per share, rather than $0.97. As a result of these redemptions, the losses suffered by investors with assets remaining in the Primary Fund were severely magnified. The Complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants had abandoned their fundamental investment policy of preserving capital and liquidity to boost the yields on the Primary Fund; (2) Defendants lacked adequate internal controls to research and monitor the investments made by the Primary Fund and continued to invest in securities that were at risk for default; and (3) Defendants would allow certain investors to redeem their shares of the Primary Fund at the previous day's NAV, rather than the next determined NAV, contrary to the Prospectus. Interested parties may move the court no later than November 18, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. Girard Gibbs LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415-981-4800 SPECTRANICS CORP: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- DENVER, Sept. 24, 2008 -- The Denver-based law firm of Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all purchasers of The Spectranetics Corporation publicly traded securities between April 19, 2007, and September 4, 2008, inclusive. The complaint charges Spectranetics and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements to the market about the Company's business operations and financial performance. For instance, defendants failed to disclose that: (a) the Company was improperly promoting its own products and the products of third parties; (b) the Company was improperly compensating personnel, including personnel involved in two post-market studies of Spectranetics' products from 2002-2005; and (c) the Company was receiving parts from an international source in violation of customs laws. As a result, on September 4, 2008, Spectranetics disclosed that the Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had served search warrants on the Company, and confirmed that the NASDAQ had halted trading of the Company's common stock pending the announcement. On this news, Spectranetics' closing stock price plummeted from $9.00 per share on September 3, 2008, to $4.73 the next day. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Spectranetics securities during the Class Period. For more information, contact: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com) Dyer & Berens LLP 682 Grant Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 888-300-3362 303-861-1764 Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Halts Demolition in Chester, W.Va. Site ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued two orders to Rock Springs Enterprises Inc. to stop demolition work at the site of a former pottery-manufacturing facility in Chester, Hancock County, W. Va., according to an EPA press release dated Sept. 18, 2008. EPA halted the demolition because of potential health hazards from asbestos and damage to a previously-constructed soil cap at the site. The former owners of the site, Newell Holdings Delaware, Inc., installed an 11-acre soil cap earlier in 2008 at the site to cover more than 117,000 cubic yards of ceramic pottery waste and soils contaminated with lead, PCBs, and other hazardous substances. The property, located at 8th and Plutus streets, is now owned by Rock Springs Enterprises, a West Virginia company. In August 2008, inspectors from the EPA and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection determined that Rock Springs Enterprises had begun demolition work on the abandoned factory building located adjacent to the capped site. According to inspectors, this work could create an environmental and health hazard by disturbing suspect asbestos materials and also damaging the recently completed cap. Under one of EPA's orders, filed under the Clean Air Act, Rock Springs must halt its demolition activities. According to the order, asbestos has been found in the building, and there is a risk of airborne releases of asbestos fibers. The order alleges that Rock Springs failed to notify officials prior to beginning demolition. It also requires Rock Springs to have a certified asbestos inspector determine the extent of asbestos in the building prior to further demolition. EPA's other order, filed under the Superfund program, specifically requires Rock Springs to refrain from disturbing the cap at the site. According to this order, during the last two weeks of August 2008, EPA discovered that Rock Springs was conducting demolition and metal-scrapping activities at the site that were damaging the cap and subjecting it to erosion. Under the order, Rock Springs must refrain from disturbing the cap and maintain a fence around the site and vegetation on the cap. Rock Springs can resume demolition work when it complies with EPA's orders. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Laurel City Council OKs $92,000 for Cleanup ---------------------------------------------------------------- Council members of the City of Laurel, Md., approved a US$92,000 contract to fund the removal of asbestos at the former First Baptist Church building on Fifth Street, which is the future home of the Laurel Police Department, the Laurel Leader.com reports. The asbestos will be removed from the ceiling and floor tiles, and in the heating and air conditioning system of the church. Public Works Director Paul McCullagh told Council members at a Sept. 10, 2008 meeting, "As long as the asbestos fibers are not disturbed, they are not hazardous, but when they are moved, they get in the air and can be hazardous. The removal will be handled in a safe and appropriate manner." According to Mr. McCullagh, the asbestos removal will take 60 days to complete. He said design plans for the police station are almost done and he hopes to have a contract awarded for the construction work by January 2009. The renovations for the new police station are expected to be completed by December 2009. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: John Crane Moves to Set Aside $4Mil Verdict ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Crane Inc., which was hit with a US$4.39 million jury verdict in September 2008, urged Circuit Judge David F. Pugh to set aside the judgment, the Daily Press reports. John Crane said in a 54-page motion that the jury was wrong to assign one company with full blame for shipyard worker John Koonce's asbestos-related cancer even though he also used asbestos products made by other companies. Garlock Sealing Technologies, which previously settled its portion of the case out of court, also made many asbestos products used by Mr. Koonce, who contracted mesothelioma while repairing ships at Norfolk Shipbuilding and Drydock Corp. Though Garlock was on the verdict form along with John Crane, the jury did not assign any damages to that company. Two previous Newport News Circuit Court juries assigned some of the blame to Garlock in similar cases, one to the tune of 40 percent of the final verdict. John Crane's attorney, Archibald Wallace III, Esq., of Richmond, Va., said, "The jury's utter disregard of the evidence regarding Mr. Koonce's exposure to Garlock products resulted in John Crane being apportioned 100 percent fault and being left to bear the entire (US$4.39 million) verdict alone." The motion said that because the jury's verdict went "against the evidence" at trial, a new trial should be granted. Or, the motion argued, Judge Pugh should reapportion the verdict between the companies. John Crane argued that Judge Pugh erred by allowing plaintiffs' evidence into trial that should have been barred, even while excluding defense evidence that should have been permitted. Regarding the apportionment of the verdict, Mr. Koonce's attorney, Bobby Hatten, Esq., said the jury made a legitimate finding that the blame for the mesothelioma cannot be sliced between the defendants. Mr. Hatten said, "Two juries thought it could be apportioned, and this one said we don't think so. It's a finding of fact that the jury was entitled to make." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of W.Va. Post Office --------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos found in the crumbling ceiling tile prompted the temporary closure of a post office in Davis, W.Va., the Charleston Gazette reports. U.S. Postal Service officials do not yet know when the Tucker County site will reopen. The Thomas Post Office is now serving about 550 of Davis' post office box customers. USPS spokesman Dave Walton says the four employees of the Davis Post Office will work from the Thomas Post Office. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: North Wales Policeman's Death Due to Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Sept. 17, 2008 inquest at Prestatyn, North Wales, Wales, heard that the death of former policeman Douglas Kempton was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Leighton Buzzard Observer reports. Mr. Kempton's partner Neil Owen said that Mr. Kempton breathed in asbestos fibers while he worked as a volunteer on the Leighton Buzzard Railway. Mr. Owen told the hearing that he and Mr. Kempton decided to get married knowing that he was dying and to protect Mr. Owen's financial rights. The 67-year-old Mr. Kempton died on May 17, 2008. Consultant pathologist Dr. Mark Atkinson said a postmortem revealed that Mr. Kempton had suffered a deep vein thrombosis linked to immobility which was due in part to his mesothelioma. Dr. Atkinson said the level of asbestos in Mr. Kempton's body was relatively low. In a statement made in the weeks before his death, Mr. Kempton tried to work out where and when he had been exposed to asbestos fibers. During his naval service as a radio operator on the aircraft carrier Ark Royal, he disposed of confidential waste in the boiler once a week, and in his 16 years as a police officer he sometimes entered buildings where asbestos may have been exposed. Mr. Kempton said that the most likely source was the boilers of the LBR locomotives where he was a volunteer for many years. He had said, "I occasionally traveled on the footplate and vibrations may have caused some of the fibers lining the boiler and pipes to break away." Mr. Kempton said he also visited the workshops where the boilers were repaired. Mr. Owen, who became Mr. Kempton's partner in 2005, told the hearing that until his diagnosis he had led a very active life, enjoying mountain-biking, walking and scuba-diving. Recording an open verdict, John Gittins, Deputy Coroner for North Wales Central, said he could not earmark it as an industrial disease because Mr. Kempton's work on the railway had been a hobby. Leighton Buzzard Railway spokesman Mervyn Leah later told the LBO that Mr. Kempton's many friends at the railway had been sorry to hear of his death as he had been an enthusiast helping to build it up for nearly 40 years. However, Mr. Leah did not believe this would have brought him into contact with dangerous asbestos. He assured the public that there was no danger from visiting the railway. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Navy Officer's Daughter to Get Payout --------------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Dawson, the daughter of Arthur Webster, a former Royal Navy officer, has been offered compensation for Mr. Webster's exposure to asbestos in Norwich Power Station, the Norwich Evening News 24 reports. In August 2008, Mr. Webster's family was desperate for former employees of the Power Station on Thorpe Road to come forward to confirm that asbestos was in the building. Solicitor Godfrey Morgan has praised the Evening News for reporting the case which has brought the new evidence to light and Mrs. Dawson has said she is pleased the fight looked like being won. While waiting for a job in the Post Office, Mr. Webster worked for the Power Station (n/k/a npower) in Norwich, England, lagging pipes with asbestos. Mr. Morgan, who is fighting the case for the Webster family, said, "You can see the asbestos move and crack on the footage as the building heats up. It's fantastic evidence in this case. We are so thankful to the Evening News for the story which helped bring the two people forward and npower, which is now responsible for the building, has made us an offer." Alexandra Pritchett, npower spokeswoman, said, "We feel it would be inappropriate to comment on the case until it is concluded." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TOAST Asbestos Cleanup Estimated at $3.8Mil ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos cleanup at the Thomas O'Brien Academy of Science and Technology (TOAST) in Albany, N.Y., is estimated at US$3.8 million, CBS 6 News reports. The US$3.8 million is in addition to the US$8 million to US$9 million allocated by the district to renovate the 53-year old school building, bringing the entire rehabilitation cost to nearly US$13 million. Parents learned in July 2008 that the renovation project already underway at TOAST had uncovered the presence of large amounts of asbestos, which was supposed to have been removed during a district-wide project in the 1980s. Asked if the students who attended TOAST since the 1980s might have been inadvertently exposed to asbestos in some way, Albany school district spokesperson Ron Lesko said the asbestos was encapsulated and that air quality tests taken at the school came back meeting federal standards. Five hundred TOAST students were forced to relocate to a so- called "swing" school building for the new school year, sharing the former Phillip Schuyler School on Lake and Western with 350 students from the Arbor Hill Elementary School, which is also undergoing renovation. Asked on the US$13 million price tag, school board member Melissa Mackey said the district could have built a brand new school for US$13 million. She added, "I would like to know how we managed to miss these things -- that we were not able to foresee these difficulties." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defendants' Motion Denied in Moeller Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied a motion to vacate filed by Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, Anchor Packaging Co., and John Crane, Inc. in the asbestos litigation filed by Robert L. Moeller. The case is styled In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI) Robert L. Moeller, et al. v. Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, et al., W.D. Kentucky, 3:07-65. The panel (comprised of Acting Chairman D. Lowell Jensen, Chairman John G. Heyburn, II, Judges Frederick Motz, Robert L. Miller, Jr., Kathryn H. Vratil, David R. Hansen, and Anthony J. Scirica) entered judgment in MDL No. 875 on June 5, 2008. Garlock Sealing, Anchor Packaging, and John Crane, in the action pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania had moved to vacate that portion of the Panel's order, entered at the suggestion of the transferee court. The transferee court conditionally remanded the Moeller case to the Western District of Kentucky, with the exception of any claims for punitive or exemplary damages that had previously been severed by the transferee court. Responding plaintiffs opposed the motion to vacate. The Panel found that remand of the non-punitive/exemplary damage claims in Moeller was appropriate at this time. The Panel ordered all claims by plaintiffs in the Moeller case, except the severed claims for punitive or exemplary damages, were separated and remanded to the Western District of Kentucky. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota Corp. Expends JPY1.090B at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Kubota Corporation's asbestos-related expenses were JPY1.090 billion (US$10.9 million) during the year ended March 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Sept. 18, 2008. Of the JPY1.090 billion, JPY769 million (US$7.69 million) represented expenses related to the payment for the relief payment system established in April 2006. During the year ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded about JPY4.035 billion (US$34,195,000) as expenses and payments for asbestos-related matters. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 5, 2007) Until 1995, the Company's plant in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture, which is now a company office, had made products containing asbestos. In April 2005, the Company was advised that some residents who lived near the former plant suffered from mesothelioma. The Company announced its intention in June 2005 to act seriously and faithfully concerning various issues of the health hazard of asbestos from the viewpoint of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a company that had once manufactured products containing asbestos for a long time. According to the Company's basic policy, the Company started the program of consolation payments to patients with mesothelioma who lived near the former plant and to the families of residents who died from mesothelioma. In April 2006, the Company decided to establish the relief payment system in place of the consolation payment system and make additional payment to the residents to whom consolation payment were eligible to be paid or payable. After the Company established its internal policies and procedures of relief payment system, the Company has received claims for relief payments from 174 residents and paid or accrued relief payments to 152 of those residents after carefully reviewing those claims as of March 31, 2008. With regard to the procedures for making claims to the Company for relief payments, the Company has asked the residents or the bereaved family of the residents who lived close to its former plant to communicate with the Company through Amagasaki Occupational Safety and Health Center with the documents requested by the Company. The cumulative number of current and former employees who are eligible for compensation in accordance with the Company's internal policies that are not required by law is 132 as of March 2006, 152 as of March 2007, and 160 as of March 2008. In August 2006, the Company announced that the Company would provide a total donation of JPY1.2 billion to Hyogo College of Medicine made over 10 years and JPY500 million to Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases over five years. The Company donated JPY200 million (US$2 million) as a contribution for the year ended March 31, 2008. As a result of the asbestos issue becoming an object of public concern, the Japanese government newly established the Law for the Relief of Patients Suffering from Asbestos-Related Diseases in March 2006. This law was enacted for the purpose of promptly providing relief to people suffering from asbestos-related diseases who are not eligible for relief by compensation from the Insurance in accordance with the Workers' Accident Compensation Insurance Law. The relief aid payments are contributed by the national government, municipal governments, and business entities. The contribution includes a special contribution by companies which operated a business closely related to asbestos, and is to be made by business entities commencing from the year ended March 31, 2008. During the year ended March 31, 2007, the Company accounted for JPY735 million (US$7.35 million) of the special contribution as a lump sum expense, which is imposed based on the New Asbestos Law during the four-year period commencing on April 1, 2007. Headquartered in Osaka, Japan, Kubota Corporation (Kabushiki Kaisha Kubota) manufactures farm equipment, pipes for water supply and sewage systems, environmental control plants, and industrial castings. The Company also provides credit services, which finance sales of equipment by dealers, for the purpose of enhancing sales of equipment to individual customers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Desnoyers Indicted for Clean Air Act Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- A federal court in Utica, N.Y., has convicted 53-year-old Mark Desnoyers for falsifying monitoring results of asbestos removal companies, the North Country Gazette reports. Mr. Desnoyers was convicted of a conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act and to commit mail fraud; aiding and abetting substantive Clean Air Act violations; mail fraud; and multiple counts of making false statements to Special Agents of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Desnoyers, owner of Adirondack Environmental Associates, Inc., was an air monitor who took samples required to document the purported full and safe removal of asbestos from numerous commercial buildings and private homes. However, it was found that Mr. Desnoyers secretly entered into agreements with the owners of asbestos removal companies to falsify his results. The abatement companies in and around the Plattsburgh, N.Y., area were able to ignore significant environmental safeguards mandated by law and disturb the asbestos in a manner that spread the asbestos throughout the areas purportedly being cleaned. The conspiracy between Mr. Desnoyers and the abatement contractors left facilities massively contaminated and exposed clients/victims to this substance. One week before the start of the trial, 57-year-old John Wood, owner of J & W Construction, Inc. (an asbestos removal company), pleaded guilty to the Clean Air Act and mail fraud conspiracy involving Mr. Desnoyers. Mr. Wood admitted his role in directing the illegal removal of asbestos from numerous commercial facilities and private homes and in utilizing Mr. Desnoyer's false air reports to fool clients into believing all the asbestos had been safely removed. He also pleaded guilty to contempt of court for violating numerous conditions of pretrial release, including committing additional illegal asbestos abatements after he had already been indicted for such conduct. Mr. Wood testified against Mr. Desnoyers at trial. Curtis Collins, 50 years old, owner of Adirondack Asbestos, also pleaded guilty to conspiring with Mr. Desnoyers and Mr. Wood, and testified against Mr. Desnoyers. Mr. Collins acknowledged his role in the illegal removal of asbestos. Sentencing as been scheduled in Utica, N.Y. before the Hon. David N. Hurd on Feb. 13, 2008. Mr. Desnoyers faces a maximum possible term of incarceration of 25 years and a fine of US$1.25 million plus restitution to victims; Mr. Wood faces a maximum possible term of incarceration of 5.5 years and a fine of US$250,000, plus restitution to victims; Mr. Collins faces a maximum of incarceration of 5 years and a fine of US$250,000, plus restitution to victims. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Files Plan, Disclosure Statement ---------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Grace & Co., on Sept. 19, 2008, announced that it has filed a Plan of Reorganization and an accompanying Disclosure Statement with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware, according to a Company press release dated Sept. 19, 2008. The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, the Representative for Future Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, and the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders are co-proponents of the Plan. The documents are consistent with the terms of the previously announced asbestos personal injury settlement. Fred Festa, Grace's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, said, "T[his] filing brings Grace an important step closer to resolving its asbestos-related liabilities and exiting Chapter 11. It's an equitable plan that enjoys wide-spread support. People who have been injured by asbestos exposure will be fairly compensated while employees and shareholders retain control of a financially strong company that is poised to succeed in today's challenging global marketplace." A hearing on the Disclosure Statement is scheduled to begin on Oct. 27, 2008. The Plan of Reorganization and the Disclosure Statement, with certain exhibits, will be available on the Company's Web site at http://www.grace.com/ Subsequent Plan related documents will be made available at this site as they are filed. Grace and most of its domestic subsidiaries filed petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy code on April 2, 2001. This action was taken to determine Grace's asbestos-related liabilities and protect the long-term value of its businesses. On April 7, 2007, Grace announced that it reached an agreement in principle to resolve all present and future asbestos-related personal injury claims, the terms of which are reflected in the Plan. The Plan supersedes plans of reorganization previously filed by Grace, and jointly by the asbestos personal injury committee and future claimants' representative, respectively. Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty materials for a wide-range of industrial applications; sealants and coatings for food and beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and residential construction. Grace has about 6,500 employees and operations in over 40 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brookshiers File Suit in Ill. v. 124 Firms --------------------------------------------------------------- Clyde and Doris Brookshier, both of Missouri, filed an asbestos- related lawsuit against 124 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., on Sept. 12, 2008, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. According to the suit, Mr. Brookshier was diagnosed with mesothelioma on July 8, 2008. The Brookshiers say Mr. Brookshier worked from 1957 until 1960 as a lineman at Missouri Light & Power and was a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, from 1960 until 1962 as a laborer in the U.S. Army, from 1962 until 1965 as a laborer at his father-in-law's farm, and from 1965 until 1983 as an installer/repairman at Sprint. Mr. Brookshier also has done some home remodeling work including building a barn and helping with roofing jobs. In addition to his first-hand exposure, Mr. Brookshier claims he has been exposed to asbestos fibers through his father who was a lineman at Missouri Light & Power until 1949. According to the suit, the Brookshiers state Mr. Brookshier's exposure was foreseeable and should have been anticipated by the defendants. They claim his disease was caused after he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers. The Brookshiers allege the asbestos-related disease disabled and disfigured Mr. Brookshier and has caused substantial medical costs. He also has and will continue to experience physical pain and mental anguish, they claim in the lawsuit. In the 11-count lawsuit, the Brookshiers seek sums in excess of US$100,000, punitive and exemplary damages in excess of US$100,000, economic damages in excess of US$150,000, compensatory damages in excess of US$150,000, and for other relief the Court deems appropriate. The Brookshiers also seek punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Ferris Kimball Company, LLC; Sprinkmann Sons Corporation; Sprinkmann Insulation, Inc.; and Young Insulation Group of St. Louis for their misconduct and to deter similarly situated parties from committing like acts in the future. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian & Associates in Alton, Ill., represent the Brookshiers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: E-MOSAIC Seen as Possible Cancer Treatment --------------------------------------------------------------- LegalView informed its mesothelioma blog readers of a Swiss Group study for Clinical Cancer Research that will test an electronic device as a possible treatment for mesothelioma, TransWorldNews reports. The electronic device, known as the Monitoring Symptoms and Syndromes Associated with Advanced Cancer (E-MOSAIC), is a hand held tool that can be "used to record and monitor symptoms" while also assessing a mesothelioma cancer patient's quality of life. The treatment is described as a palliative treatment, rather than a curative treatment. Palliative methods are considered partial treatments rather than complete attempts to cure a condition. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Derbyshire Support Team Seeking Out Victims ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Derbyshire Asbestos Support Team in Derbyshire, England, now offers personalized welfare advice for sufferers of asbestos- related illnesses, the Evening Telegraph reports. The Team has employed an advisor to visit patients and their families to help them claim the financial support to which they are entitled. The project has been funded for three years by a GBP150,000 grant from Macmillan Cancer Support. With this money, the team has been able to expand. Welfare adviser Natalie Woodward will be visiting sufferers in Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Burton, and Derbyshire. Steve Gillingham, of Allenton, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma in July 2008, said, "I remember after my diagnosis coming home with my wife Sue and just sitting in silence. We were shell-shocked and certainly not in the right frame of mind to have to seek the right benefits to make sure we'd be financially OK. "I just didn't know where to start. It was all so overwhelming � my brain wasn't processing anything. And that's where Derbyshire Asbestos Support Team came in. "They were truly amazing. If it wasn't for them we would be lost. They knew exactly what to say and exactly what to do." Derbyshire is considered a hot spot for cases of mesothelioma because of its history of heavy engineering. At least 300 people in the county have died from it in the past 30 years. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Exposed in Wolverhampton Infirmary ---------------------------------------------------------------- Metal thieves exposed asbestos after they ransacked the site of a former eye infirmary in Wolverhampton, England, expressandstar.com reports. The thieves left the asbestos lying on the ground outside the building on Compton Road when they fled after tearing through walls and the roof. The break-in was discovered when workers arrived to remove the asbestos. On Sept. 19, 2008, health officials said there was no danger to the public unless they enter the grounds in Chapel Ash. The site has been derelict for 18 months since eye services transferred to New Cross Hospital. Claudine Weeks, from the Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust, said, "The vandalism caused extensive damage and exposed asbestos that was also left in the grounds of the site. It is expected that the contractors will soon clear the grounds and will then continue with their work." The trust is trying to find a buyer for the site after an original plan to build 100 flats fell through amid the downturn in the housing market. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Peabody, Mass., Holiday Inn ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has found asbestos during renovations in the Holiday Hotel, along Route 1, Peabody, Mass., The Salem News reports. None of the employees have been allowed to work or guests to stay at the 183-room hotel. Health Department Director Sharon Cameron said, "It's currently closed. Right now, nobody is allowed in the building." On Sept. 10, 2008, MassDEP received a complaint of asbestos and state workers took lab samples from the tiles and glue being removed, MassDEP spokesman Joe Ferson said. The samples returned on Sept. 12, 2008 showed asbestos was in the building. Since then, no one has been permitted in the 135,358-square-foot hotel. Mr. Ferson said the hotel was also told it needed to hire a licensed asbestos contractor, secure the work area and submit plans to properly remove the asbestos. As of Sept. 18, 2008, contractors had provided the asbestos- removal plan for its lobby and function area, which has been approved by the DEP and the state's Division of Occupational Safety Asbestos program, Ms. Cameron said. Ms. Cameron said workers started cleanup on Sept. 18, 2008. Building Commissioner Kevin Goggin said the company pulled permits in July 2008 to renovate the 40-year-old building. The permits estimated the cost of improvements at US$400,000, he said. An investigation by the DEP is also underway, Mr. Ferson said. MassDEP was still gathering evidence about the incident. Mr. Ferson said hotel management had not sought or obtained a permit to do any kind of asbestos abatement. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Rules v. Crown Cork in Braley Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, reversed an asbestos- related ruling to favor Rosemarie Satterfield in an asbestos- related lawsuit the decedent, Jerrold Braley, filed against Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. and other defendants. The case is style Rosemarie Satterfield, as Representative of the Estate of Jerrold Braley, Deceased, Appellant v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Individually and as Successor to Mundet Cork Corporation, Appellee. Justices Jan P. Patterson and Diane Henson entered judgment in Case No. 03-04-00518-CV on Aug. 29, 2008. After receiving an honorable discharge from the U.S. Army in 1956, Mr. Braley returned home to Wyoming but then moved his family to Texas to work as an industrial laborer at an oil refinery near Monahans. Over the next several years, Mr. Braley worked at refineries, chemical plants, gas plants, and at other industrial job sites in Texas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Florida, and Louisiana. These jobs involved working with pipes, boilers, compressors, and other machinery requiring insulation, which routinely involved asbestos insulation, including asbestos-containing insulation products manufactured by Crown Cork's predecessor, Mundet Cork Corporation. Mr. Braley worked until he retired in 1996. In July 2002, Mr. Braley was diagnosed with mesothelioma. On Oct. 1, 2002, he sued Crown Cork and others for damages caused by his exposure to asbestos-containing products. His petition also sought to impose liability against Crown Cork as successor to Mundet. In November 2002, Mr. Braley moved for partial summary judgment to establish Crown Cork's liability for Mundet's asbestos- containing products as a result of Crown Cork's acquisition and merger. On May 29, 2003, the District Court of Travis County, 98th Judicial District, granted Mr. Braley's motion for partial summary judgment on the successor liability issue. In June 2003, Mr. Braley died. The representative of his estate, Ms. Satterfield, was substituted as plaintiff. Crown Cork then filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion and severed Mr. Braley's claims against Crown Cork from those against the other defendants. This appeal followed. In three issues, Ms. Satterfield contended that Crown Cork was not entitled to summary judgment. Accordingly, the Appeals Court sustained Ms. Satterfield's first issue, and the Appeals Court reversed the trial court's summary judgment granted in favor of Crown Cork and remanded for further proceedings. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zerkle Files Suit in Madison v. 62 Firms ------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Zerkle, on Sept. 17, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 62 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Ms. Zerkle was diagnosed with mesothelioma on May 12, 2008, according to the suit. She says she has worked since 1988 as a legal secretary or bookkeeper at various locations throughout Illinois. Ms. Zerkle claims her father, who worked from 1950 until 1984 as a union machinist at Pabst Brewery in Peoria, Ill., would bring asbestos fibers home with him on his clothing. She claims her disease was caused after she was exposed to and inhaled those fibers. In the eight-count lawsuit, Ms. Zerkle seeks sums in excess of US$50,000, punitive and exemplary damages in excess of US$100,000 and compensatory damages in excess of US$200,000. Ms. Zerkle also seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the defendants for their misconduct and to deter similarly situated parties from committing like acts of misconduct in the future. Timothy F. Thompson, Jr., Esq., of SimmonsCooper LLC in East Alton, Ill., represents Ms. Zerkle. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mo. Couple Sue 92 Firms in Madison County -------------------------------------------------------------- A Missouri couple, Kristy M. and Robert Ritz, on Sept. 17, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 92 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. In the suit, Mrs. Ritz claims that she was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Nov. 7, 2007. The couple says Mrs. Ritz was exposed to asbestos through clothing her father and grandfather wore home from work. Mrs. Ritz's father worked in various home construction projects beginning in 1968 and her grandfather worked on a farm and did engine work on various farm machinery, the suit states. Because of the disease, Mr. Ritz claims he and other family members have been deprived of the companionship, society and services of Mrs. Ritz. In the seven-count lawsuit, the couple seeks sums in excess of US$100,000, punitive and exemplary damages in excess of US$100,000 and compensatory damages in excess of US$150,000. The Ritzes also seek punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Ferris Kimball Company, LLC, Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, Sprinkmann Insulation, Inc., and Young Insulation Group of St. Louis for their misconduct and to deter similarly situated parties from committing like acts in the future. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian & Associates in Alton, Ill., represent the Ritzes. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lyon Suit Filed v. 13 Firms on Sept. 16 ------------------------------------------------------------ Lindy Lyon, on Sept. 16, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 13 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Ms. Lyon claims she was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Aug. 16, 2002, according to the suit. She says she worked from 1978 until 2006 as an assembly line worker, dashboard hanger and packager at various locations. Ms. Lyon claims a family member, Williams Rommel, Jr., worked from 1966 until 1994 as an iron worker at various locations and would bring the asbestos fibers home on his clothing, where Ms. Lyon was exposed to them. In the two-count lawsuit, Ms. Lyon seeks sums in excess of US$50,000 and compensatory damages in excess of US$50,000. Ms. Lyon also seeks punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the defendants for their misconduct and to deter similarly situated parties from committing like acts of misconduct in the future. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmonscooper LLC in East Alton, Ill., represent Ms. Lyon. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Superior Court Rules v. Georgia-Pacific ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. says that the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a ruling, which had favored Georgia- Pacific Corporation, in an asbestos lawsuit filed an unnamed Pennsylvania construction worker, according to a Baron & Budd press release dated Sept. 22, 2008. Even after exposure to its asbestos-containing joint compound caused the construction worker to contract and die of mesothelioma, Georgia-Pacific thought it could avoid compensating the victim's family by requiring them to provide documentation of the precise days and times when the man worked around the product. The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County initially ruled in favor of Georgia-Pacific. However, the Superior Court reversed the decision and returned the case to be tried on its merits. Baron & Budd attorney Sharon Bautista, Esq., was appellate counsel for the family. In the trial court below, the plaintiff was represented by Ben DuBose, Esq., Kevin McHargue, Esq., and Misty Farris, Esq., also of Baron & Budd, P.C., and Steven J. Cooperstein, Esq., with the Philadelphia firm of Brookman, Rosenberg, Brown and Sandler. Russell W. Budd, Esq., managing shareholder of Baron & Budd, said, "Georgia-Pacific cannot evade liability for harm caused by a worker's exposure to the company's asbestos-containing joint compound simply by suggesting that we have to present proof of every individual time this worker was exposed to Georgia Pacific's product. And the Superior Court of Pennsylvania saw through Georgia-Pacific's attempts to shirk its responsibility in that manner." The Superior Court reversed the Court of Common Pleas' decision that the plaintiff had insufficient evidence that he had been exposed to Georgia-Pacific's asbestos spackling compound on a regular basis. The court was persuaded both by the evidence of the plaintiff's sons who testified that their father had himself worked with the product numerous times and by another coworker who, though he could not recall a specific occasion on a specific construction site, was able to testify that the plaintiff had worked in close proximity to Georgia-Pacific's product on a regular basis. The dangers of asbestos exposure were widely known in industry circles for decades before the plaintiff's exposure to Georgia- Pacific's joint compound in the 1970s. Even so, said Ms. Bautista, "Georgia-Pacific did not see fit to warn workers about the hazards created when asbestos-containing joint compound is mixed or sanded, or tell them about appropriate safety precautions, even though basic prevention methods have been known since the 1930s." The plaintiff worked for a construction company in Pennsylvania in a variety of trades throughout the 1970s and 1980s. He died of mesothelioma in 2004. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Lawyer for Hardie to Testify in Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Attrill, a former in-house solicitor involved in James Hardie Industries N.V.'s asbestos litigation, will be the first witness for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in its landmark civil penalty suit against the 2001 Hardie board and three former executives, The Sydney Morning Herald reports. Mr. Attrill will take the stand in the New South Wales Supreme Court on Sept. 29, 2008. The asbestos trust, which Hardie said in 2001 had sufficient assets to meet all legitimate future compensation claims for asbestos-related diseases, was found by a 2004 special commission of inquiry to be underfunded by AUD1.5 billion. After a public outcry about its initial refusal to fund the shortfall, the Company set up a replacement scheme in 2007. ASIC alleges that the 10 directors and executives breached their duties by not preventing company statements that the 2001 trust was "fully funded." The case will also focus on Hardie's disclosure of plans to restructure and move its headquarters to the Netherlands, which it said at the time would have no impact on asbestos compensation in Australia. The defendants, who include Hardie's former chief executive Peter Macdonald and former chairman Meredith Hellicar, deny liability. ASIC wants Justice Ian Gzell to ban the 10 defendants from company directorships or management, and to impose fines. Mr. Attrill will be followed by a director of the now-defunct trust, Peter Jollie, and its former managing director, Dennis Cooper. Of the 56 witnesses to be called by ASIC, the others named at the Sept. 22, 2008 directions hearing were four solicitors from Allens Arthur Robinson, the firm whose predecessor, Allen, Allen and Hemsley, advised Hardie on the trust and the restructure. ASIC's barrister Tony Bannon, SC, said he expected cross- examination of his 56 witnesses by lawyers for the 10 individual and two corporate defendants would be finished by Christmas. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cal Max Charged GBP10T for Disposal Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- A Lewis, Scotland-based building company, Cal Max Construction, was fined GBP10,000 for the disposal and burning of 10 tons of asbestos waste near a development in Newmarket, Scotland, ContractJournal.com reports. Cal Max was also charged with two offenses related to the dumping. Stornoway Sheriff Court heard the rubble came from a house demolished by Cal Max employees in Perceval Road North on the edge of Stornoway. Rubble, including plastic pipes, cables and sheeting, was dumped with other rubbish from a new housing development the firm is building at Blackwater River, Newmarket. According to a report in the Press and Journal, Prosecutor David Teale said the asbestos pipes could have risked human health if they caught fire. Solicitor Angus Macdonald said Cal Max owner Calum Maclean fell seriously ill in 2007, which had put pressure on co-owner Calum Mackay. Jamie Hepburn, the Environmental Protection Agency's investigating officer said, "The burning of plastic is recognized as causing noxious fumes, and it is possible that people in close proximity may have inhaled some of these." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Conman to Pay Fine for Botched Cleanup ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Magistrates' Court in Cambridge, England, ordered 23-year- old "con artist" Moses Mead, of Rochester, Kent, England, to pay more than GBP7,500 after an elderly man was left with pieces of asbestos in his garden, the Cambridge News Online reports. Mr. Mead faces three counts of not telling residents their rights, including that they had seven days to cancel work from the time the contract was agreed. The incident came to light after an off-duty police officer, PC Andy Badcock, of Cambridgeshire Constabulary, spotted Mr. Mead's workmen. An investigation was carried out by Cambridgeshire County Council Trading Standards and Mr. Mead was arrested and convicted. Mr. Mead told the a 75-year-old, who he had approached outside his home on July 15, 2008, that he would change the asbestos guttering outside his property for UPVC. Mr. Mead also claimed to be one of only two people in Cambridge who could dispose of the asbestos. He gave the resident no notice of cancellation, charged him GBP900 and demanded cash, while his workmen left fragments of asbestos in his garden. In court, Mr. Mead admitted he did not know where asbestos could be legally dealt with in Cambridgeshire. Another Cambridge resident who was approached by Mr. Mead on July 20, 2008 agreed to pay GBP750 for work to be carried out. However, the next day the resident said he did not want to go ahead with the works. Mr. Mead said he had already hired a tower and a lorry and would charge for them and his men's wages. He did not tell the resident he had the right to cancel and the man reluctantly agreed for the work to continue. Another Cambridge resident was not told his rights on July 25, 2008 when Mr. Mead suggested works on his guttering. Mr. Mead pleaded guilty to all three charges and was fined a total of GBP7,519 in relation to the offenses. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Linked to Ellesmere Port Man's Death ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest in Chester, England, heard that the death of retired foreman William Bryan Cresswell, of Ellesmere Port, England, was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Evening Leader reports. The 80-year-old Mr. Cresswell died on April 11, 2008, after suffering from ill health for several years. Mr. Cresswell was a navy veteran but had spent most of his working life at Van Leer, formerly Metal Containers, on Oil Sites Road, Ellesmere Port. Sitting in Chester, coroner Nicholas Rheinberg heard that Mr. Cresswell spent several years in the Merchant Navy in the 1940s and had returned to work at Metal Containers in 1947 until he was made redundant in 1989. The inquest heard Mr. Cresswell was a former light smoker and in later years suffered from mesothelioma, bowel and prostate problems. Mr. Cresswell received short periods of respite care at the Hospice of the Good Shepherd from December 2007, but his health was deteriorating by the start of April 2008. The inquest heard Mr. Cresswell was never exposed to asbestos outside work. A post-mortem examination revealed asbestos fibers in lung tissue. Mr. Rheinberg said Mr. Cresswell died from the industrial disease, mesothelioma and recorded the cause of death as malignant pleural mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure. Mr. Rheinberg heard the family would be taking legal proceedings against the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Glatfelter's Motion Denied in Olin Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division, denied P.H. Glatfelter Company's motion for a discovery conference in a lawsuit filed by Olin Corporation. The case is styled Olin Corporation, Plaintiff v. P.H. Glatfelter Company, a/k/a "Glatfelter" and d/b/a "Glatfelter Company, Defendant. District Judge Lacy H. Thornburg entered judgment in Civil Action No. 1:06CV367 on Aug. 25, 2008. On November 2006, Olin filed a complaint against Glatfelter, alleging breach of contract. The complaint alleged that Glatfelter wrongfully refused to indemnify Olin for environmental liabilities resulting from mercury contamination in and around a paper mill formerly owned by Olin and later owned for a period of time by Glatfelter. The mill in question is located in Pisgah Forest, N.C. Its property, which includes several hundred acres and at least 75 buildings, has been slowly falling into ruin since 2002, when financial problems caused its operations to shut down. According to the instant motion, "[s]nakes, spiders, owls, bats, and rodents occupy many of the buildings at the Mill. Some documents are located in buildings where there is visible asbestos, where ceiling tiles are on the floor, and where there are large holes in the floor[.]" On June 6, 2008, Davidson River Village notified Olin and Glatfelter that it planned to demolish the buildings on the mill property. Representatives from Glatlfelter visited the site on June 16, 17, 18, and 24. Olin had not visited the mill site since its receipt of DRV's letter in June 2008. According to Glatfelter, Olin "has refused to come to the Mill before demolition begins or to request that particular documents be preserved. Rather, [Plaintiff] insists that 'all of the documents currently located at the Mill are potentially relevant' and must be preserved." The Court found that a discovery conference was not warranted at this time. The Court ordered that Glatfelter's motion for a discovery conference was hereby denied. Craig C. Martin, Esq., Amanda S. Amert, Esq., J.H. Jennifer Lee, Esq., of Jenner & Block, LLC, Chris C. Gair, Esq., in Chicago, Philip Scott Anderson, Esq., of Long, Parker, Warren & Jones, P.A., in Asheville, N.C., represented Olin Corporation. Betsy Cooke, Esq., John Michael Moye, Esq., of Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, in Raleigh, N.C., Stephen R. Berlin, Esq., of Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, in Winston-Salem, N.C., represented P.H. Glatfelter Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ike Advisory Released on Sept. 22 in Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- The Mesothelioma Cancer Center, on Sept. 22, 2008, sent a public advisory on Hurricane Ike to Southeast Texas emergency management for distribution to the local media, The Southeast Texas Record reports. The group is warning residents of another danger ahead, the "eminent threat of asbestos exposure" in the wake of the storm. The press release, from www.asbestos.com, instructed its recipients on how to deal with asbestos exposure and to contact them with questions. The press release states, "In an effort to provide the public with valuable information on how to prepare homes and safely deal with the threat of asbestos exposure, the Mesothelioma Cancer Center has created an informative section on their Web site that specifically addresses asbestos exposure and hurricanes." According to the Web site, asbestos.com's mission is to raise asbestos awareness "and to assist people who have already been diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases." However, some are suspicious of the organization's true intentions, believing asbestos.com is a front for plaintiffs' lawyers who are "trolling for clients" and "hoping for big payoffs." When contacted for more information, an asbestos.com employee said the organization was only trying to make people in the area aware that homes and buildings built prior to 1980 may contain hazardous asbestos products. The unnamed employee also said the organization works with top mesothelioma law firms and can refer people stricken with an asbestos infliction to a lawyer. Asbestos.com has been operating since 1995, and "is staffed entirely by individuals who have, in one way or another, been affected by cancer," the organization's Web site says. The press release includes a list of common construction materials that may contain asbestos, such as roofing and ceiling materials, insulation, plumbing, pipe covering, some flooring, caulking and spackle, paneling and paint. The press release also urges residents not to disturb any potentially contaminated materials and to use precautionary measures like wearing protective gear, wetting down the materials to keep fibers from becoming airborne and to contact a professional for abatement or repair. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Local to Pay $2T for Cleanup Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald Ely, of Pittsfield, Mass., is to pay US$2,000 for illegally removing asbestos from a North Street apartment building, The Berkshire Eagle reports. Mr. Ely, who manages and maintains 1223-1230 North St., was charged in July 2008 with violating the Massachusetts Clean Air Act. Inspectors found deteriorating asbestos insulation in the basement of the building in March 2006 and ordered that it be removed. A year later, local and state inspectors determined that asbestos had not been properly removed. A stop-work order was issued until cleanup requirements were met, but an anonymous tip to city code enforcement officials revealed that site work continued even after the order was issued, prompting further action by local and state officials. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha M. Coakley said the 68- year-old Mr. Ely did not follow proper protocol and notify the state Department of Environmental Protection. The state had recommended a 90-day suspended sentence at the Berkshire County Jail & House of Correction and a US$10,000 fine, but a judge instead ordered Mr. Ely to pay US$2,000. The case was investigated by the Massachusetts Environmental Crimes Strike Force, an inter agency unit that includes prosecutors from Ms. Coakley's office, Massachusetts Environmental Police officers and DEP investigators and engineers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Nursing Home Settles w/ Gruzs for $100T ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Pleasant Acres Nursing and Rehabilitation Center and York County, Pa., has reached a US$100,000 settlement with Mary Ann Gruzs, a former beautician who claimed she was fired for speaking out about asbestos, The Evening Sun reports. On Sept. 17, 2008, county commissioners agreed to pay Ms. Gruzs US$100,000. Ms. Gruzs had filed a federal lawsuit in the Fall of 2007, seeking compensatory damages in excess of US$350,000, with interest, plus costs and reasonable attorney fees. In the lawsuit, Ms. Gruzs said she noticed in May 2005 that the salon's floor tiles were breaking and becoming discolored. She said she asked to have the floor repaired but that those requests went unanswered for nearly a year. In the suit, Ms. Gruzs believed the tiles contained asbestos after speaking with a maintenance worker at the Springettsbury Township facility. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Schmidt OKs Asarco's Plan on Sept. 23 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard S. Schmidt of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Corpus Christi, Tex., on Sept. 23, 2008, approved a plan filed by Asarco LLC and a competing plan from its Mexican parent company Grupo Mexico, Reuters reports. Asarco's plan was sponsored by a US$2.6 billion bid from Sterlite Industries Ltd. Asarco said its plan will include a US$1.6 billion cash settlement, including interest, to federal and state governments for the pollution and asbestos claims. The creditors will receive a ballot to vote for or against one or both plans and then Judge Schmidt will make a final ruling on the case taking into account the creditors' opinion, a Grupo Mexico representative told Reuters. Asarco said that bankruptcy court hearings to officially confirm the bankruptcy plan will begin the week of Nov. 17, 2008. Asarco, which owns three copper mines in Arizona, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2005 after it was sued for more than a US$1 billion in environmental clean-up costs. Grupo Mexico, which lost control of Asarco's board due to the bankruptcy, is trying to stop Sterlite's bid for the U.S. miner. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Raises Concern in Wonthaggi Plant --------------------------------------------------------------- Locals in Wonthaggi, Victoria, Australia, raised concerns that asbestos had not been safely removed from a planned desalination plant site, ABC News reports. The AUD3 billion sea water sampling plant will be built behind Williamsons Beach, between Wonthaggi and Kilcunda, in the state's east. Gravel and other materials have been removed from a plant site and dumped an unused pit in Wonthaggi. The waste has not yet been removed and project opponents fear asbestos dust is blowing through the town. Community members say that they have been told by the Environment Protection Authority that asbestos was found at the site. They are calling for an investigation into why the material was not safely removed. A spokesman from the Department of Environment and Sustainability says asbestos was found at the site, but has been properly secured by the drilling contractor. He says WorkSafe Victoria has inspected the site and no breaches have been found. The Bass Coast Shire council, however, says the asbestos was driven through town in uncovered trucks, past hospitals and schools. Councilor Gareth Barlow says asbestos has been sitting in an uncovered quarry at the edge of town for more than a week. He says it poses a risk to children who could be playing in the area. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup in Glace Bay, Canada School Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cleanup of asbestos is ongoing at the St. Michael's Junior High School in Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, Canada, The Chronicle Herald reports. Paul Oldford, coordinator of facilities for the Cape Breton- Victoria Regional School Board, said parents of students at the school should have been told of work involving asbestos at the school over the weekend. Several parents were upset when they spotted warning notices posted on doors of the school. The notices said the building was closed on Sept. 20, 2008 and Sept. 21, 2008 as asbestos work was being carried out. Mr. Oldford said there was a plumbing problem at the school and asbestos had to be removed from some pipes inside a wall on the school's second floor. Mr. Oldford said notes were sent home to parents on Sept. 22, 2008. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bradley Urges Canadian Gov't. to Ban Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Bradley, the mayor of Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, is urging Canada's federal and provincial politicians to ban the export of asbestos, The Observer reports. Canada still allows firms to ship asbestos to Third World countries. Mr. Bradley said the issue has been largely ignored since council passed a resolution in September 2001 urging senior government to ban the practice. The issue was first raised by the Occupational Health Clinic for Ontario Workers, which saw hundreds of local victims of asbestos exposure. In a letter to council, Mr. Bradley urges a re-endorsement of the resolution passed seven years ago. He's copied the letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and all the federal party leaders, as well as the premiers of Ontario and Quebec. Mr. Bradley said the practice is allowed to continue because 3,000 to 4,000 jobs in Quebec depend on asbestos mining. Barb Millitt, chairperson of the Victims of Chemical Valley, said Canada is taking advantage of Third World workers who are not protected by regulations that ban asbestos in their own countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Weitz & Luxenberg Informs Public of Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Weitz & Luxenberg says that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health reports that from 1995 to 2005, about 632 people in New York State died due to asbestosis health problems, according to a Weitz & Luxenberg press release dated Sept. 18, 2008. New York had the seventh highest number of asbestosis-related deaths in America for that time period, with Suffolk County hard hit by the disease with 74 mortalities; in the New York City boroughs, asbestosis claimed the lives of 75. Joseph Patrick Williams, Esq., a trial attorney in the firm's Asbestos Litigation unit, says, "Weitz & Luxenberg is committed to helping families whose lives have been ravaged by asbestosis from New York exposure. These statistics reveal that an alarming number of people were needlessly exposed to the lethal asbestos fibers when it could easily have been prevented." Weitz & Luxenberg is known for spearheading asbestos cases, most recently achieving a US$16.25 million verdict in June 2008 in an asbestos lawsuit involving a former dental student who developed mesothelioma. The firm's client had been exposed to asbestos dust while making castings by carving wax replicas of teeth using asbestos- containing dental tape. The litigation is believed to be the first successful asbestos verdict against a dental supply company. The firm secured a US$37 million asbestos verdict in 2007 in two lung cancer cases in a reverse bifurcated trial. The firm also won a US$25 million jury verdict in 2006 in a trial against DaimlerChrysler AG for a New York City brake reliner who lost his right lung to mesothelioma. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Derelict Building in Basildon Has Asbestos --------------------------------------------------------------- A derelict building in Basildon, England, had corrugated asbestos roofing, which was involved in a Sept. 20, 2008 fire, this is total essex.co.uk reports. Firefighters were tackling the blaze at a detached outbuilding on Green Acres Farm, Cranfield Park Road, Burnt Mills, Basildon. The building was used to store waste fiber glass car moldings. Control operators received a high number of calls to the fire and smoke could be seen as far away as the A127. Crews from Basildon and Hadleigh, wearing breathing apparatus and using two hose reel jets, took more than an hour and a half to extinguish the fire. The cause of the fire has been recorded as accidental. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling to Diaz Case ------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California, affirmed the ruling of the Stanislaus County Superior Court, which favored John Lee in a case filed by Antonio Alcaraz Diaz. The case is styled Antonio Alcaraz Diaz, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John Lee, Defendant and Respondent. Judges Brad R. Hill, Steven M. Vartabedian, and Betty L. Dawson entered judgment in Case No. F054053 on Aug. 28, 2008. Mr. Lee is the controlling shareholder and president of Valley Plaza, Inc., the owner of the Valley Plaza Shopping Center on Kansas Avenue in Modesto. On Feb. 21, 2006, Mr. Diaz filed a contract complaint. He named respondent Mr. Lee as defendant and sought US$60,950 in damages, interest, and attorney fees according to proof. Although the complaint did not set forth formal causes of action, the accompanying civil case cover sheet identified causes of action for auto tort, asbestos property damage, unfair business practices, breach of contract, inverse condemnation, and commercial unlawful detainer. On May 2, 2006, Mr. Diaz filed a first amended contract complaint and again sought US$60,950 in damages, interest, and attorney fees according to proof. On May 18, 2006, Mr. Lee filed a motion to dismiss the action for Mr. Diaz's failure to amend the complaint within the time allowed by the court. On Aug. 18, 2006, the court filed a formal order granting Mr. Lee's motion to strike first amended complaint. On Aug. 31, 2006, the court denied Mr. Diaz's motion for change of venue to San Mateo County. On Oct. 25, 2006, Mr. Diaz filed a second amended complaint alleging one cause of action for general negligence and praying for loss of income of about US$60,950 or according to proof. On Oct. 26, 2006, Mr. Diaz filed a substitution of attorney- civil to act in propria persona in place and stead of David F. Anderson, Esq. On Nov. 13, 2006, Mr. Lee filed an answer generally denying the allegations of Mr. Diaz's second amended complaint and setting forth six affirmative defenses. On May 11, 2007, Mr. Diaz filed a settlement conference statement seeking US$180,000. On July 9, 2007, Mr. Lee filed a motion for summary judgment alleging he could not be held personally liable for the conduct of Valley Plaza and that an underlying fire was caused by arson and not by Mr. Lee's alleged negligence. On Sept. 28, 2007, the court granted Mr. Lee's unopposed motion for summary judgment. On Oct. 15, 2007, the court filed formal orders granting Mr. Lee's motion to compel responses to interrogatories and request for sanctions and motion for summary judgment. On the same date, the court filed a separate judgment following order granting summary judgment. On Oct. 24, 2007, Mr. Diaz filed a timely notice of appeal from the formal summary judgment. On Jan. 31, 2008, this court granted Mr. Lee's motion to augment the record with a supplemental clerk's transcript to include numerous pleadings in the case that were not included in the clerk's transcript on appeal. The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's ruling. Antonio Alcaraz Diaz, represented himself. Caulfield, Davies & Donahue, James R. Donahue, Esq., and John C. Adams, Esq., represented John Lee. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Rules on Asarco LLC Estimation Issues ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to the Courtroom Minutes of the Sept. 23, 2008 Hearing, Judge Richard Schmidt has ruled that "estimation issues can await plan confirmation." Judge Schmidt, according to Bloomberg News, refused to set up a court process to determine the size of ASARCO LLC's liabilities to asbestos victims and government agencies for environmental clean-up and damages. The request was filed by Asarco Incorporated and Americas Mining Corporation, owner of 100 percent of ASARCO LLC's equity. ASARCO LLC and its debtor affiliates have requested an adjournment of the hearing on the Parent's estimation motion to Sept. 23, 2008, instead of Sept. 19, 2008, to coincide with the Sept. 23, 2008 hearing on Disclosure Statements explaining the competing plans of reorganization separately filed by the Debtors and the Parent. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for ASARCO LLC; the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors; the Future Claimants Representative; the U.S. Department of Justice; the state of Washington; the state of Missouri; the state of Arizona; the United Steel Workers Union; and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company supported the Debtors' request. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 85; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $2.7B Deposit Request in ASARCO Case Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard Schmidt did not approve the request of the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants for Asarco Incorporated and Americas Mining Corporation to post a US$2.7 billion bond necessary to consummate the Plan of Reorganization they proposed for ASARCO LLC, Southern Peru Holdings, LLC, and AR Sacaton, LLC, a Courtroom Minutes of the Sept. 23, 2008 hearing on the request stated. Prior to the hearing on the Committee's bond request, the Parent objected arguing that the bond request was prematurely filed and is without factual or legal support. The Parent argued that the Bond Request should be denied because it would be patently unfair for the Court to apply the Committee's demands solely to the Parent's Plan and not to the Debtors' Plan. The glaring unfairness of the Deposit Motion exposes the Committee's agenda, which is not to protect the Debtors' estates, but to drive away the Parent, Luc A Despins, Esq., at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP, in New York, told the Court. The motivation of the Committee, he said, might be driven by the fact that it has negotiated a recovery for its constituents under the Debtors' Plan that allows them to receive an outrageous windfall in the form of uncapped recovery from certain litigation proceeds. That windfall, Mr. Despins pointed out, is jeopardized by the Parent's Plan and therefore the true motive for the filing of the Deposit Motion is clear. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 85; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Moves to Create Solicitation Measure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Under an amended proposed solicitation procedures order filed by ASARCO LLC on Sept. 23, 2008, asbestos counsel who represents holders of settled asbestos personal injury claims must indicate the (i) acceptances of the Debtors' Plan or the rejections of the Debtors' Plan, and (ii) preferences for the Debtors' or the Parent's Plan. The amended proposed order also indicates that holder of a claim or interest may not split his vote for a particular Claim or Interest. Accordingly, (i) each holder will receive a separate Ballot for each Claim or Interest held, regardless of whether or not those Claims or Interests are within the same Class, (ii) each holder will have a single vote for the Debtors' Plan for each Claim or Interest held, (iii) the full amount of each Claim have been deemed to have voted to either to accept or reject the Debtors' Plan, and (iv) any Ballot that partially rejects and partially accepts the Debtors' Plan will not be counted. (ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 85; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Seeks to Settle w/ Pacific Freeholds --------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Grace & Co. asks the Court to approve a settlement they negotiated with with Pacific Freeholds allowing Pacific's asbestos-related property damage claim for US$9,043,375. In turn, Pacific releases all asbestos-related property damage claims against the Debtors. The Debtors intend to pay Pacific in full, in cash without any deduction or offset of any nature. Payment will be made not later than 30 days after the Effective Date by: -- The Debtors or the reorganized Debtors; -- An asbestos trust established under a confirmed plan of reorganization for the benefit or treatment of asbestos property damage claims; or -- Any other person or entity established or designated under the Chapter 11 plan to make payments of allowed asbestos property damage claims. Any payment made will be paid to Pacific's counsel at its address of record and solely in its capacity as Pacific's counsel. The Counsel will be solely responsible to allocate and disburse the amount received between the amount due to the Claimant and the amount. All pending objections asserted by the Debtors against Pacific's Claim and any responses made by Pacific will be deemed inactive and held in suspense without prejudice. The Debtors will assume full responsibility for any injuries, damages or losses Pacific may incur as a result of its execution of the Settlement Agreement. Except for rights and obligations created by the Settlement Agreement available to the Debtors, the Debtors jointly release all claims they may have against Pacific. (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 165; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Seeks to Settle w/ Pa. Hospital ---------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Grace & Co. asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to approve a settlement with the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, which will resolve the Hospital's asbestos-related property damage claim for US$113,750. The Amount will be paid to the Hospital in full and in cash without any deduction or offset of any nature. It will be paid not later than 30 days after the effective date of a Chapter 11 plan. All pending objections asserted by the Debtors and any responses filed by the Hospital will be deemed inactive and held in suspense, without prejudice. (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 165; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Settles Univ. of California Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Grace & Co. asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to approve a settlement with the University of California in settlement of the school's asbestos-related property damage claims for US$1 million. California will be paid in full and in cash without any deduction, proration, or offset of any nature. Payment will be made not later than 30 days after the Effective Date by: -- The Debtors or the reorganized Debtors; -- An asbestos trust established pursuant to a confirmed plan of reorganization for the benefit or treatment of asbestos property damage claims; or -- Any other person or entity established or designated under the Chapter 11 plan to make payments of allowed asbestos property damage claims. A schedule of the Settled Claims is available for free at http://bankrupt.com/misc/CaliforniaClaims.pdf (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 165; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Awaits Decision on Jameson Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- As previously reported, W. R. Grace & Co. asked the Court to approve a settlement agreement with Jameson Memorial Hospital, which settled the hospital's asbestos property damage claim for US$172,500. Laura Davis Jones, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, in Wilmington, Del., relates that as of Sept. 22, 2008, there are no responses to the Debtors' request. (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 165; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Paddock Family to Get Compensation in 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The family of Ellen Paddock, who died in 2007 after being exposed to asbestos from a 1983 fire at an Army Depot in Donnington, Shropshire, England, will get their compensation from the Ministry of Defence in 2009, BBC News reports. The family's compensation case is not scheduled for the High Court until the summer of 2009, two years after Ms. Paddock's death. Since Ms. Paddock's death in November 2007 from mesothelioma at the age of 31, it has emerged that the Army did not do enough to prevent the fire because changes to their massive storage depot were ruled out as expensive and inconvenient. In 1983, Ms. Paddock was seven years old when the blaze covered her home in Telford in ash. In an interview with BBC's Midlands Today in July 2007, she was seriously ill and was being treated for an asbestos-related disease. Ms. Paddock recalled the day she played for hours in the garden as what she described as "snowflakes" rained down from the sky. Ms. Paddock's sister, Sharon Bush, is angry that, despite an inquest which found that Ms. Paddock's death was a result of the fire, it could be another year before the family receive compensation from the MoD. But if, as the inquest into Ms. Paddock's death concluded, exposure to asbestos did indeed kill her, others living and working near the depot at the time of the fire wonder if they might be affected too. Medical experts have said it is unlikely a small exposure would have an effect 25 years later. However, the verdict on asbestos is not so clear. Peter Irvine, an asbestos expert for health and safety firm Tetra Consulting, said, "Everybody is subjected to asbestos pollution and asbestos products for much of their lives, so we mustn't take this out of context. In a statement, the MoD told the BBC it had learned lessons from the "tragic accident" and that its sympathies remained with Ms. Paddock's family and friends. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Occidental Petroleum Uses $715T for Reforms ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to a recent disclosure report, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, in the second quarter of 2008, spent US$715,978 to lobby on trade deals and other issues, including asbestos, The Associated Press reports. The Company also lobbied the federal government on legislation involving railroad antitrust rules, toxic material disclosures, renewable energies, asbestos and mercury bans, and climate change. In the April 2008 to June 2008 period, Occidental lobbied Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency, the departments of State, Commerce and Energy, and other agencies, according to the disclosure report filed July 17, 2008 with the House clerk's office. Headquartered in Los Angeles, Occidental Petroleum Corporation explores for oil and gas; and produces and makes basic chemicals, plastics, and petrochemicals. In 2007, the Company reported proved reserves of 2.9 billion barrels of oil equivalent in the U.S., the Middle East, North Africa, and Latin America. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illinois School Board to Pursue Cleanup ------------------------------------------------------------ At a Sept. 23, 2008 emergency meeting, the East Maine District 63 School Board took steps to remove asbestos found beneath the carpeting at Gemini Junior High School in Niles, Ill., the DesPlaines Times reports. Trace amounts of asbestos were found in Gemini's carpet glue and became exposed when cleanup crews on the first floor were tearing up flood-damaged carpet, District officials said. District Superintendent Kathleen Williams recommended the school board vote to end the problem once and for all, as future floods are likely to re-expose the substance. Ms. Williams said, "We need to take the time now and take care of the problem permanently. I think the school will inevitably flood again. This is the second time since I've been at this district that Gemini has flooded. If we don't remove it (asbestos), I think the general public will really question how safe we want that floor to be." The board voted unanimously to give Ms. Williams the authority to meet with experts and draw up a plan to remove the asbestos. The project's cost is not yet known, but district operations manager Dan Barrie said state officials have already given the district verbal approval for financial assistance to pay for the asbestos removal. Meanwhile, Gemini students and teachers are scattered at schools across the district and have had to set up makeshift classrooms in gymnasiums. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard in Tex. School Raises Health Concern ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos found in Norman Elementary School in Austin, Tex., has some parents worried that their kids could get sick, CBS 42 News reports. However, the school district tells CBS 42 News that parents have nothing to worry about. Norman Elementary was built almost 40 years ago, when asbestos used as a building material was common. The Austin Independent School District told CBS 42, as long as the asbestos is not floating in the air, there is nothing to worry about. Norman Elementary campus is not scheduled for asbestos clean up and parents tell CBS 42 that is alarming. To comply with the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, schools are inspected every three years for health hazards. ********* 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 * * *