/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100917.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, September 17, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 184 Headlines ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suit in Illinois Over Acurox ALBEE BABY: Recalls 130 Sorelle Brand "Prescott" Fixed-Sided Cribs ALLEGHENY COUNTY: Agrees to Pay $3MM to Settle Strip-Search Suit AMERICAN HOME: Hit With $459 Million Judgment Over "Junk Fax" ASTELLAS PHARMA: Sued in Florida Over Adenisone Monopoly BAYSIDE FURNISHINGS: Recalls 36,700 Children's Toys CANADA: Vancouver Aboriginal People Join Class Suit Alleging Abuse CHICAGO: FLSA Class Suit Over Blackberry Use Still Pending CIBC: Ontario Court Dismisses Appeal of Class Suit Dismissal COASTAL CHEMICAL: Accused in Texas Suit of Not Paying Overtime COLEMAN COMPANY: Recalls 50,000 Floating Spotlights COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Court Okays Settlement of Shareholder Suit DJSP ENTERPRISES: Law Firm Reminds Purchasers of Sept. 20 Deadline FOOT LOCKER: Defends "Pereira" Suit in Pennsylvania GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Law Firm to File Class Action Suit Over Poligrip HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls 3,650 Spektrum Receivers MARLABS INC: Accused in N.J. Suit of Defrauding H-1B Employees MEDTRONIC INC: Pretrial in Kinetic Knife's Suit Underway MEDTRONIC INC: Pretrial Proceedings in Canadian Suit Ongoing MEDTRONIC INC: Court Stays Appeal on Dismissal of State Suits MEDTRONIC INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissed Suit Pending MEDTRONIC INC: Court Denies Appeal on Class Certification Ruling MEDTRONIC INC: Appeal of Junked Securities Fraud Suit Pending MEDTRONIC INC: Appeal of Dismissal of "Brown" ERISA Suit Pending MEDTRONIC INC: Bid to Nix "Wright" Suit Set for Sept. 16 Hearing MEDTRONIC INC: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Minnesota NAVISTAR INT'L: Agrees to Non-Binding Mediation in Illinois Suit NAVISTAR INT'L: Says APBO Can't Exceed $1 Billion OREGON HEALTH: Sued for Conducting Bad-Faith Investigations PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Law Firm to File Class Action Suit Over Fixodent SCREEN ACTORS GUILD: Settles Lawsuit Over Foreign Royalties SPEARMINT RHINO: Accused in Calif. Suit of Violating Labor Laws TACO BELL: Completing Class Action Discovery Over Labor Violations TOLL BROTHERS: Agrees to Settle Securities Violations Suit TOLL BROTHERS: Defends Three Defective Drywall Suits WEATHER SHIELD: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Defective Windows * Federal Securities Class Action Filings Decline 4% in 1st Half Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: K-Sea Affiliate Involved in 1 Exposure Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland Govt. Provides AU$533,000 Cash Grant ASBESTOS UPDATE: Longwell Co. Fined $165,400 for Safety Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie School Fined AU$1.6T for Safety Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Appeals Ct. Affirms Ruling in Bevan Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Vacates Board Decision in Guidry's Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: MW Custom Papers Summary Judgment OK'd in Riggs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs MW Custom Papers Summary Judgment Bid ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.J. Court Affirms Ruling in Andersons' Lawsuit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Decision in Fields Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Summary Judgment Denied in Constantinides ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northrop Grumman's Bids Denied in Eckerle Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Petition for Rehearing Denied in Russell Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scottish Local Govt. Urged to Prioritize Safety ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup, Inspection at Middleport Site Complete ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed from 22 Brown University Dorms ASBESTOS UPDATE: $921T Funds Allocated for Troy Bldg. Demolition ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rwanda Government to Discuss Report on Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: One Building Left at Former Fostoria Glass Site ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Court Affirms Ruling in Illinois Central ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Summary Judgment Denied in Gitto's Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Summary Judgment Denied in Faddish Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling in Saller's Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Reverses Ruling in Georgia-Pacific Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling in Falgoust Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Firms to Pay $16,250 for Cleanup Breaches ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial on Equitable Building Case Set Jan. 2011 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Concerned Over Abatement at Va. School ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Asbestos Found at Summerlin Road in Fla. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ilkeston Pit Worker's Death Linked to Exposure ********* ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suit in Illinois Over Acurox --------------------------------------------------------------- Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., disclosed Monday that it and certain of its current and former executive officers have been named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed on September 10, 2010 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain executive officers violated federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose material facts in order to make statements not misleading, during the period February 21, 2006 through April 22, 2010, relating to the Company's Acurox(R) product candidate, and that these statements artificially inflated the trading price of the Company's common stock to the detriment of shareholders who purchased shares during that time. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages for the purported class. Acura believes the claims are meritless and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in research, development and manufacture of product candidates intended to introduce limits and impediments to abuse utilizing the Company's proprietary Aversion(R) Technology, Impede(TM) Technology, and other novel technologies. In a separate news release, the law firm Federman & Sherwood stated: If you are a member of the Class as described above, you may move the Court no later than Tuesday, November 9, 2010, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. If you wish to discuss this action, participate in this or any other lawsuit, or have any questions or concerns regarding this notice, or preservation of your rights, please contact: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com ALBEE BABY: Recalls 130 Sorelle Brand "Prescott" Fixed-Sided Cribs ------------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Albee Baby, of East Rutherford, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of about 130 Sorelle brand "Prescott" fixed-sided cribs. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. These cribs are re-labeled fixed-sided Simplicity cribs that contain tubular metal mattress-support frames recalled in April 2010. The mattress support frames can bend or detach, causing part of the mattress to drop, creating a space into which an infant or toddler can roll and become wedged, entrapped or fall out of the crib. In the April 2010 Simplicity recall, CPSC reported the death of a one-year-old child from Attleboro, Mass. who suffocated when he became entrapped between the crib mattress and the crib frame. In addition, CPSC has received reports of 29 incidents involving the Simplicity cribs where the cribs collapsed due to the metal mattress support frame detaching or bending. These include one child entrapment that did not result in injury and one child who suffered minor cuts when his head struck the broken mattress support bar. CPSC has received one report of a consumer who, in April of 2010, removed the Sorelle Prescott label from the crib and found a Simplicity crib label underneath. (The consumer purchased the crib in July of 2009, prior to the Simplicity mattress support recall.) This recall involves full-sized fixed-sided cribs sold in an oak finish, as 3-in-1 or 4-in-1 convertible cribs. "Sorelle Furniture" along with the company's address, the crib's model number and a manufacturer's code are printed on a label attached to the headboard or footboard. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10344.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold online by AlbeeBaby.com between July 2009 and October 2009 for between $180 and $210. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cribs and contact Albee Baby for a replacement crib, store credit or refund. C&T International/Albee Baby is attempting to directly contact known consumers who purchased the recalled crib online from July 2009 through October 2009. In the meantime, find an alternate, age appropriate, safe sleeping environment for the child, such as a bassinet, play yard or toddler bed. For additional information, contact Albee Baby toll-free at (877) 692-5233 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's website at http://www.albeebaby.com/ ALLEGHENY COUNTY: Agrees to Pay $3MM to Settle Strip-Search Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bowling at Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports Allegheny County will pay $3 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that successfully challenged the constitutionality of strip-searching people jailed for minor offenses. County solicitor Michael Wojcik said Monday the county agreed to settle the case because recent rulings in similar cases across the country favored plaintiffs. "We're not too pleased with it, but it's better than going to trial and getting hit with a larger amount," Mr. Wojcik said. Megan Dardanell, spokeswoman for County Executive Dan Onorato, said the proposed monetary settlement covering an estimated 12,600 people is comparable with those other Pennsylvania counties made. Delaware County agreed to pay $2.9 million for about 10,000 people, Dauphin County agreed to $2.2 million for about 2,500 people, and Lancaster County agreed to $2.5 million for about 10,000 people, she said. Dauphin and Lancaster settled in 2009. Delaware County settled this year. Chester, Lackawanna, Pike and Susquehanna have similar cases pending. "We knew we were going to have to pay, so we tried to reach the best settlement we could," Ms. Dardanell said. "And compared to other counties, we think we did." Rob Pierce, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, said the proposed settlement is fair. "I believe that (the jail's) current policy is constitutional, and this lawsuit helped change the practice," he said. University of Pittsburgh law professor John Burkoff said the county and plaintiffs faced "real risks of losing" at trial. Individual settlements are capped at $3,000, about average for this kind of case, Mr. Burkoff said. "If there's a dollar recovery, that tends to be the range for a strip-search," he said. "It's an interesting and sensible settlement." The jail strip-searched people held for misdemeanor or summary offenses because they might be incarcerated with people processed for felonies, violent misdemeanors or drug charges, Mr. Wojcik said. They could have carried in weapons or drugs for other people, either voluntarily or because the other person coerced them, he said. The plaintiffs claimed that conducting searches without reasonable suspicion a person is carrying contraband violates the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches. Nine of 11 federal circuit courts of appeal have ruled routine strip-searches of people held on minor offenses are unconstitutional. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Pennsylvania, has not ruled on the issue. U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry issued a preliminary injunction March 18, 2008, banning the practice. If he approves the settlement, the ban will become permanent. "We believe the policy that existed before the lawsuit complied with the law, but the court didn't agree with us," Mr. Wojcik said. The jail added scanning technology, including ion detectors, that make it harder for someone to sneak in weapons or drugs, Mr. Wojcik said. A scanner "hit" gives the jail probable cause to conduct a search, he said. About $1 million of the settlement goes to the plaintiffs' lawyers. The rest of the money will be divided among people who were unconstitutionally strip-searched between July 2004 and March 2008. If the judge approves the settlement, the county will send notices to people it believes are eligible for money and set up a website with the settlement's details. Any money left over would be donated to Neighborhood Legal Services, a nonprofit group that provides legal services to the poor. AMERICAN HOME: Hit With $459 Million Judgment Over "Junk Fax" ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Land at Fulton County Daily Report relates a now-defunct home improvement company has been hit with a $459 million "junk fax" judgment following a four-hour bench trial, said plaintiffs attorney Marc B. Hershovitz. The case, originally filed in 2003, targeted American Home Services Inc. for sending unsolicited fax advertisements to 306,000 class members in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. "That's $1,500 per class member," said Mr. Hershovitz. "American Home Services really liked sending junk faxes." Fulton County Superior Court Judge Melvin K. Westmoreland heard the case Monday morning and issued his ruling that afternoon, said Mr. Hershovitz. Prior to that, the case had been appealed to the Georgia Court of Appeals, which upheld the class certification; the state Supreme Court declined to hear the resulting appeal, he said. According to court documents, American Home Services operated from mid-2002 to mid-2004, installing windows, siding and gutters. Mr. Hershovitz said that while the company no longer exists, he and his co-counsel will pursue its commercial liability insurer, Alea, in an effort to satisfy the judgment. "We're arguing over that now," he said. Mr. Hershovitz said the case had been narrowed by an earlier summary judgment order, and the defendant elected to waive a jury trial in favor of having Westmoreland decide the case. "We were able to walk into court at 9 a.m. and walk out with a judgment at 1 p.m.," he said. Mr. Hershovitz handled the case along with Michael K. Jablonski, Ned Blumenthal and Roy E. Barnes. (Mr. Barnes did not participate in the trial, as he is campaigning for governor.) Defense attorneys Neal J. Quirk and Brendan H. Parnell of Quirk & Quirk could not be reached immediately. The case is A Fast Sign Co. v. American Home Services, No. 2003CV77276. ASTELLAS PHARMA: Sued in Florida Over Adenisone Monopoly -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Astellas Pharma abuses its monopoly of adenisone to more than quadruple the price of the drug used in cardiac stress tests, Lakeland Regional Medical Center claims in an antitrust class action in Tampa Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Astellas US, LLC, et al., Case No. 10-cv-02008 (M.D. Fla.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/14/MedicAntiT.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Timothy R. Fiedler, Esq. Archie I. Grubb, II, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS, & MILES, P.C. P.O. Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: 334-269-2343 E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com tim.fiedler@beasleyallen.com archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com - and - Stephen R. Senn, Esq. PETERSON & MYERS, P.A. P.O. Box 24628 Lakeland, FL 33802-4628 Telephone: 863-683-6511 E-mail: ssenn@petersonmyers.com BAYSIDE FURNISHINGS: Recalls 36,700 Children's Toys --------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Fun Stuff Inc., of Newport News, Va., announced a voluntary recall of about 14,400 Click Armband Bracelets, 7,900 Klick Klick Balls and 14,400 BoBo Balls. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The small balls on the end of the toy's arms can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children. The toys were marketed for children age 3 and over. CPSC staff has designated these toys for children between the ages of 19 to 35 months. CPSC has received one report of a ball detaching in a 21-month old girl's mouth in Charlotte, N.C. No medical treatment was required. This recall involves bracelets and balls are made of stretchy, rubber material with hard plastic, colorful balls attached at the end of the toy's arms. The toys were sold with orange, green, pink, purple and blue colored balls. The BoBo balls have a flashing lighted ball encased in the stretchy material. The following item numbers are involved in this recall: Toy Item Number --- ----------- Click Armband Bracelet FS1842 Klick Klick Ball FS1734 BoBo Ball FS1814 Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10341.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through Beach resort stores nationwide from January 2009 through August 2010 for between $2 and $5. Consumers should immediately take the recalled toys away from young children and return them to the place of purchase or contact Fun Stuff to receive a full refund. For additional information, contact Fun Stuff toll-free at (888) 386-7833 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.funstuffinc.net/ CANADA: Vancouver Aboriginal People Join Class Suit Alleging Abuse ------------------------------------------------------------------ CBC News reports hundreds of aboriginal people on Vancouver Island have joined a class action lawsuit alleging they were victims of abuse at Indian day schools, much like native residential school students who recently received government compensation. Philomena Alphonse, who attended St. Catherine's Indian Day School in the Cowichan Valley during the 1940s and '50s, is among the 800 Vancouver Island First Nations members who have joined a country- wide, class action lawsuit against the federal government and several churches. Ms. Alphonse says she and her fellow day students were subjected to the same kind of abuse that many students suffered at residential schools. The only difference was she and her classmates went home to their parents at night. Now she is hoping the lawsuit will result in recognition and some kind of help. "What I'm hoping now is some kind of help, because we're faced with high unemployment, high dropout rate, alcoholism and drug abuse," said Ms. Alphonse. $15 Billion in Damages Sought Joan Jack is the Winnipeg lawyer leading the class action lawsuit, which now represents thousands of day school students across the country. Ms. Jack also compares the situation to the widespread abuse of aboriginal children at native residential school during the same era. "It's exactly the same," said Ms. Jack. "It's just at night, children got to go home to their parents." In the claim, the school survivors say they were physically and sexually abused and stripped of their language, culture and heritage. They are seeking $15 billion in damages. If successful, the class action lawsuit could apply to an estimated 75,000 aboriginal students who attended government- funded, church-run day schools during the residential-school era. According to Ray Mason, who heads the Manitoba group Spirit Wind that is leading the lawsuit, many of the students lived in convents, boarding houses, hostels and orphanages, rather than in school dormitories, or went home to their families. In June 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood in the House of Commons and offered a formal apology and $1.9 billion in compensation to about 80,000 former students who attended residential schools. Overseen by the Department of Indian Affairs, the church-run residential schools aimed to force aboriginal children to learn English, and adopt Christianity and Canadian customs as part of a government policy called "aggressive assimilation." No Apology Yet Ms. Jack says, unlike the residential school students, the day school students have never received an apology, let alone compensation, for what they allegedly went through. "Children were beaten excessively, children were beaten for speaking their language, children were sexually abused, children were physically abused," said Ms. Jack. But the lawsuit is about more than money, she said. "It's really more about giving the people the opportunity to be heard and to have their day in court," she said. Ms. Jack expects the lawsuit will take years to resolve, and she's hoping the federal government and the churches involved will come forward sooner, with apologies and the money to help individuals and their communities heal. CHICAGO: FLSA Class Suit Over Blackberry Use Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Matthew J. Heller, a contributing writer to Workforce Management, a sister publication of Business Insurance, reports that for the past three years, the Chicago Police Department has handed powerful new tools to officers in the field -- BlackBerry smartphones. But the BlackBerry may have backfired on the department, which is now being sued by a sergeant in the gang investigations unit for the overtime he claims he earned while using his smartphone off the clock. The department "has willfully violated the (Fair Labor Standards Act) by intentionally failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees all compensation due them under the FLSA" for their after-hours Blackberry use, Sgt. Jeffrey Allen said in a suit filed in May as a proposed class action. A judge has to certify the case as a class action for it to proceed. The case is one of a handful nationwide in which employees have claimed overtime pay for smartphone use -- and apparently the first involving public employees. But lawyers say such cases are a clear warning to employers to put a smartphone usage policy in place before they end up in potentially costly litigation. Smartphones "are very dangerous and risky for nonexempt employees to have if you're worried about overtime," says Jeremy A. Roth, a partner at San Diego law firm Littler Mendelson. "Clearly there's a tremendous benefit to being able to access work remotely," says Howard S. Lavin, an attorney at the law firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavin in New York. "It's a fabulous tool. The problem is when you take technology and apply it to longstanding laws, there are unintended consequences." Employers can minimize the risk of litigation by restricting smart-phone use to exempt employees or by instructing nonexempt employees to take calls from customers or clients only during regular work hours. Under the FLSA, nonexempt employees are entitled to overtime compensation for "time spent working" beyond a 40-hour workweek. An employee does not even need to be required by the employer to work overtime but must merely do so for the employer's benefit. Mr. Allen said the police department provided him with a BlackBerry so he could "access work-related e-mails, voice mails, and text message work orders regardless of their location. Chicago Police Department work was routinely accomplished through" using his BlackBerry. An attorney for the Chicago Police Department could not be reached for comment. In a class action suit filed last year in Wisconsin, a former CB Richard Ellis Group Inc. employee said the Los Angeles-based real estate brokerage required him to answer messages and calls on his smart phone within 15 minutes "regardless of and without receiving compensation for the time spent doing so." CB Richard Ellis did not return calls seeking comment. While an employee's off-the-clock smartphone use may amount to only a few minutes here or there -- and the FLSA provides an exception for "de minimis" overtime -- legal experts say an employer's liability can mount up in a class action. Moreover, the electronic records stored on smartphones may give an employee solid evidence on which to base an overtime claim. None of the suits has reached an adjudication on the merits. Bellevue, Wash.-based T-Mobile USA Inc. recently settled a case filed by sales representatives who claimed they were entitled to overtime pay because they were required to monitor their smartphones "at all hours of the day." As part of the settlement, the parties agreed not to disclose the terms. CIBC: Ontario Court Dismisses Appeal of Class Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------ Investment Executive reports that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has dismissed the appeal of a decision that stalled a class action suit against CIBC claiming compensation for unpaid overtime. In June 2009, a motion court judge dismissed the effort to certify a class action on behalf of about 31,000 tellers and customer service reps against CIBC ruling that "the action lacked the essential element of commonality". The suit sought seeking $600 million in damages. That ruling was appealed, and, according to the Superior Court's decision, the main issues of the appeal were "whether the motion judge erred in failing to find that there were common issues that would advance the proceeding and in rejecting the appellant's argument as to the illegality of the bank's overtime policy." The Superior Court turned down the appeal in a majority opinion, with one of three judges dissenting. COASTAL CHEMICAL: Accused in Texas Suit of Not Paying Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a dispatcher claims Coastal Chemical Co. forced him, and others, to work more than 100 hours a week without overtime pay, in a class action in Corpus Christi Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Cavazos v. Coastal Chemical Co., LLC, Case No. 10-cv-00295 (S.D. Tex.) (Jack, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/14/Employ.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Elizabeth Mosterson, Esq. Robert E. Goodman, Jr., Esq. KILGORE & KILGORE, PLLC 3109 Carlisle St. Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: 214-969-9099 COLEMAN COMPANY: Recalls 50,000 Floating Spotlights --------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with The Coleman Company, Inc., of Wichita, Kansas, announced a voluntary recall of about 50,000 Coleman (R) WaterBeam (TM) 4D Water-Activated Floating Spotlights. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The lens assembly can come apart from the main housing of the spotlight with force and pose a risk of impact injuries to consumers. Coleman has received 33 reports of the lens assembly coming apart, 18 of which resulted in reports of impact injuries such as bruising, lacerations and minor burns. This recall involves Coleman(R) water-activated hand-held spotlights, model number 5338-782 (orange) UPC 76501 222733, model number 5338-792 (yellow) UPC 76501 222753 and model number 2000000153 (blue/white) UPC 76501 226683. A white label is affixed to the inside of the spotlight lens with the model number and production date information printed on the label. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10343.html The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through various sporting good stores and retail outlets nationwide from January 2005 through June 2010 for between about $20 and $25. Consumers should immediately remove the batteries and stop using the spotlights. Visit http://www.coleman.com/for additional instructions on how to obtain a replacement light. For additional information, contact Coleman at (800) 835-3278 between 7:00 a.m. and 4:45 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's website at http://www.coleman.com/or via e-mail at colemanrecall@coleman.com COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Court Okays Settlement of Shareholder Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York gave its final approval to the settlement agreement resolving a shareholder class action against Comverse Technology, Inc., according to Verint Systems Inc.'s Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended July 31, 2010 Comverse and certain of its current and former officers and directors were named in these litigation relating to the matters involved in the Comverse special committee investigation: (a) a consolidated shareholder class action before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 06-CV-1825; (b) a consolidated shareholder derivative action before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Derivative Litigation. No. 06-CV-1849; and (c) a consolidated shareholder derivative action before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 601272/2006. Verint was not named as a defendant in any of these suits. Igal Nissim, the company's former Chief Financial Officer, was named as a defendant in the federal and state shareholder derivative actions in his capacity as the former Chief Financial Officer of Comverse, and Dan Bodner, the company's Chief Executive Officer, was named as a defendant in the federal and state shareholder derivative actions in his capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of Verint (i.e., as the president of a significant subsidiary of Comverse). Mr. Nissim and Mr. Bodner were not named in the shareholder class action suit. The consolidated complaints in both the state and federal shareholder derivative actions alleged that the defendants breached certain duties to Comverse and that certain current and former officers and directors of Comverse were unjustly enriched (and, in the federal action, violated the federal securities laws) by, among other things: (a) allowing and participating in a scheme to backdate the grant dates of employee stock options to improperly benefit Comverse's executives and certain directors; (b) allowing insiders, including certain of the defendants, to personally profit by trading Comverse's stock while in possession of material inside information; (c) failing to properly oversee or implement procedures to detect and prevent such improper practices; (d) causing Comverse to issue materially false and misleading proxy statements, as well as causing Comverse to file other false and misleading documents with the SEC; and (e) exposing Comverse to civil liability. The complaints sought unspecified damages and various forms of equitable relief. On December 16, 2009, Comverse entered into agreements, which were subsequently amended, to settle the consolidated shareholder class action and the consolidated shareholder derivative actions. Neither the company nor Mr. Nissim or Mr. Bodner is responsible for making any payments or relinquishing any equity holdings under the terms of the settlement. On June 23, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued orders in the shareholder class action and federal shareholder derivative action granting final approval of the settlement agreements in the respective actions. The Court later amended its order in the federal derivative action on July 1, 2010 to incorporate ministerial changes. The respective orders dismissed both actions with prejudice. The parties to the state shareholder derivative action entered a stipulation of discontinuance in July 2010, referencing the dismissal of the federal shareholder class action and derivative actions. A conference before the state court is scheduled for September 14, 2010. Verint Systems Inc. -- http://verint.com/-- is a provider of analytic software-based solutions for the security and business intelligence markets. Its analytic solutions collect, retain and analyze voice, fax, video, e-mail, Internet and data transmissions from voice, video and Internet protocol networks for the purpose of generating actionable intelligence for decision makers to take more effective action. Its solutions for the security market consist primarily of communications interception solutions and networked video solutions. Its solutions for the business intelligence market consist primarily of solutions for enterprises that rely on contact centers for voice, e-mail and Internet interactions with their customers. The business intelligence segment utilizes networked video information to allow enterprises and institutions to enhance their operations, processes and performance. In February 2010, Verint announced the acquisition of Iontas. DJSP ENTERPRISES: Law Firm Reminds Purchasers of Sept. 20 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Saxena White P.A. reminds all purchasers of DJSP Enterprises, Inc. securities between March 16, 2010 and May 27, 2010, inclusive, that September 20, 2010 is the lead plaintiff deadline in the class action currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Complaint filed by Saxena White alleges that during the Class Period, DJSP and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose adverse facts known to them regarding the Company's business and financial results. On March 16, 2010, DJSP informed the investing community that "there is no stopping this inflow of continued defaults that we anticipate to go for another two or three years... foreclosure volumes through 2012 are expected to increase dramatically." Then on May 27, 2010, DJSP shocked the market when it lowered its guidance for adjusted net income by $15 million to $17 million and for adjusted EBITDA by $18 million to $22 million. On this news, the Company's shares fell nearly 29%, opening on May 28, 2010 at $6.33 per share. If you purchased common stock between March 16, 2010 and May 27, 2010, inclusive, you may, no later than September 20, 2010, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of the class members. You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action at www.saxenawhite.com, or directly contact Joe White or Greg Stone at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests at: Joseph E. White, III, Esq. Greg Stone, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com gstone@saxenawhite.com Please note that you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member. Saxena White P.A., which has offices in Boca Raton and Boston, specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States. FOOT LOCKER: Defends "Pereira" Suit in Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------- Foot Locker, Inc., continues to defend the suit captioned Pereira v. Foot Locker in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Certain of the company's subsidiaries are defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various class action allegations under state wage and hour laws, including allegations concerning classification of employees as exempt or nonexempt, unpaid overtime, meal and rest breaks, and uniforms. In Pereira v. Foot Locker, one of the class actions, plaintiff alleged that the company permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In September 2009, the court conditionally certified a nationwide collective action. No further updates were reported in the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010. Foot Locker, Inc. -- http://www.footlocker-inc.com/-- is a global retailer of athletic footwear and apparel, operated 3,785 primarily mall-based stores in the U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand as of Feb. 2, 2008. The company, through its subsidiaries, operates in two segments: Athletic Stores and Direct-to-Customers. The Athletic Stores segment is an athletic footwear and apparel retailer, whose formats include Foot Locker, Lady Foot Locker, Kids Foot Locker, Champs Sports and Footaction. The Direct-to-Customers segment reflects Footlocker.com, Inc., which sells, through its affiliates, including Eastbay, Inc., to customers through catalogs and Internet Web sites. The Foot Locker brand is the company's principal brand. GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Law Firm to File Class Action Suit Over Poligrip ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Regina Leader-Post reports a Saskatchewan-based law firm is launching class action lawsuits against the makers of two popular denture adhesives. Statements of claim which Merchant Law Group planned to file Monday in Saskatchewan and B.C. allege zinc used in the products Poligrip and Fixodent led to health problems in their users. The suits, following on similar legal action taken in the U.S., are against the companies GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of Poligrip, and Proctor and Gamble, which makes Fixodent. "The zinc helps the dentures to stick to the gum," lawyer Tony Merchant said in a news release. "The companies have placed warnings and recognize the dangers," he added. American Web sites began to inform consumers that Poligrip contained zinc. However, the suit contends those warnings downplayed the potential health effects of excessive zinc consumption. In February this year, GSK announced that it would stop using zinc in Poligrip as a precaution because of concerns about potential health problems from long-term, excessive use. At the time, Proctor and Gamble said it didn't plan changing the formula of Fixodent, which used about half the zinc contained in the GSK product Super Poligrip. However, its Web site also notified consumers that, "Some reports suggest that excessive and prolonged zinc intake may be linked to adverse health effects. Use as directed and consult doctor if taking other products containing zinc." The statement of claim, which contains allegations not yet proven in court, contends users of the dental adhesives have experienced such adverse effects as numbness and tingling in the extremities, burning sensations, balance problems and unexplained pain. "Until recently, no mention was made of the potential injuries that can result from using the products and the defendants continued to breach their duty to warn consumers of the risks of using denture adhesives until 2010," the claim alleges. The suit does not contain a dollar figure for the damages sought. In the U.S. some of the claims arising from GSK's product have been settled. HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls 3,650 Spektrum Receivers ----------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Horizon Hobby Inc., of Champaign, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about 3,500 Spektrum Receivers in the United States and 150 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The receiver can lose contact with the model airplane glider's radio control while within normal radio range limits. If this happens, the glider can fall from the sky and hit consumers, posing a risk of injury. No injuries or incidents have been reported. This recall involves Spektrum AR6250 receivers designed for use with carbon fiber model gliders. Model number AR6250 can be found on the back of the packaging and on the front and back of the receiver. "Spektrum" is printed on the front of the receiver. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10342.html The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold through Horizon Hobby direct sales representatives nationwide and Canada from March 2009 through May 2010 for about $105. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled receivers and contact Horizon Hobby for information on receiving a free replacement receiver. For additional information, contact Horizon Hobby toll-free at (877) 504-0233 between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Saturday, between 12:00 noon and 7:00 p.m., Central Time, Sunday, or by mail at 4105 Fieldstone Road, Champaign, Ill. 61822. Consumers can also visit the firm's Web site at http://www.horizonhobby.com/ MARLABS INC: Accused in N.J. Suit of Defrauding H-1B Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a RICO class action claims Marlabs, Sona Patel, Siby Vadakekkara, Sanjay Vidayadharan, and System Efficiency, software consultants, get workers H-1B visas through fraud, then cheat them and put them to forced labor in the United States, in Newark Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Ramakapeta v. Marlabs Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 9420 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on Sept. 10, 2010 (D. N.J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/14/ForcedLabor.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Cindy D. Salvo, Esq. THE SALVO LAW FIRM, P.C. 165 Passaic Ave., Suite 310 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: 973-233-4080 E-mail: csalvo@salvolawfirm.com - and - Daniel A. Kotchen, Esq. Daniel L. Low, Esq. Robert Klinck, Esq. Alicia Gutierrez, Esq. KOTCHEN & LOW LLP 2300 M St., NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: 202-416-1848 E-mail: dkotchen@kotchen.com dlow@kotchen.com - and - Michael F. Brown, Esq. PETERSON, BERK & CROSS, S.C. 200 E. College Ave. Appleton, WI 54912 Telephone: 920-831-0300 E-mail: mbrown@pbclaw.com - and - Vonda K. Vandaveer, Esq. V.K. VANDAVEER, P.L.L.C. P.O. Box 27317 Washington, DC 20038-7317 Telephone: 202-340-1215 E-mail: atty@vkvlaw.com MEDTRONIC INC: Pretrial in Kinetic Knife's Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------- Pretrial proceedings are underway in a putative class action filed by Kinetic Knife against Medtronic, Inc., according to the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2010. On Feb. 10, 2005, Medtronic voluntarily began to advise physicians about the possibility that a specific battery shorting mechanism might manifest itself in a subset of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy- defibrillators (CRT-Ds). These included certain Marquis VR/DR and Maximo VR/DR ICDs and certain InSync I/II/III CRT-D devices. Subsequent to this voluntary field action, a number of lawsuits were filed against the company alleging a variety of claims, including individuals asserting claims of personal injury and third party payors alleging entitlement to reimbursement. One third party payor, Kinetic Knife, dismissed its original action without prejudice and subsequently filed a putative class action relating to the same subject matter. Medtronic removed the action to federal court in the District of Minnesota and filed a motion to dismiss. Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and extending life for people around the world. MEDTRONIC INC: Pretrial Proceedings in Canadian Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Pretrial proceedings in a consolidated class action product liability suit against Medtronic, Inc., in Canada, are underway, according to its Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2010. On Feb. 10, 2005, Medtronic voluntarily began to advise physicians about the possibility that a specific battery shorting mechanism might manifest itself in a subset of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy- defibrillators (CRT-Ds). These included certain Marquis VR/DR and Maximo VR/DR ICDs and certain InSync I/II/III CRT-D devices. Subsequent to this voluntary field action, a number of lawsuits were filed against the company alleging a variety of claims, including individuals asserting claims of personal injury and third party payors alleging entitlement to reimbursement. Class action product liability suits pending in Canada are consolidated in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The court certified a class proceeding on Dec. 6, 2007, and denied Medtronic's leave to appeal certification on May 15, 2008. The class was certified to include individual implant recipients and their family members. In addition, the subrogated claims of the provincial health insurers to recover costs incurred in providing medical services to the implant class are claimed in the class proceeding. Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and extending life for people around the world. MEDTRONIC INC: Court Stays Appeal on Dismissal of State Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- The Minnesota Court of Appeals has issued an order staying further proceedings of the plaintiffs' appeal on the dismissal of ten cases against Medtronic, Inc., filed in state court, according to the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2010. On Oct. 15, 2007, the company voluntarily suspended worldwide distribution of its Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads. The leads are used to deliver therapy in patients with ICDs, but are generally not used in pacemaker patients. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration subsequently classified the company's action as a Class I recall. As of Sept. 1, 2010, approximately 3,700 lawsuits regarding the Fidelis leads have been filed against the company, including approximately 47 putative class action suits reflecting a total of approximately 8,100 individual personal injury cases. In general, the suits allege claims of product liability, warranty, negligence, unjust enrichment, emotional distress, and consumer protection violations. One lawsuit includes a claim by an individual purporting to act as a surrogate for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and one lawsuit has been brought by a third-party payor as a putative class action suit. Approximately 2,600 of the lawsuits have been commenced in state court, generally alleging similar causes of action. Of those state court actions, almost all are pending before a single judge in Hennepin County District Court in the state of Minnesota. On Oct. 22, 2009, that court granted, on grounds of federal preemption, Medtronic's motion to dismiss ten cases that the parties had agreed represented all claims asserted in the cases pending before the Minnesota court. Plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissals was heard by the Minnesota Court of Appeals on July 14, 2010. The Minnesota appellate court subsequently issued an order staying further proceedings of the appeal until a pending appeal on the same issues is resolved by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and extending life for people around the world. MEDTRONIC INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissed Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a multi-district litigation against Medtronic, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2010. On Oct. 15, 2007, the company voluntarily suspended worldwide distribution of its Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads. The leads are used to deliver therapy in patients with ICDs, but are generally not used in pacemaker patients. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration subsequently classified the company's action as a Class I recall. As of Sept. 1, 2010, approximately 3,700 lawsuits regarding the Fidelis leads have been filed against the company, including approximately 47 putative class action suits reflecting a total of approximately 8,100 individual personal injury cases. In general, the suits allege claims of product liability, warranty, negligence, unjust enrichment, emotional distress, and consumer protection violations. One lawsuit includes a claim by an individual purporting to act as a surrogate for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and one lawsuit has been brought by a third-party payor as a putative class action suit. Approximately 2,600 of the lawsuits have been commenced in state court, generally alleging similar causes of action. Of those state court actions, almost all are pending before a single judge in Hennepin County District Court in the state of Minnesota. The federal court cases have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings before a single federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) rules. On January 5, 2009, the MDL court dismissed with prejudice the master consolidated complaint for individuals and the master consolidated complaint for third-party payors on grounds of federal preemption. On May 12, 2009, the MDL court dismissed with prejudice 229 cases that adopted the master consolidated complaint and stayed all other cases pending further order of the court. Plaintiffs' appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was argued on April 12, 2010. Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and extending life for people around the world. MEDTRONIC INC: Court Denies Appeal on Class Certification Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada has denied the appeal on its ruling denying class certification on the claim for punitive damages against Medtronic, Inc., according to the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2010. On Oct. 15, 2007, the company voluntarily suspended worldwide distribution of its Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads. The leads are used to deliver therapy in patients with ICDs, but are generally not used in pacemaker patients. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration subsequently classified the company's action as a Class I recall. As of Sept. 1, 2010, approximately 3,700 lawsuits regarding the Fidelis leads have been filed against the company, including approximately 47 putative class action suits reflecting a total of approximately 8,100 individual personal injury cases. In general, the suits allege claims of product liability, warranty, negligence, unjust enrichment, emotional distress, and consumer protection violations. One lawsuit includes a claim by an individual purporting to act as a surrogate for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and one lawsuit has been brought by a third-party payor as a putative class action suit. Approximately 2,600 of the lawsuits have been commenced in state court, generally alleging similar causes of action. Of those state court actions, almost all are pending before a single judge in Hennepin County District Court in the state of Minnesota. In addition, one putative class action has been filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada. On Oct. 20, 2009, that court certified a class proceeding, but denied class certification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages, which the plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2010, the appeal was denied; plaintiffs have sought leave to take a further appeal. Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and extending life for people around the world. MEDTRONIC INC: Appeal of Junked Securities Fraud Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated putative class action complaint against Medtronic, Inc., is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, according to the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2010. On Nov. 8, 2007, Stanley Kurzweil filed a putative class action complaint against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint is brought on behalf of persons or entities who purchased securities of Medtronic during the period of June 25, 2007 through Oct. 15, 2007. The complaint alleges that "materially false and misleading" representations were made as to the market acceptance and use of the Fidelis defibrillator leads to artificially inflate Medtronic's stock price. Pursuant to court order, the caption of the case was changed to Medtronic, Inc., Securities Litigation, and a consolidated putative class action complaint was filed on April 18, 2008. On March 10, 2009, the court entered an order dismissing the complaint with prejudice and denying plaintiffs leave to amend. Plaintiffs' motion to alter the judgment was denied on May 29, 2009. Plaintiffs' appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was argued on May 12, 2010. Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and extending life for people around the world. MEDTRONIC INC: Appeal of Dismissal of "Brown" ERISA Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal of the dismissal of a putative ERISA class action complaint against Medtronic, Inc., is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, according to the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2010. On Aug. 11, 2008, Mark Brown filed a complaint against the company and certain directors, officers and other company personnel in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 arising from the same subject matter as the consolidated putative class complaint. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of participants in and beneficiaries of the Medtronic, Inc. Savings and Investment Plan, whose individual accounts held shares of company stock at any time from Feb. 15, 2007 to Nov. 19, 2007. On Dec. 29, 2008, the plaintiff amended the complaint to add similar allegations relating to alleged off-label promotion of INFUSE Bone Graft and to amend the class to include participants in the plan from Feb. 15, 2007 to Dec. 12, 2008. The defendants' motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice on May 26, 2009 on the grounds plaintiff lacked standing to assert his claims. Plaintiffs' appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was argued on May 12, 2010. Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and extending life for people around the world. MEDTRONIC INC: Bid to Nix "Wright" Suit Set for Sept. 16 Hearing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic, Inc.'s motion to dismiss Christin Wright's amended putative class action complaint is scheduled for hearing on Sept. 16, 2010, according to the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2010. On Feb. 24, 2009, Christin Wright filed a complaint against the company and certain directors, officers and other company personnel in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The complaint was filed purportedly on behalf of a putative class comprised of participants and beneficiaries of the Medtronic, Inc. Savings and Investment Plan, whose individual accounts held shares of company stock at any time from June 28, 2006 to Nov. 18, 2008. The plaintiff claims the defendants breached fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to properly disclose the September 2008 settlement of the litigation with Fastenetix, LLC and the October 2008 settlement of the Cordis litigation. On March 17, 2010, defendants' motion to dismiss the allegations in the original complaint was granted without prejudice. On May 14, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add allegations similar to those made in the Brown case. Defendants' motion to dismiss that amended complaint is scheduled for hearing on September 16, 2010. Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and extending life for people around the world. MEDTRONIC INC: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic, Inc., defends a consolidated securities class action complaint in Minnesota, according to the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2010. On Dec. 11, 2008, the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association filed a putative class action complaint against the company and two of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint is brought on behalf of persons or entities who purchased securities of Medtronic from Nov. 19, 2007 through Nov. 17, 2008. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading public statements concerning the INFUSE Bone Graft product which artificially inflated Medtronic's stock price during the period. On May 28, 2009, the court order appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On Aug. 1, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated putative class action complaint making similar allegations but expanding the class to include those persons or entities who purchased securities of Medtronic from Nov. 20, 2006 to Nov. 17, 2008. On August 21, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated putative class action complaint expanding the class. Medtronic's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was denied on Feb. 3, 2010, and pretrial proceedings are underway. Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and extending life for people around the world. NAVISTAR INT'L: Agrees to Non-Binding Mediation in Illinois Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Navistar International Corporation continues to defend an amended complaint pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois. In December 2007, a complaint was filed against the company by Norfolk County Retirement System and Brockton Contributory Retirement System, which was subsequently amended in May 2008. The plaintiffs in the Norfolk case allege they are shareholders suing on behalf of themselves and a class of other shareholders who purchased shares of the company's common stock between Feb. 14, 2003, and July 17, 2006. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants, which include the company, one of its executive officers, two of its former executive officers, and the company's former independent accountants, Deloitte & Touche LLP, violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements about the company's financial condition during that period. In March 2008, the court appointed Norfolk County Retirement System and the Plumbers Local Union 519 Pension Trust as joint lead plaintiffs. On July 7, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint based on the plaintiffs' failure to plead any facts tending to show the defendants' actual knowledge of the alleged false statements or that the plaintiffs suffered damages. Deloitte also filed a motion to dismiss on similar grounds. On July 28, 2009, the Court granted Deloitte's motion to dismiss but denied the motion to dismiss as to all other defendants. The parties are currently engaged in discovery focused on class certification issues. The next status conference with the Court was scheduled for June 14, 2010. The lead plaintiffs in this matter seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees among other relief. The parties have agreed to discuss non-binding mediation. No updates were reported in the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010. Navistar International Corporation -- http://www.Navistar.com/-- is a holding company whose subsidiaries and affiliates produce International(R) brand commercial and military trucks, MaxxForce(R) brand diesel engines, IC Bus(TM) brand school and commercial buses, Monaco RV brands of recreational vehicles, and Workhorse(R) brand chassis for motor homes and step vans. The company also provides truck and diesel engine service parts. Another affiliate offers financing services. NAVISTAR INT'L: Says APBO Can't Exceed $1 Billion ------------------------------------------------- Navistar International Corporation seeks a declaration from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio that it is not required to fund or provide retiree health benefits that would cause its Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation to exceed the approximate $1 billion amount provided under a settlement agreement, according to the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010. In April 2010, the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and others filed a "Motion of Plaintiffs Art Shy, UAW, et al for an Injunction to Compel Compliance with the Settlement Agreement." The Shy Motion is pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The Shy Motion seeks to enjoin the company from implementing an administrative change relating to prescription drug benefits under a healthcare plan for Medicare eligible retirees (the "Part D Change"). Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that the Part D Change violates the terms of a June 1993 settlement agreement previously approved by the Court. That Settlement Agreement resolved a class action originally filed in 1992 regarding the restructuring of the company's then applicable retiree health care and life insurance benefits. The Part D Change was effective July 1, 2010, and made the company's prescription drug coverage for post-65 retirees ("Plan 2" or Medicare-eligible retirees) supplemental to the coverage provided by Medicare. Plan 2 retirees now pay the premiums for Medicare Part D drug coverage. For drugs that are covered by Medicare Part D, Plan 2 supplements that coverage through a "buy down" of co-payments to the amounts in place prior to the Part D Change. The Shy Motion contends that the Part D Change violates the Settlement Agreement, because the Settlement Agreement (i) only describes retiree participation in Medicare Parts A and B, not Part D, (ii) only specifies retiree premiums for Medicare Part B, not Part D, and (iii) does not allow the company to "terminate" coverage for drugs previously covered by Plan 2 that fall outside the formulary of the Part D plan selected by the company. On May 20, 2010, the company filed its Opposition to the Shy Motion (the "Opposition"). In the Opposition the company argued that the Part D Change is within the company's authority as "Plan Administrator" to construe and interpret Plan 2, and that the language of Plan 2 makes it clear Plan 2 is supplemental to all available Medicare benefits (even Medicare benefits that did not exist in 1993 and therefore could not have been referenced in the Settlement Agreement). The Opposition further argues that Plan 2 requires retirees to pay the premiums for "available" Medicare benefits and restricts supplemental coverage to "expenses covered by Medicare, but not paid in full by the government program." Plaintiffs' filed their reply brief in support of the Shy Motion on June 3, 2010. In the Reply, Plaintiffs reiterate the arguments in the Shy Motion. With respect to the company's arguments in its Opposition, Plaintiffs contend that (a) the company's authority as Plan Administrator does not include the authority to make the Part D Change, (b) the language about Plan 2 being "supplemental" or "secondary" to Medicare means "supplemental" or "secondary" only to Parts A and B of Medicare, and (c) even if the company was correct that Plan 2 is supplemental to Medicare Part D, that does not imply that retirees must bear the costs of any Part D premiums. On July 19, 2010, the company filed a Surreply to the Shy Motion (the "Surreply"). In the Surreply the Company argued that since July 1, 2010, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has informed the Part D provider to Plan 2 retirees that over 900 Plan 2 retirees have already qualified for the low income subsidy under Part D, meaning that Shy Class members most in need of assistance will pay less for their prescription drugs under the Part D change than they paid under Plan 2 before July 1, 2010. The Surreply responds to claims of hardship to Plan 2 retirees. The company disputes the allegations in the Shy Motion and intends to vigorously defend itself. On June 4, 2010, Navistar filed a separate Complaint in the Court relating to the Settlement Agreement (the "Complaint"). In the Complaint, the company argues that it has not received the consideration that it was promised in the Settlement Agreement -- specifically, that the Company's APBO for health benefits would be "permanently reduced" to approximately $1 billion. The company, therefore, seeks a declaration from the Court that it is not required to fund or provide retiree health benefits that would cause its APBO to exceed the approximate $1 billion amount provided in the Settlement Agreement. A settlement conference was set with the Court for Sept. 13, 2010. Navistar International Corporation -- http://www.Navistar.com/-- is a holding company whose subsidiaries and affiliates produce International(R) brand commercial and military trucks, MaxxForce(R) brand diesel engines, IC Bus(TM) brand school and commercial buses, Monaco RV brands of recreational vehicles, and Workhorse(R) brand chassis for motor homes and step vans. The company also provides truck and diesel engine service parts. Another affiliate offers financing services. OREGON HEALTH: Sued for Conducting Bad-Faith Investigations ----------------------------------------------------------- Karina Brown at Courthouse News Service reports that 19 midwives and pregnant women claim a state licensing agency bullied the moms to keep them from having home births and ran investigations on trumped-up charges in at attempt to shut down Oregon's largest midwifery center. Andaluz Waterbirth Center and Alma Midwifery joined the women as plaintiffs in the federal class action. Midwives in Oregon may preside over home births, including difficult deliveries of breech babies, twins and babies born after their mothers have had a Caesarean section, according to the complaint. But lead plaintiff Jennifer Gallardo, owner of Andaluz Waterbirth Center, Oregon's largest midwifery center, says employees of an unnamed Portland hospital publicly announced the intention of "top officials" to shut Andaluz down unless its midwives stop delivering breech babies and twins outside of hospitals. Ms. Gallardo and the other midwives declined to name the hospital in the complaint, saying the parties are involved in mediation. Ms. Gallardo claims the Oregon Health Licensing Agency played along with the campaign, initiating "bad faith" investigations and filing baseless complaints against Andaluz. Ms. Gallardo says the agency is targeting Andaluz not because of any actual violations, but merely because midwives there are practicing their profession. She says the false charges have scared mothers away from the center. The moms and midwives claim that the Licensing Agency's Director Randy Everitt's actions "have been geared towards punishing midwives who perform these births," despite their legal right to do so. While conducting the bad-faith investigations, the agency harassed pregnant women who sought to give birth at home or at a midwife- centered birthing center, according to the complaint. Agency investigators Tim Molloy and Janet Bartel allegedly demanded the women's medical and birthing records, in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Both investigators are named as defendants. Ms. Gallardo claims the investigators, who have no knowledge or training in midwifery, forced the women to describe "the most intimate details of one of the most personal of life experiences to state investigators who they know to be antagonistic toward their midwives." Ms. Gallardo claims the investigators intended to harass the women into having their babies at hospitals "and to make it nearly impossible for birthing mothers to find a midwife willing to attend their birth." Seven plaintiff-mothers seek class action status on civil rights claims, asserting their right to give birth attended by a midwife and to protect their medical privacy. Midwives provide prenatal and postpartum care. In Oregon, midwives may deliver babies without a license. In 1994, midwives lobbied to create a licensing board, to increase their credibility with mainstream doctors and to get coverage from clients' insurance policies. "The medical community in Oregon lobbied against the bill to establish the Board of Direct Entry Midwifery. They did so in large part to protect their economic interests in having a monopoly on health care in the state of Oregon," according to the complaint. The doctors say that deliveries of twins and breech babies should be done only through expensive Caesarean section, according to the complaint. It adds that obstetricians often claim that births outside of a hospital are unsafe. But Ms. Gallardo says that "breech and twin homebirths have been the current and virtually only method for delivering babies for centuries and, in this country, are a part of its rich history. Obstetrics is not a part of that history, but is a new medical model ground in allopathic medicine and surgery. "Experienced midwives consider breech births and delivery of twins as natural birthing events. Under most circumstances, trained midwives are fully capable of performing such births." In the event of complications, midwives take mothers to the nearest hospital. Medical doctors treat births of breech babies, twins and births after mothers have had Caesarean operations "as medical problems," Gallardo says, and "routinely turn to invasive procedures such as Caesarean operations." Caesareans are the most common operation performed in U.S. hospitals, Ms. Gallardo says, citing a study published by Amnesty International. She says they account for 32% of all births, despite a World Health Organization recommendation to keep the average between 10% and 15% of births. Caesareans triple the risk of maternal death and put both mother and child at risk during future pregnancies, Ms. Gallardo says. She claims that 40 other countries, including "nearly all" industrialized countries, have lower maternal death rates than the United States. Half of the women who undergo Caesareans experience complications, including "infection, blood loss and hemorrhage, hysterectomy, transfusions, bladder and bowel injury, incisional endometriosis, heart and lung complications, blood clots in the legs, anesthesia complications [and] re-hospitalization due to surgical complications," the midwives claim. They add that "chronic complications from scar tissue adhesions include pelvic pain, bowel problems and pain during sexual intercourse." Not only is the procedure dangerous, expensive and too heavily relied upon, Ms. Gallardo claims, midwives have the expertise to safely perform vaginal births "that would otherwise result in a Caesarean operation." And that, they claim, is "an economic threat to the medical community." The women seek declaratory judgment and injunctions on constitutional claims, including free speech, free association, due process, equal protection, and freedom from searches and seizures. They also alleged intentional interference with economic relations. And they want the state agency restrained from filing "'bad faith' complaints that do not factually allege midwifery practice violations," and ordered to expunge records of bad faith investigations of midwives. A copy of the Complaint in Gallardo, et al. v. The Oregon Health Licensing Agency, et al., Case No. 10-cv-06258 (D. Or.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/14/Babies.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roy S. Haber, Esq. ROY S. HABER P.C. 570 East 40th Ave. Eugene, OR 97405 Telephone: 541-485-6418 E-mail: haberpc@cyber-dyne.com - and - Michael Rose, Esq. CREIGHTON & ROSE 815 SW Second Ave. Portland, OR 97201 Telephone: 503-221-1792 E-mail: mrose@sstcr.com PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Law Firm to File Class Action Suit Over Fixodent ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Regina Leader-Post reports a Saskatchewan-based law firm is launching class action lawsuits against the makers of two popular denture adhesives. Statements of claim which Merchant Law Group planned to file Monday in Saskatchewan and B.C. allege zinc used in the products Poligrip and Fixodent led to health problems in their users. The suits, following on similar legal action taken in the U.S., are against the companies GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the manufacturer of Poligrip, and Proctor and Gamble, which makes Fixodent. "The zinc helps the dentures to stick to the gum," lawyer Tony Merchant said in a news release. "The companies have placed warnings and recognize the dangers," he added. American Web sites began to inform consumers that Poligrip contained zinc. However, the suit contends those warnings downplayed the potential health effects of excessive zinc consumption. In February this year, GSK announced that it would stop using zinc in Poligrip as a precaution because of concerns about potential health problems from long-term, excessive use. At the time, Proctor and Gamble said it didn't plan changing the formula of Fixodent, which used about half the zinc contained in the GSK product Super Poligrip. However, its Web site also notified consumers that, "Some reports suggest that excessive and prolonged zinc intake may be linked to adverse health effects. Use as directed and consult doctor if taking other products containing zinc." The statement of claim, which contains allegations not yet proven in court, contends users of the dental adhesives have experienced such adverse effects as numbness and tingling in the extremities, burning sensations, balance problems and unexplained pain. "Until recently, no mention was made of the potential injuries that can result from using the products and the defendants continued to breach their duty to warn consumers of the risks of using denture adhesives until 2010," the claim alleges. The suit does not contain a dollar figure for the damages sought. In the U.S. some of the claims arising from GSK's product have been settled. SCREEN ACTORS GUILD: Settles Lawsuit Over Foreign Royalties ----------------------------------------------------------- Anthony McCartney, writing for The Associated Press, reports that attorneys for the Screen Actors Guild and the actor who played Eddie Haskell on "Leave It to Beaver" have reached a settlement in a class-action lawsuit over the distribution of millions of dollars in foreign royalties to actors. Attorneys for the union and actor Ken Osmond filed the agreement for a judge's approval on Monday. SAG has already paid out millions in royalties to the performers, but the agreement spells out how both remaining and future royalties will be distributed. The lawsuit is the last of three cases filed against unions representing tens of thousands of actors, writers and directors over royalties that have been generated in Europe since the 1980s. The payments were created to compensate the performers for video rentals, blank media and, in some countries, cable retransmissions. The settlement requires an independent audit of payments that have already been made and sets out disclosure guidelines for how SAG handles the royalties. The union is not admitting any wrongdoing, according to the settlement. Neville Johnson, the attorney who represented Osmond and plaintiffs in the other cases, said the actor and former Los Angeles police officer was proud of the outcome. Mr. Osmond sued SAG in September 2007. "This is the end of a long saga to get all of the creative talent adequately paid by these large unions," Mr. Johnson said. "Screen Actors Guild is proud of its efforts to claim and distribute foreign royalties on behalf of our members," said SAG Deputy National Executive Director and General Counsel Duncan Crabtree-Ireland. "We have distributed nearly $8.5 million -- more than half of the total funds collected since the inception of SAG's foreign royalties program." Royalties had been paid to more than 70,000 actors and it was "money that would otherwise have gone unclaimed and been lost to them forever," he said. Mr. Johnson credited Mr. Osmond -- who played the mischievous Haskell on "Leave It to Beaver" in the 1950s and 1960s TV series -- with pressing the issue. "It takes a lot of guts for anybody to stand up and challenge a powerful organization, and Ken had the integrity and the guts to do so and all actors are in his debt," Mr. Johnson said. The agreement requires the approval of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carl J. West, a judge who sits on a special court that specializes in hearing complex litigation matters such as class action lawsuits. His preliminary approval will likely come at a hearing Sept. 20, but it will not go into effect later this year. SPEARMINT RHINO: Accused in Calif. Suit of Violating Labor Laws --------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that nude and seminude dancers have filed 15 class actions against Los Angeles strip clubs. The dancers claim club owners trample labor laws by confiscating more than half of their tips, fining them if they don't sell enough drinks, paying less than minimum wage, falsely classifying them as independent contractors, charging them a "stage fee" to work, and subjecting them to other abuses. Godfathers, Spearmint Rhino, and Players Club are among the best- known of the defendants. The allegations against Godfathers, described in this article, are similar to those in the 14 other class actions. The two named plaintiffs claim Godfathers charges them a "stage fee" to work, and "some of the clubs also force the dancers to kick up to 60 percent of their tips back to the club. Some of the clubs also force the dancers to tip other club employees, e.g., the bartenders, waitresses DJs, [and] bouncers," according to the complaint. The dancers say they are forced under duress to enter unconscionable agreements to "attempt to insulate themselves from liability" by declaring dancers independent contractors. But "the dancers are really unpaid employees," the class claims. The dancers say the clubs impose "illegal uniform requirements without providing uniforms," and "sanction" them for not performing for a certain number of hours, for not clocking out properly, for not selling enough drinks, "for not being fully in costume with hair and makeup complete," for "not offering specials," "for leaving the dance floor," and for other fripperies. In addition to Godfathers, Spearmint Rhino and Players, class actions were filed against Candy Cat 1, Sunny's Saloon, Desire Gentleman's Club, Club 7557, Rouge Gentleman's Club, Blue Zebra, Thirsty's Gentleman's Club, Star Strip, Seventh Veil, Eros Station, Crazy Girls, Cheetah's Night Club and Scores Gentleman's Club. The dancers seek restitution, lost wages and punitive damages for illegal wage deductions, illegal tip collection, illegal uniform requirements and labor and business code violations. The plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Manuwal, Esq. MANUWAL & MANUWAL 6320 Canoga Ave., Suite 270 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 818-715-6040 TACO BELL: Completing Class Action Discovery Over Labor Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ The BISNAR | CHASE -- http://BestAttorney.com/-- California employment lawyers are in the process of completing class-action discovery and gathering declarations in order to certify a class of more than 18,000 current and former employees of Taco Bell Corp and Yum! Brands, Inc. According to the Consolidated Class-Action Complaint, Taco Bell and Yum! Brands, Inc. violated a number of California labor laws by failing to compensate managers and senior assistant managers properly for overtime, breaks and work-related travel expenses. The original complaint was brought against the defendants by Sandrika Medlock, a former Taco Bell shift manager. The class action request is pending in the Eastern District Court of California, Fresno Division, case #1:07-cv-01314-OWW-DLB. Taco Bell Allegedly Violates California Labor Laws According to the Consolidated Class-Action Complaint, Taco Bell is in direct violation of a number of California labor laws in regards to compensation involving its senior managers and assistant senior managers over the past four years. To begin, the complaint alleges Taco Bell failed to pay its employees overtime compensation, directly violating California labor law. What's more, it's alleged that Taco Bell failed to pay wages immediately and in full when an employee was let go, and/or it failed to pay wages owed within 72 hours if an employee voluntarily left the organization -- again, directly violating California labor statutes. Additionally, Taco Bell allegedly violated state law by requiring its employees to work through meal and rest periods without additional compensation. Further still, the complaint alleges the company failed to provide its employees with proper earnings documentation, including itemized wage statements. Finally, it's alleged Taco Bell failed to compensate its employees for work-related expenses, including business travel and employer- mandated shoes and clothing. "It's troubling for Taco Bell and its affiliates to think it can violate clear and obvious employment laws without legal ramifications," said Brian Chase, Senior Partner at BISNAR | CHASE. "What's even more troubling is how pervasive and blatant the company violated even the most fundamental labor statutes, such as failing to compensate employees for lunch breaks and rest periods." Taco Bell Employee Reimbursements -- Company-Wide Violations Alleged Under State wage and hour labor codes, employers are required to reimburse their employees for all costs associated with business- related expenses, including running errands, parking and mileage costs. Despite Taco Bell employees' reimbursement requests for work-related expenses such as these, they were denied. According to Mr. Chase, not only did Taco Bell allegedly violate a number of fundamental state labor laws, its employee manual failed to outline any processes or procedures by which employees were to submit requests for reimbursement. "Due to the lack of reimbursement procedures in its employee manual, we can only presume this was a uniform policy that encompassed all Taco Bell restaurants," said Mr. Chase. Upon certification as a class action, the complaint seeks damages in excess of $5 million for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid lunch and rest breaks, unpaid business expense reimbursement and failure to provide wage statements, in addition to attorneys' fees and court costs. About BISNAR | CHASE The employment lawyers at BISNAR | CHASE represent people whose employee rights have been violated when employers do not comply with California labor laws. Among the areas they handle are wage- and-hour claims; overtime, meal and rest period pay discrepancies; unlawful deductions and expenses; job injuries; and other working conditions. The law firm has won a wide variety of challenging cases against Fortune 500 companies and governmental agencies, including school districts, Caltrans, cities, the State of California and the U.S. Federal Government. TOLL BROTHERS: Agrees to Settle Securities Violations Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Toll Brothers, Inc., has agreed settle an amended complaint alleging violation of federal securities laws pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010. In April 2007, a securities class action suit was filed against Toll Brothers, Inc. and Robert I. Toll and Bruce E. Toll in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock between Dec. 9, 2004 and Nov. 8, 2005. In August 2007, an amended complaint was filed adding additional directors and officers as defendants. The amended complaint filed on behalf of the purported class alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing various materially false and misleading statements that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the company's stock. It further alleges that the individual defendants sold shares for substantial gains during the class period. The purported class is seeking compensatory damages, counsel fees, and expert costs. The parties reached a settlement agreement in principle in July, 2010, which is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The entire settlement amount will be funded by the Company's insurers. Toll Brothers, Inc. -- http://tollbrothers.com/-- is the nation's leading builder of luxury homes. The company began business in 1967 and became a public company in 1986. Its common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "TOL". The company serves move-up, empty-nester, active-adult and second-home home buyers and operates in 20 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. Toll Brothers builds luxury single-family detached and attached home communities, master planned luxury residential resort-style golf communities and urban low-, mid- and high-rise communities, principally on land it develops and improves. The company operates its own architectural, engineering, mortgage, title, land development and land sale, golf course development and management, home security and landscape subsidiaries. The company also operates its own lumber distribution, and house component assembly and manufacturing operations. TOLL BROTHERS: Defends Three Defective Drywall Suits ---------------------------------------------------- Toll Brothers, Inc., defends three purported class action suits relating to allegedly defective drywall manufactured in China. On Dec. 9, 2009, and Feb. 10, 2010, the company was named as a defendant in three purported class action suits filed by homeowners relating to allegedly defective drywall manufactured in China. These suits are all pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana as part of In re: Chinese- Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2047. The complaints also name as defendants other home builders, as well as other parties claimed to be involved in the manufacture, sale, importation, brokerage, distribution, and installation of the drywall. The plaintiffs claim that the drywall, which was installed by independent subcontractors in certain homes built by the company, caused damage to certain items and building materials in the homes, as well as personal injuries. The complaints seek damages for, among other things, the costs of repairing the homes, diminution in value to the homes, replacement of certain personal property, and personal injuries. The company has not yet responded to these suits. No updates were reported in the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010. Toll Brothers, Inc. -- http://tollbrothers.com/-- is the nation's leading builder of luxury homes. The company began business in 1967 and became a public company in 1986. Its common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "TOL". The company serves move-up, empty-nester, active-adult and second-home home buyers and operates in 20 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. Toll Brothers builds luxury single-family detached and attached home communities, master planned luxury residential resort-style golf communities and urban low-, mid- and high-rise communities, principally on land it develops and improves. The company operates its own architectural, engineering, mortgage, title, land development and land sale, golf course development and management, home security and landscape subsidiaries. The company also operates its own lumber distribution, and house component assembly and manufacturing operations. WEATHER SHIELD: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Defective Windows ----------------------------------------------------------------- On September 9, 2010, the Contra Costa County Superior Court for the State of California certified a California statewide class action lawsuit against Weather Shield windows for alleged defective windows. Weather Shield, a Wisconsin corporation, is a manufacturer of window and door system products for the residential and commercial building industry worldwide. The action has been in litigation since March 2008. The lawsuit, entitled Pagano, et al. v. Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. C0800609, Contra Costa County Superior Court for the State of California, concerns Weather Shield's "Visions 2000" vinyl horizontal sliding window. The lawsuit asserts the Visions 2000 vinyl horizontal sliding window is defective and the defects have either caused the windows to fail and cause damage, or will, to a substantial certainty, cause them to fail in the future and cause damage to the home or building they are installed. Plaintiffs seek remedies for those in California who have the windows. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul Stevens, Esq. Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. MILSTEIN ADELMAN & KREGER, LLP 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 396-9600 E-mail: pstevens@maklawyers.com Defendant Weather Shield is represented by: Charles L. Harris, Esq. Gary M. Lape, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925 Telephone: 714-668-5501 714-668-5527 Facsimile: 714-850-1030 E-mail: charris@lbbslaw.com lape@lbbslaw.com - and - Pamela Ferguson, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104-4448 Telephone: 415-438-6638 Facsimile: 415-434-0882 E-mail: ferguson@lbbslaw.com * Federal Securities Class Action Filings Decline 4% in 1st Half ---------------------------------------------------------------- National Underwriter Online News Service reports federal securities class action filings declined 4% in the 2010 first half compared to the same period in 2009, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers. "Specifically, the number of cases filed through the second quarter of 2010 totaled 70 cases compared to 74 cases during the same time period in 2009," PwC said while announcing its "Securities Litigation Mid-Year Update for 2010." PwC added, "If filings continue at a similar rate, approximately 140 federal securities class actions will be filed by year-end compared to a total of 155 filings made in 2009, reflecting a decline of 10 percent." PwC said financial crisis-related filings have continued to decrease since 2008. Such cases represented 47% of 2008 first-half filings, 33% of 2009 first-half filings and 17% of 2010 first-half filings. For 2010, PwC said there were 12% more filings in the second quarter (37) compared to the first quarter (33). Accounting-related cases during the 2010 first half represented 36% of filings, PwC said. Cases involving merger and acquisition allegations represented 17% of filings and pharmaceutical/product efficacy cases represented 10% of filings. PwC said three cases, or 4%, related to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The largest settlements through midyear, according to PwC, "have been financial crisis-related with the Countrywide and Charles Schwab settlements of $624 million and $235 million, respectively." The most active circuits continue to be the Second and Ninth, with 27% and 24% of the cases filed, respectively, PwC said. "Although the financial services industry, with 20 filings, continues to have the largest number of filings, the health industry, which includes filings in both the pharmaceutical and health services industries, with 17 filings, is not far behind," said Grace Lamont, principal and U.S. securities litigation practice leader for PwC, in a statement. "The continued increase of filings in the health industry is noteworthy. In 2009, 17 percent of total filings were in the health industry, and 24 percent during the first half of 2010, an increase of 6 percent. Further, cases filed in the financial services industry decreased from 41 percent to 29 percent of filings. Filings in the high-technology industry increased from 12 percent of filings in 2009 to 16 percent in 2010." A report in July by NERA Consulting also found that 2010 first- half securities filings decreased compared to 2009. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: K-Sea Affiliate Involved in 1 Exposure Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- K-Sea Transportation Partners L.P.'s affiliate, EW Transportation LLC, and its predecessors are co-defendants in one asbestos- related civil action. This remaining case has been administratively dismissed, which effectively means that it remains active for routine matters not requiring a formal hearing, according to the Company's annual report filed on Sept. 13, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. EW Transportation LLC and its predecessors have been named in 39 asbestos-related civil actions by various parties, including former employees. The suits allege unspecified damages from past exposure to asbestos and second-hand smoke aboard some of the vessels that it contributed to the Company in connection with its initial public offering. EW Transportation LLC and its predecessors have been dismissed from 38 of these lawsuits for an aggregate sum of about US$47 million. The Company may be subject to litigation in the future from these plaintiffs and others alleging exposure to asbestos due to alleged failure to properly encapsulate or remove friable asbestos on its vessels, as well as for exposure to second-hand smoke and other matters. East Brunswick, N.J.-based K-Sea Transportation Partners L.P. provides marine transportation, distribution and logistics services for refined petroleum products in the United States. As of Sept. 1, 2010, the Company operated a fleet of 65 tank barges and 66 tugboats that serves customers, including major oil companies, oil traders and refiners. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland Govt. Provides AU$533,000 Cash Grant ---------------------------------------------------------------- Premier Anna Bligh of Queensland, Australia, announced that an AU$533,000 cash grant would go to the not-for-profit Queensland Asbestos Related Disease Support Society over three years, The Sydney Morning Herald reports. The society will use the funds to employ a full-time social worker and two support workers to help people suffering from diseases like asbestosis and mesothelioma. Ms. Bligh told the parliament, "This society helps its members feel less socially isolated. It offers emotional support as members deal with common issues like ensuring a future for their wives, their husbands and children, while they battle with conditions which are both life-limiting and terminal." Ms. Bligh said asbestosis and mesothelioma were on the rise across the nation and asbestos-related diseases were not expected to peak until 2020. She added that the incidence of mesothelioma in Queensland has almost tripled in the past two decades. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Longwell Co. Fined $165,400 for Safety Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Longwell Company, of Bellevue, Wash., faces a US$164,500 penalty for violating state asbestos laws, The Seattle Times reports. Longwell, which owns five apartment complexes in King County, Wash., allegedly used untrained and uncertified workers to clean up contaminated ceiling material from 43 apartments at one complex last December 2009, state regulators said. The Longwell Company of Bellevue was cited and fined by The state Department of Labor and Industries cited and fined Longwell, which is accused of being "willfully negligent and indifferent" to regulations related to the safe clean up of asbestos when it removed damaged "popcorn" ceilings from the Avante Apartments in Kent, and from an apartment and a leasing office at the Arbors at Sunset apartments in Renton. The Sept. 2, 2010 citation marks the third time in 17 months that Longwell has been cited for failing to test for asbestos before undertaking remodeling or repairs, according to L&I spokesman Hector Castro. The Company appealed the citation, and its president and CEO, Stanley Xu, said he was unaware that materials had to be tested for asbestos before they were removed or disturbed during construction. The Company also owns apartments in Lynnwood and Everett. In all, four of the Company's seven complexes have been named in asbestos-removal violations, state records show. However, L&I records show the company was cited for similar violations at two other complexes in 2010. Records from one case show that Mr. Xu was directly involved in discussions last May 2010 about the need for a certified contractor to remove materials containing asbestos at another Longwell complex. L&I's most recent citation at Longwell stemmed from a tenant complaint after cleanup of debris from a burst water pipe. Longwell workers, who the state says are not trained in the proper handling and removal of asbestos, removed debris from the damaged ceilings until an insurance adjuster suspected the material contained asbestos and told them to stop, according to an inspection report. Subsequent testing of the material showed that the ceilings contained three percent asbestos. Despite the finding, Longwell hired a contractor that was not certified by the state, according to L&I. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie School Fined AU$1.6T for Safety Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- Burpengary State School in Burpengary, Queensland, Australia, faces an AU$1,600 penalty for asbestos-related safety law violations, The Sydney Morning Herald reports. Authorities fined the school following an asbestos contamination linked to a Building the Education Revolution project. An inspector from Workplace Health and Safety saw a contractor cut through asbestos sheeting with power tools, during a building demolition at the school. The inspector discovered the breach while visiting the school to deal with a complaint about a lack of fencing around the worksite. The work site will become a double-storey BER teaching block. However, the demolition was not paid for by BER stimulus dollars. Queensland Infrastructure Services, acting deputy director general Graham Atkins told the Australian Associated Press that correct protocols had not been followed. Mr. Atkins said the school had not issued the contractor with a Work Area Access Permit (a document detailing locations of asbestos) before work started. He added that the incident had been referred to independent asbestos management expert John Gaskin and the investigation should be finalized within a week. A spokesman for the Education Minister said the contractor could be struck off the Education Department's register pending the outcome of the investigation. No children or staff was in the area and the school was not closed because of the incident. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Appeals Ct. Affirms Ruling in Bevan Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, upheld the ruling of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, which granted Bevan & Associates, L.P.A., Inc.'s motion to appoint receiver in litigation involving asbestos styled In re All Cases Against Sager Corporation. Judges James J. Sweeney, Mary Eileen Kilbane, and Frank D. Celebrezze, Jr. entered judgment in Case No. 93567 on Aug. 19, 2010. Sager Corporation appealed the trial court's order that granted Bevan's motion to appoint receiver. According to the record, Sager incorporated in Illinois in 1921 and as part of its business made products with asbestos materials, such as gloves and curtains. Sager benefited from the sale of its asbestos-containing products in Ohio. Sager obtained an Illinois Certificate of Dissolution on June 17, 1998. Since then, Ohio citizens, represented by Bevan and other law firms, commenced claims against Sager in Cuyahoga County following the manifestation of their asbestos-related injuries. Bevan believed that, despite Sager's dissolution, certain of its assets remained in existence in the form of unexhausted insurance policies. It was alleged that these assets may afford coverage to the Ohio asbestos litigants for injuries suffered as a result of exposure to Sager's products. In February 2009, Bevan moved the court to appoint an Ohio receiver for Sager to wind up the affairs and accept service of process. Sager, who had entered an appearance in at least one civil suit, opposed the motion arguing that it was not subject to suit and its belief that Ohio law precluded appointment of an Ohio receiver for a dissolved foreign corporation. The trial court granted the motion to appoint receiver after considering both briefing and oral arguments on the matter. The judgment was affirmed. Bruce P. Mandel, Esq., Max W. Thomas, Esq., of Ulmer & Berne, L.L.P. in Skylight Office Tower, Cleveland, Ohio, Patrick F. Hofer, Esq., Jeffrey Orenstein, Esq., of Troutman Sanders, L.L.P. in Washington, D.C., represented Sager. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Vacates Board Decision in Guidry's Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated a May 27, 2008 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied Marvin E. Guidry's claim for entitlement to service connection for a respiratory condition, claimed as asbestosis. The case is styled Marvin E. Guidry, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee. Judge Mary J. Schoelen entered judgment in Case No. 08-1912 on Aug. 18, 2010. Mr. Guidry served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from August 1955 to August 1957. He filed a claim for service connection for asbestosis on Jan. 2, 2003. A VA regional office (RO) subsequently informed Mr. Guidry of the evidence needed to substantiate his claim, and requested his service records from the Department of the Navy. Postservice medical records were also obtained. In April 2001, Mr. Guidry was evaluated by a private physician to ascertain "the presence or absence of illness or injury caused by exposure to asbestos." In July 2003, the RO denied Mr. Guidry's claim. The RO received Mr. Guidry's Notice of Disagreement in November 2003 and issued a Statement of the Case in November 2004. Mr. Guidry filed his Substantive Appeal in December 2004, asserting that he was exposed to asbestos in service while working as a deck hand on a "Harbor Tug." On June 6, 2006, Mr. Guidry testified in a video conference before the Board. He reiterated his assertion regarding his in-service exposure to asbestos. He also testified that he was exposed to asbestos in his post-service employment. On Aug. 4, 2006, the Board remanded Mr. Guidry's claim, directing the RO to obtain all recent treatment records for lung diseases and to "[s]chedule the veteran for an examination with a respiratory specialist familiar with asbestos cases." Mr. Guidry underwent a VA examination on Dec. 28, 2006. The examination was conducted by a physician's assistant who reviewed Mr. Guidry's claims file, and noted Mr. Guidry's medical history, smoking history, and reported in-service and post-service exposure to asbestos. In its May 27, 2008, decision here on appeal, the Board acknowledged Mr. Guidry's in-service exposure. This appeal followed. The May 27, 2008 Board decision was vacated and the matter was remanded to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this decision. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MW Custom Papers Summary Judgment OK'd in Riggs ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted MW Custom Papers, LLC's motion for summary judgment in an asbestos-related case filed by Rebekah Riggs on behalf of her late husband, Farrell Riggs. The case is styled Rebekah Riggs, Plaintiff v. Mead Corp. et al., Defendant. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action No. 09-70094 on Aug. 12, 2010. Mrs. Riggs commenced this wrongful death action on behalf of Mr. Riggs for his exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products for which the various defendants were allegedly liable. MW Custom Papers, the successor in interest to named defendant The Mead Corporation, moved for summary judgment. Mrs. Riggs filed this action asserting claims for the wrongful death of Mr. Riggs who allegedly suffered from asbestosis. She alleged that Mr. Riggs' disease was caused by exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products during his employment at the Cement Asbestos Products Company (CAPCO) facility in Ragland, Ala. He was employed as a machinist at CAPCO from 1977 to 1980. Mrs. Riggs' claims against Mead arose because it was a shareholder of CAPCO from 1968 until 1974. At all relevant times, CAPCO owned and operated the Ragland Facility where it manufactured products made from a combination of cement and asbestos. MW Custom Papers argued that a mere ownership interest cannot give rise to products or premises liability claims, as it is shielded by the corporate form. The Court granted MW Custom Papers' motion for summary judgment. It was further ordered that MW Custom Papers' motion to strike was denied as moot. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs MW Custom Papers Summary Judgment Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted MW Custom Papers, LLC's motion for summary judgment in an asbestos case filed by Richard Archer and Patricia Archer. The case is styled Charles R. Archer et al., Plaintiff v. Mead Corp. et al., Defendant. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action No. 09-70093 on Aug. 12, 2010. The Archers commenced this action for their exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products for which the various defendants are allegedly liable. MW Custom Papers, the successor-in-interest to named defendant The Mead Corporation moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Archer suffers from pleural mesothelioma, which was caused by exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products during his employment at the Cement Asbestos Products Company (CAPCO) and National Cement facilities in Ragland, Ala. He was employed as a machinist at CAPCO from 1964-1976 and at National Cement from 1976-2002. Also, Mrs. Archer alleged a loss of consortium due to Mr. Archer's alleged exposure. The Archers' claims against Mead arose because it was a shareholder of CAPCO and National Cement from 1968 until 1974. At all relevant times, CAPCO and National Cement owned and operated their respective facilities where they manufactured products made from a combination of cement and asbestos. It was further ordered that MW Custom Papers' motion to strike was denied as moot. ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.J. Court Affirms Ruling in Andersons' Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, upheld the ruling of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, which awarded US$7 million in asbestos damages to Bonnie Anderson and US$500,000 per quod to her husband, John R. Anderson, plus pre-judgment interest. Judges Rodriguez, Reisner and Chambers entered judgment in the case on Aug. 20, 2010. The Andersons alleged that Mrs. Anderson contracted mesothelioma from one or both exposures to asbestos at the Linden Bayway Refinery owned by defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation. The first was bystander exposure from laundering Mr. Anderson's asbestos-laden work clothes during his employment with Exxon from 1969 to 2003. The second was direct exposure during Mrs. Anderson's employment with Exxon from 1974 to 1986. The Andersons prevailed on their claim that Mrs. Anderson's bystander exposure was a substantial factor in her contraction of mesothelioma. Exxon appealed a judgment in favor of the Andersons. The court rejected all of Exxon's contentions. These were facts relevant to this appeal. Mrs. Anderson is now 61 years old. She married John in 1967. They have one daughter, born in 1968, and one granddaughter. In 1974, Mrs. Anderson graduated with a college degree in elementary education and library science. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Decision in Fields Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, reversed the ruling of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas' ruling, which denied CSX Transportation, Inc.'s motion to administratively dismiss the asbestos complaint of Pearl Fields, the representative of the Estate of Paul Fields. The case is styled Pearl Fields, Executrix, etc., Plaintiff- Appellee v. CSX Transportation, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. Judges Colleen Conway Cooney, Christine T. McMonagle, and Melody J. Stewart entered judgment in Case No. 93813 on Aug. 19, 2010. Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County, Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CV-663226. In June 2008, Mrs. Fields brought an action against CSX under the Federal Employers' Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act, alleging that CSX negligently allowed Mr. Fields to be exposed to various substances, including asbestos and asbestos dust while working as a conductor for CSX. Mrs. Fields alleged that Mr. Fields developed severe and permanent injuries, including lung cancer. In January 2009, CSX moved to administratively dismiss Mrs. Fields's complaint. Mrs. Fields opposed the CSX motion. Following a hearing, the trial court denied CSX's motion to administratively dismiss Mrs. Fields' complaint. CSX then filed a motion for reconsideration, which Mrs. Fields opposed. The trial court conducted another hearing in June 2009. Thereafter, the trial court issued an order denying CSX's motion for administrative dismissal. It is from this order that CSX appealed, raising three assignments of error. Accordingly, judgment was reversed and the matter was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. David A. Damico, Esq., Ira L. Podheiser, Esq., of Burns, White & Hickton, LLC in Pittsburgh, represented CSX. Michael L. Torcello, Esq., of Christopher Murphy Doran & Murphy, LLP in Buffalo, N.Y., represented Mrs. Fields. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Summary Judgment Denied in Constantinides ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, denied Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment in a case involving asbestos styled Peter & Elpis Constantinides, Plaintiffs v. Alfa Laval, Inc., et al., Defendants. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action No. 09-70613 on Aug. 17, 2010. This case is part of MDL-875, the consolidated asbestos products liability multidistrict litigation pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The instant claims were based on failure to warn causes of action. Peter Constantinides is the injured party in the instant case, and the injuries allegedly stemmed from his time as a serviceman in the U.S. Navy. Mr. Constantinides served aboard the U.S.S. Iowa from 1954-1956. He alleged that his diagnosed mesothelioma was contracted because of exposure to asbestos-containing products, including Crane Co. products, used aboard the U.S.S. Iowa. Crane moved for summary judgment. Crane raised two specific objections to the R & R. First, it objected to the Panel's finding that Mr. Constantinides advanced sufficient evidence of causation to avoid summary judgment. Second, Crane objected to the Panel's conclusion that Mr. Constantinides worked on valves, contending that this conclusion was not supported by the evidence. The Court overruled each of these objections, and adopted the Panel's R & R denying Crane's motion for summary judgment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northrop Grumman's Bids Denied in Eckerle Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, denied Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc.'s and other parties' motion to stay all proceedings, including discovery, in a case involving asbestos filed by Ronald Eckerle. The case is styled Ronald Eckerle v. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., et al. District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon entered judgment in Civil Action No. 10-1460 on Aug. 18, 2010. Mr. Eckerle filed this purported class action to recover medical monitoring costs in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons who were employed by Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. f/k/a Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. f/k/a Avondale Industries, Inc. The purported class consists of all persons who were exposed to respirable asbestos fibers while working at the Avondale Shipyard Main Yard or Harvey Yard at any time prior to Oct. 1, 1976, such that periodic medical monitoring is medically advisable. Mr. Eckerle alleged that the class included thousands of people. Northrop Grumman removed the action, alleging that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana had jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. Mr. Eckerle filed a motion to remand, which the court denied, finding that the case did not fit the local controversy exception to CAFA. Defendants, Northrop Grumman and American Motorist Insurance Company, OneBeacon America Insurance Company (f/k/a Commercial Union Insurance Company), American Employers Insurance Company, and The Travelers Indemnity Company (incorrectly identified as The Travelers Casualty & Surety Company), in their capacities as the alleged insurers of certain deceased executive officers of Avondale Industries, Inc., filed a motion to stay all proceedings, including discovery. Defendants argued that this matter should be stayed under the Colorado River abstention doctrine because there is a parallel action pending in the Louisiana state court, namely Bourgeois v. A.P. Green Indus., Inc., Civil Action No. 488-642, 24th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Petition for Rehearing Denied in Russell Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8, denied Ford Motor Company's and other defendants' Aug. 16, 2010 petition for rehearing in an asbestos suit filed by John Russell. The case is styled John Russell et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents v. Ford Motor Company, Defendant and Appellant. The court entered judgment in Case No. B213596 on Aug. 24, 2010. David Carl Greenstone, Esq., of Simon Eddins & Greenstone LLP in Long Beach, Calif., represented Plaintiffs and Respondents. Eugene Brown, Esq., of Filice Brown et al, in Oakland, Calif., Brian James Recor, Esq., of Bryan Cave LLP in Santa Monica, Calif., John Thomas, Esq., of Bryan Cave LLP in St. Louis, Mo., represented Defendant and Appellant. Mark S. Geraghty, Esq., of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP in Los Angeles, represented Honeywell Intl. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scottish Local Govt. Urged to Prioritize Safety ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elaine Russell, partner at British law firm Irwin Mitchell, has urged local Scottish authorities not to forget the risk of asbestos in the face of major public spending cuts, according to an Adessi Limited press release dated Sept. 15, 2010. Ms. Russell warns councils not to ignore the essential surveying and maintenance work needed to limit the devastating affects of this deadly material. She said that it could be easy for local authorities not to prioritize the "silent killer," which can kill people decades after initial exposure, and wants reassurances that asbestos in older public buildings will continue to be managed correctly. Ms. Russell added, "We have handled a number of clients nationally who had no idea, right up until their diagnosis, that they had been exposed to asbestos. Many were doctors, nurses or teachers, who have been put at risk by the use of the material in the public buildings in which they worked." The warning came after a prominent Glaswegian doctor passed away at the age of 58, about 14 months after being diagnosed with mesothelioma, caused by exposure to asbestos in the hospitals where he worked. Dr. Kieran Sweeney had worked at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary and Southern General Infirmary during the late 1970s. There he encountered dust and debris from asbestos pipe lagging which, 30 years later in December 2009, caused his premature death. Ms. Russell added, "Sadly we have every reason to believe that the incidence of mesothelioma and asbestos-related lung cancer cases will rise further and medical experts expect numbers to peak by around the year 2015. Even more worryingly, mesothelioma is now increasingly claiming younger victims in a wider range of occupations, including hospital staff. "My worry is that with public spending facing major reductions, councils could ease up their efforts to tackle this silent killer. Local authorities cannot neglect their responsibility and must continue to dedicate resources to identifying and eliminating any remaining sources of asbestos, in order to prevent further tragic deaths, like that of Dr. Sweeney." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup, Inspection at Middleport Site Complete ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency considers New Freedom Ministries and its Tiny Tech Daycare, in Middleport, Ohio, again safe for occupancy, The Daily Sentinel reports. In July 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had deemed New Freedom Ministries and Tiny Tech Daycare unsafe because of asbestos in the building, after a building inspector discovered the unsafe conditions during a routine inspection. In a letter dated Sept. 3, 2010, the Ohio EPA states the EPA has concluded that Tiny Tech had adequately completed corrective actions as outlined in July 2010, and deemed it safe to allow people in the area. At the time of the initial advisory, the EPA said New Freedom Ministries and Tiny Tech Daycare violated the law by failing to conduct an asbestos survey before renovation work at its South Third Avenue church. The EPA also set a seven-day deadline for a safety inspection, cleaning the air ducts and proper disposal of asbestos and other materials. Mayor Michael Gerlach said the county health department also participated in the initial inspection, and the EPA was alerted after the village inspector conducted an inspection of the building for reconnection of water service, an inspection required by village code. Friable asbestos was disturbed by removal of the ceiling, according to the EPA inspector. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed from 22 Brown University Dorms ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to Brown University's Facilities Management's Director of Project Management Paul Dietel, the University completed the removal of asbestos at 22 residence halls over the summer, The Brown Daily Herald reports. Stephen Morin, Director of Environmental Health and Safety, said, "None of the work was done because of a hazard, but part of an ongoing maintenance of the buildings. We coordinated it around the summer programs and had a closely planned schedule." Mr. Morin said that projects like the current renovation of the Metcalf Chemistry and Research Laboratory include a standard asbestos abatement procedure, but the University also takes a proactive approach in dealing with asbestos when students are not using certain buildings. Mr. Morin said, "For asbestos in buildings, the (Environmental Protection Agency)'s policy is to not impact asbestos unless you are doing renovation. We took a proactive approach in Hegeman (Hall), for example, because we wanted to prevent the potential for students to impact the asbestos." Mr. Dietel said there are other buildings being considered for abatement, and the availability of funding will determine how soon the University can move forward on treating those. ASBESTOS UPDATE: $921T Funds Allocated for Troy Bldg. Demolition ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Empire State Development Corp., on Sept. 14, 2010, approved US$921,000 in state funds to demolish the former Troy City Hall on Monument Square downtown in Troy, N.Y., timesunion.com reports. While the ESDC said the city issued a request for proposals from demolition companies, a spokesman for Mayor Harry Tutunjian said an engineer still needs to evaluate the structure to determine if and how asbestos would have to be removed. The engineer would also have to determine which, if any, retaining walls would have to be, well, retained at the site, which is on the Hudson River bank. The 35-year-old building has been empty since city government moved to rented space in a former telephone company building on Sixth Avenue earlier in 2010. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rwanda Government to Discuss Report on Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Rwandan Cabinet is set to discuss a report by a team of Canadian experts who conducted a study on how asbestos roofing can be phased out with minimal damage, The New Times reports. This was revealed on Sept. 14, 2010 by the Minister of Infrastructure, Vincent Karega, in a telephone interview. He said that they were working round the clock to ensure that asbestos roofing is done away with. According to Mr. Karega, the government has the challenge of phasing out the asbestos without causing harm to people. He said, "We are doing our best to table the findings before cabinet because we are aware that the more we delay, the more the risks accumulate." He added that some of the ways explored include burning. In 2010, Rwanda imposed a ban on asbestos and issued a six-month ultimatum for all asbestos roofing to have been removed. The move was, however, challenged after it was realized hat it was dangerous and could harm those who remove it without protective gear. ASBESTOS UPDATE: One Building Left at Former Fostoria Glass Site ---------------------------------------------------------------- One building at the former Fostoria Glass Factory in Moundsville, W.Va. is left to be torn down as contractors wrap up demolition, the Charleston Daily Mail reports. The City bought the site several years ago. In 2008, it was found to be contaminated with asbestos. City Manager Allen Hendershot told The Intelligencer that the City is awaiting approval from the state Department of Environmental Protection for asbestos abatement. He says the last furnace next to the building also is being checked by the DEP. Fostoria Glass was known for its dinnerware and hand-blown stemware. The company began operations in Fostoria, Ohio, in 1887 and moved to Moundsville in 1891. The plant later changed owners and closed in 1986. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Court Affirms Ruling in Illinois Central --------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Mississippi upheld the ruling of the Circuit Court of Holmes County, which granted remaining plaintiffs' motion to enforce settlement, in an asbestos case filed against Illinois Central Railroad Company. Judges Graves, Kitchens, Chandler, Pierce, Dickinson, Lamar, Carlson, and Waller entered judgment in Case No. 2009-CA-00065-SCT on Aug. 26, 2010. After a large number of its former employees sued ICRR alleging occupational exposure to asbestos, plaintiffs' counsel and ICRR's counsel met to discuss the possibility of a settlement. Although the parties disputed exactly what transpired at the meeting, they agreed that ICRR later sent settlement checks to a substantial majority of the 216 plaintiffs after receiving signed releases and other pertinent information from them. However, ICRR refused to send settlement checks to several remaining plaintiffs. Of these remaining plaintiffs, 25 sought enforcement of the alleged settlement agreement. Ultimately, the trial court granted the remaining plaintiffs' motion to enforce settlement, and ICRR appealed. This Court found that the trial judge was correct in finding that each of the 25 remaining plaintiffs had complied with the conditions of settlement and in enforcing the settlement agreement. The trial court also properly denied ICRR's motion to amend the final judgment. Thus, the decision of the Circuit Court of Holmes County was affirmed. Daniel J. Mulholland, Esq., Thomas R. Peters, Tanya D. Ellis, Esq., and Heather Julia Wilkins, Esq., represented Appellant. Elizabeth A. Chiappetta, Esq., Robert N. Pierce, Jr., Esq., and Louis H. Watson, Jr., Esq., represented Appellees. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Summary Judgment Denied in Gitto's Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, denied Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment in an asbestos case filed by Salvatore and Phyllis Gitto. The case is styled Salvatore Gitto and Phyllis Gitto, Plaintiff v. A.W. Chesterton Co., Inc., et al., Defendants. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action No. 07-73417 on Aug. 19, 2010. The Gittos filed this action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, alleging that Mr. Gitto developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing materials while employed by the U.S. Navy as a shipfitter mechanic and shipbuilding and hull machinery inspector. The action was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as part of MDL-875 in October 2007. Mr. Gitto was employed as a shipfitter from 1951-1996. He began as an apprentice shipfitter at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, was drafted and served in the U.S. Army from 1952-1954. He completed his shipfitter apprentice program in April 1957. About four years later, he was promoted to shipbuilding and hull machinery inspection, and continued to work at the Brooklyn Navy Yard until it closed in May 1996. Mr. Gitto recalled a variety of ships on which he performed work including the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt, USS Independence, and USS New Jersey. Mr. Gitto testified that he performed new construction on the USS Independence, and that he was involved in construction to rehabilitate the USS FDR and USS New Jersey. Mr. Gitto recalled spending about a month or less on the USS New Jersey, and could not recall how long he was on the USS FDR. He testified that he spent about six months aboard the USS Independence. Crane Co. moved for summary judgment, arguing that Mr. Gitto failed to produce any evidence establishing Crane Co. as the manufacturer of asbestos-containing products to which Mr. Gitto was exposed. The Panel issued its report and recommendation on June 29, 2010, denying Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment. It was ordered that Crane Co.'s Objections to the Magistrate Judges' Report and Recommendation were overruled. It was further ordered that the Magistrate Judges' Report and Recommendation was adopted and Crane Co.'s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied in part. It was further ordered that Crane Co.'s Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of a "bare metal" defense was denied without prejudice. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Summary Judgment Denied in Faddish Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, denied Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment in the asbestos case styled Ruth Faddish, Individually and as executrix of the estate of John Faddish, deceased, Plaintiff v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc., et al., Defendants. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action No. 09-70626 on Aug. 17, 2010. This case is part of MDL-875, the consolidated asbestos products liability multidistrict litigation pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The instant claims are based on failure to warn causes of action. John Faddish was a serviceman in the U.S. Navy. He served aboard the U.S .S. Essex from 1958-1961. Mrs. Faddish alleged that Mr. Faddish's death from mesothelioma was related to asbestos- containing Crane Co. products used aboard the U.S.S. Essex. Crane Co. moved for summary judgment relying solely on the argument that Mrs. Faddish had failed to establish causation. It was hereby ordered that Defendant Crane Co.'s Objections to the Report and Recommendation denying Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment in the above captioned case were overruled. It was further ordered that the Panel's Report and Recommendation was adopted and Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment was denied. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling in Saller's Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal, Second District, California, reversed the ruling of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which favored defendants Bondex International, Inc., RPM, Inc. and Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., in an asbestos case filed by Donna Saller on William Saller's behalf. The case is styled Donna Saller, Individually and as Personal Representative, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Defendant and Respondent. Judges Mallano, Rothschild, and Johnson entered judgment in Case No. B206763 on Aug. 27, 2010. Plaintiffs appealed from a judgment in favor of defendants Bondex International, Inc., RPM, Inc. and Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. in their action for wrongful death. Plaintiffs' decedent William Saller died of mesothelioma, an asbestos-related disease, in February 2006. Mr. Saller asserted two sources of exposure to asbestos: his employment at Standard Oil where he was exposed to pipe insulation containing asbestos manufactured by Crown, and his personal use of joint compound manufactured by Bondex for home repair. At trial, the court refused to give plaintiffs' requested jury instructions on the consumer expectations test and failure to warn. The Appeals Court reversed. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Reverses Ruling in Georgia-Pacific Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas, reversed the ruling of the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court, which favored the Bostic family in an asbestos action involving Georgia- Pacific Corporation. The case is styled Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Appellant v. Susan Elaine Bostic, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of Timothy Shawn Bostic, Deceased; Helen Donnahoe; and Kyle Anthony Bostic, Appellees. Judges Robert M. Fillmore, Bridges, and FitzGerald entered judgment in Case No. 05-08-01390-CV on Aug. 26, 2010. Georgia-Pacific appealed the final judgment of the trial court in favor of appellees Susan Elaine Bostic, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of Timothy Shawn Bostic, Deceased, Helen Donnahoe, and Kyle Anthony Bostic. In three issues, Georgia-Pacific contended (1) there was legally insufficient evidence that Georgia-Pacific's joint compound caused Timothy Bostic's mesothelioma, (2) there was no evidence to support the jury's finding of gross negligence against Georgia- Pacific, and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by denying Georgia-Pacific's motion for mistrial and by vacating the order granting Georgia-Pacific a new trial. Concluding there was legally insufficient evidence of causation, the Appeals Court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment that appellees take nothing on their claims against Georgia-Pacific. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling in Falgoust Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, reversed the ruling of the Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, which granted summary judgment in favor of Ellis Falgoust, Almarine C. Falgoust, and Hopeman Brothers, Inc. The case is styled Ellis Falgoust and Almarine C. Falgoust v. Avondale Industries, Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Fibreboard Corporation, Cajun Insulation, Anco Industries, Inc., Flexitallic, Inc., Combustion Engineering, Inc., A.P. Green Industries, Inc., Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Individually, et al. Judges Charles R. Jones, Dennis R. Bagneris Sr., Terri F. Love, Roland L. Belsome, and Paul A. Bonin entered judgment in Case No. 2009-CA-1671 on Aug. 25, 2010. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., formerly known as a/k/a, Avondale Industries, Inc., Avondale Shipyards, Inc., and Avondale Marine Ways Shipbuilding, appealed an adverse judgment in which the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees, the Falgousts and Hopeman Brothers, Inc. This was an asbestos suit in which the Falgousts alleged that Mr. Falgoust, now deceased, contracted mesothelioma as a result of occupational exposures to asbestos while working for two subcontractors at Northrop Grumman. The defendant, cross plaintiff, and appellant, Northrop Grumman, and the cross-defendant and co-appellee, Hopeman Brothers, were among the numerous manufacturers, suppliers, employers, and premises owners named as defendants. The matter was remanded to the district court for a full evidentiary hearing to determine the authenticity of the documents submitted by both Northrop Grumman and, later discovered by Hopeman Brothers. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Firms to Pay $16,250 for Cleanup Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- The New Victorians Inc. and In Addition Home Improvement have agreed to pay civil penalties totaling US$16,250 to settle asbestos violations at the former Masonic Temple (1276 North High Street, Columbus), according to an Ohio Environmental Protection Agency press release dated Sept. 8, 2010. The building is owned by Columbus-based The New Victorians Inc., which hired In Addition Home Improvement of Reynoldsburg to conduct renovations in 2008. After the Ohio Department of Health and Ohio EPA received complaints about asbestos-containing waste being thrown from a second story window at the building during renovations, state inspectors visited the site and found broken pieces of pipe insulation inside and outside the building and more than 35 cubic feet of construction debris in a container below a second story window. Analysis of samples collected from the site confirmed the debris contained asbestos. Ohio EPA regulates air pollution, such as asbestos, to protect public health and safety and the environment. Pre-notification and a thorough inspection of sites scheduled for renovation or demolition are required to allow the local air agency or Ohio EPA to check for the presence of asbestos and ensure that any regulated asbestos is properly removed and disposed. Violations related to the former Masonic Temple renovation project included failure to: conduct a thorough inspection for asbestos prior to beginning renovation; provide proper notification prior to demolition or renovation; properly remove damaged or friable regulated asbestos-containing materials prior to renovation; have authorized, trained personnel on site during renovation; adequately wet asbestos-containing materials during removal; and seal all asbestos-containing waste materials in adequately thick plastic bags. An asbestos abatement contractor was hired to clean up the building and remove 4,100 cubic feet of regulated asbestos- containing material from the site. The New Victorians Inc. has agreed to pay Ohio EPA a civil penalty of US$13,250. A portion of the penalty (US$2,650) will go to Ohio EPA's Clean Diesel School Bus Fund. This fund helps retrofit school buses with pollution control equipment to reduce particulate emissions from their diesel engines and thereby protect the children who ride the buses. The remaining US$10,600 will be equally split between Ohio EPA's Environmental Education Fund and the administration of air pollution control programs. In Addition Home Improvement has agreed to pay Ohio EPA a civil penalty of US$3,000. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial on Equitable Building Case Set Jan. 2011 --------------------------------------------------------------- The trial on a lawsuit over alleged asbestos-related violations at the Equitable Building in Des Moines, Iowa, is scheduled for January 2011, the Des Moines Register reports. Court documents state that criminal charges against Des Moines developer Bob Knapp should be dropped because the federal government failed to follow its own legally mandated testing procedures on material removed from the Equitable Building during its renovation in 2007. Lawyers for Mr. Knapp and Russell Coco, the supervisor of the renovation project at the Des Moines landmark building, also contend that the federal government's case has been weakened because the material removed from the building and tested for asbestos by investigators cannot be found and likely has been destroyed. Mr. Knapp, 60, and Mr. Coco, 50, were indicted by a federal grand jury in February 2010 on 11 counts each of violating the U.S. Clean Air Act for their roles in the renovation of the building. Both men have pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors allege that Mr. Knapp and Mr. Coco knowingly had asbestos removed, placed into open Dumpsters and improperly disposed of in a landfill as part of the building was renovated into high-end condominiums. Several floors of the Equitable Building were gutted while still containing excessive levels of asbestos, prosecutors say. The indictment charges the defendants with conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act's work-practice standards, intended to prevent releases of asbestos, and with failing to give notice before renovation and demolition. Each count of the indictment carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a fine of US$250,000. 2009, Iowa's Occupational Safety and Health Bureau fined Oakmoor Management Co. and Equitable LP, two limited partnerships owned by Mr. Knapp, for failing to have a trained supervisor to handle the asbestos removal and for failing to properly equip and train workers. Mr. Knapp's partnerships were fined US$10,175. Jacobson Staffing Co. LC of Des Moines, which also provided workers, was fined US$11,250 for similar offenses. Prosecutors have until Sept. 20, 2010 to respond to the motion. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Concerned Over Abatement at Va. School --------------------------------------------------------------- WAVY-TV 10 reports that the parents of students at Virginia Beach Middle School in Virginia Beach, Va., are concerned about the asbestos abatement ongoing at the facility, the Mesothelioma Resource Center reports. The news provider added that with workers outside the school wearing head-to-toe white suits and gas masks, some parents have expressed concern that their children are not far away during the asbestos removal. Brian Riley, superintendent for the firm completing the project (McKenzie Construction), said that air monitors have not recorded any bad readings and that chances of any of the asbestos becoming airborne was very unlikely. School officials said that alerting parents of the abatement project was unnecessary as the demolition did not pose a safety threat to the school or community. ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Asbestos Found at Summerlin Road in Fla. -------------------------------------------------------------- NBC-2.com reports that more asbestos has been found on the south side of the Summerlin Road overpass project in Florida, the Mesothelioma Resource Center reports. While not finding asbestos on the project's north side, the Department of Environmental Protection discovered that the south side, which was the project's original area of concern, did contain an additional amount of asbestos. The DEP's test of dirt from the northern ramp revealed that no asbestos existed on the College Parkway side of the overpass, the news provider said. The news source added that the overpass project, which is costing US$25 million, is already four months behind schedule. The new asbestos discovery on the project's south side does not pose any health risk to drivers, according to the news source, but those who fear that they or a loved one has been exposed to the dangerous material could contact an asbestos law firm. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ilkeston Pit Worker's Death Linked to Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at Derby Coroners Court heard that the death of 75-year-old Colin Webster, of Ilkeston, Derbyshire, England, was linked to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Derby Telegraph reports. Mr. Webster spent 12 years at Coppice Colliery, Shipley, and was in contact on a "daily basis" with asbestos, the inquest heard. In a statement, Mr. Webster said that his job involved making checks on pipes lagged with asbestos in the boiler house. Pathologist Andrew Hitchcock said that he found a large tumor on Mr. Webster's right lung during a post-mortem. Dr. Robert Hunter, coroner at Derby Coroners Court, added, "I'm satisfied there was asbestos exposure during his employment and that led to the development of malignant mesothelioma." ********* 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. Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2010. 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 * * *