/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060407.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, April 7, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 70
Headlines
AMERICAN GIRL: Children's Jewelry Poses Lead Poisoning Hazard
AT&T INC: Preliminary Injunction Requested in Wiretapping Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Allows Fleet Bank Pension Suit to Proceed
CANADA: Judge Grants Class Status to Gov't Workers' Pension Suit
CHEETAH TRANSPORTATION: Court Refuses to Remand La. Lawsuit
CONOCOPHILLIPS CO: Settlement Hearing Slated for May 12, 2006
COPART INC: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit in Ga. Over Storage Liens
DIOCESE OF JOLIET: To Name Priests Accused of Sexual Offenses
EINSTEIN AND NOAH: Calif. Court Approves Overtime Litigation
EXXONMOBIL CORP: Paying $1.075B in 'Discount for Cash' Lawsuit
FLORIDA: Lawsuit Over Miami Fire Rescue Fee Enters New Phase
GUESS INC: Continues to Face Overtime Wage Suit in Calif. Court
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces New Complaint Over Pavilion Notebook
HONEYWELL INT'L: Faces Suit in Ga. Over Turtle River Pollution
JENKENS & GILCHRIST: Court Nixes Tax Strategies Suit Settlement
JURA CAPRESSO: Recalls Espresso Machines Due to Fire Hazard
LAWRY'S RESTAURANTS: EEOC Files Calif. Sex Discrimination Suit
LOUISIANA: Judge Remands "Fax Filing" Lawsuits to State Court
PIPER JAFFRAY: N.D. Court Remands "Ongstad" Suit to State Court
QUOVADX INC: Settles Financial Restatement Lawsuit for $10.6M
REFCO INC: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y.
SALOMON SMITH: GPM Settlement Hearing Slated for May 12, 2006
STOCK EXCHANGES: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set May 22, 2006
STONE ENERGY: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Lawsuits in La.
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Faces Consolidated Consumer Suit in N.Y.
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y.
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Investment Fund Launches Lawsuit in Del.
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Retirement System Launches Lawsuit in N.Y.
TENET HEALTHCARE: Securities Settlement Hearing Set May 15, 2006
TICKETMASTER.COM: Court Refuses to Issue Judgment in Fraud Suit
TICKETMASTER.COM: State Court Venue Sought for Consumer Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Suit Over Post-9/11 N.Y., N.J. Arrests Continues
UNITED STATES: Remedies Proposed in Md. Housing Segregation Case
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: June Trial Set for Spam Suit Settlement
Asbestos Alert
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Reserves $475.1M for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Ventures Confronts 12 Pending Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Converium's A&E Reserves Stuck at US$49.2M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leap Meets No Reinstated Cases Since 1996
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: North Safety Products' Suits Remain Pending
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum to Spend US$19.5Mil More for Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IN Court Remands Faris Suit for Proceedings
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CompuDyne, Insurers Argue Over Coverage
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Motors Challenges Increasing Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Great Lakes Dredge Holds No Active Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Constar Mulls Settling Crown's $3.4B Debt
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants v. 3M Drop from 76,600 to 48,600
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Building Materials' G-I Suit Stays Pending
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: G-I Co-defends 3 Suits with Bldg. Materials
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shell Chem. Still Indemnifies Polymer Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Commercial Acquires Hilco Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metaldyne Says Claims May Arise from TriMas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mestek Inc. Dismisses 300 Suits, Settles 25
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas Suits Grow to 1,609 from 1,470 in 4Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Doe Run Resources Named in 4 Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairfax Records US$1,559M ALAE for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Air in JPN Factory Sites Deemed Safe, Study
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Awards US$258T to Ex-Railroad Workers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CE Reorganization Plan Finalized, ABB Says
ASBESTOS ALERT: Canadian Pacific Rail to Accrue $4.1M Claims
ASBESTOS ALERT: Suits Burden Allis-Chalmers Since Reorganization
ASBESTOS ALERT: Graybar Electric Posts 2,800 Individual Lawsuits
ASBESTOS ALERT: Houston Wire & Cable Battles Class Suits in ND
ASBESTOS ALERT: GATX Financial Units Contend With Injury Suits
ASBESTOS ALERT: Kaanapali Land, D/C Contend With Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS ALERT: RBS Global Inc. Challenges 550 Injury Lawsuits
New Securities Fraud Cases
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Spector Roseman Files Wis. Securities Suit
NATURES SUNSHINE: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Suit in Utah
NATURES SUNSHINE: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in Utah
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Federman Sherwood Files Fla. Securities Suit
PHH CORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.J.
SEA CONTAINERS: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
*********
AMERICAN GIRL: Children's Jewelry Poses Lead Poisoning Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Girl Inc., of Middleton, Wisconsin is recalling 180,000
American Girl children's jewelry.
The company said the recalled jewelry contains high levels of
lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause
adverse health effects. The company received no related report
of injury.
The recall includes American Girl necklaces, bracelets, earrings
and hair accessories for girls. It does not include jewelry for
American Girl dolls. The jewelry's packaging features a red and
white cardboard backing with "American Girl" and "Made in China"
written on the front.
The children's jewelry were sold at Only American Girl Place in
Chicago and New York, and the American Girl Outlet in Oshkosh,
Wisconsin from May 1999 through February 2006 for between $8 and
$12. American Girl jewelry sold through its catalogue or Web
site is not included in the recall.
Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled jewelry
away from children and return the items for a full refund
(including applicable tax and return postage costs) to:
American Girl Jewelry Recall
P.O. Box 620974
Middleton, WI 53562-0974
Picture of the recalled children's jewelry:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06123.jpg
Consumer Contact: American Girl, Phone: (800) 659-0164 between 7
a.m. and 10 p.m. CT, seven days a week; On the Net:
http://www.americangirl.com/recall.
AT&T INC: Preliminary Injunction Requested in Wiretapping Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has filed a motion for
a preliminary injunction in its wiretapping suit against AT&T,
Inc., Technology News reports. However, much of the evidences
that was to be included in the motion was held back temporarily
for security reasons, the report said.
The Department of Justice, which is not a party in the case,
requested the suspension on fears that even if the sensitive
information will be provided "under seal," it is not a guarantee
that only the judge and the litigants will see them.
The EFF filed a class action against AT&T in January accusing
the telecom giant of violating the law and privacy of its
customers by collaborating with the National Security Agency
(NSA) in an alleged massive and illegal program to wiretap and
data-mine Americans' communications (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
2, 2006).
In the lawsuit, EFF alleged that AT&T, in addition to allowing
the NSA direct access to the phone and Internet communications
passing over its network, has given the government unfettered
access to its over 300 terabyte "Daytona" database of caller
information-one of the largest databases in the world.
By opening its network and databases to unrestricted spying by
the government, EFF alleged that AT&T has violated the privacy
of AT&T customers and the people they call and e-mail, as well
as broken longstanding communications privacy laws.
While other organizations are suing the government directly, EFF
said it is seeking to protect Americans' privacy by stopping the
collaboration of AT&T with the NSA spying program and making it
economically impossible for AT&T to continue to give its
customers' information to the government.
In the suit filed Jan. 31, EFF was representing the class of all
AT&T customers nationwide. EFF was seeking an injunction to
stop AT&T's participation in the allegedly illegal NSA program,
as well as billions of dollars in damages for violation of
federal privacy laws. Working with EFF in the lawsuit are the
law firms Traber & Voorhees (128 N. Fair Oaks., Ave., 204
Pasadena, CA 91103, Phone: (626) 585-9611, Fax: (626) 577-7079),
and Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (On the
Net: http://www.lerachlaw.com/).
The case was styled "Hepting et al. v. AT&T Corp. et al. (3:06-
cv-00672-VRW)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, under Judge Vaughn R. Walker.
Representing the plaintiff is Cindy Ann Cohn of Electronic
Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org),454 Shotwell Street,
San Francisco, CA 94110, Phone: 415-436-9333 x 108; Fax: (415)
436-9993; E-mail: cindy@eff.org.
BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Allows Fleet Bank Pension Suit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Bridgeport, Connecticut found that former
Fleet Bank, now Bank of America Corp., discriminated against
older workers under its hybrid pension plan, the Courant
reports.
Judge Janet C. Hall agreed with Donna C. Richards, who filed the
suit in 2004, that the switch by Bank of America from a
traditional pension plan to a cash-balance plan nine years ago
is disadvantageous to older employees. Bank of America bought
Fleet Bank two years ago.
According to the report, the judge sided with Ms. Richards on
allegations that: "an older worker with the same rate of pay and
years of service as a younger worker, receiving the same dollar
amount of contribution to her cash-balance plan account buys an
increasingly smaller age-65 pension annuity with that money
because the closer the older worker gets to retirement age, the
less time the money contributed has to earn annual interest
credits under the plan."
Ms. Richards, who continues to work in the Hartford area for
Bank of America as an executive vice president in trusts and
estates, alleged in the suit that an employee who had
participated in the traditional plan and then was switched to
cash-balance plan would, on retirement, only receive the benefit
of the plan that had built up more assets.
The suit has been granted class-action status to include about
25,000 workers. But the court had narrowed the scope of the
case by dismissing some allegations, including breach of
fiduciary duty. Bank of America's traditional plan was frozen
on Jan. 1, 1997.
IBM earlier faced a similar lawsuit. Older workers at the
company complained that the cash-balance plans reduced their
expected pension benefits. The plan allowed workers to take
funds with if they leave the company, but does not guarantee
fixed payments upon retirement. IBM lost the case in a lower
court. It is now appealing the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago.
Plaintiffs' lawyer is Thomas G. Moukawsher of Moukawsher &
Walsh, LLC (http://www.lawyers.com/moukawsher),21 Oak Street,
Hartford, Connecticut 06106, (Hartford Co.), Phone: 860-549-
8440, Fax: 860-549-8443.
CANADA: Judge Grants Class Status to Gov't Workers' Pension Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Court of Queen's Bench Justice Catherine Dawson has granted
class action status to a pension plan suit filed by some retired
provincial government employees in Regina, The Star Phoenix
reports.
The certification opens up the suit to up to about 10,000
current and former employees of the provincial government and
surviving spouse, who alleged the government failed to
contribute its share to an employee pension plan. The suit is
spearheaded by Alfred Zimmerman, Ronald Morgan and Francis
Charles May. The plaintiffs alleged that the government
contributed in only about $3 million to their plan while
employees contributed around $102 million between 1927 and 1978.
Mr. Zimmerman of Fort Qu'Appelle retired in the late 1980s.
CHEETAH TRANSPORTATION: Court Refuses to Remand La. Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
denied plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court the class
action "Robinson v. Cheetah Transportation, No. 06-0005."
In remanding this case, the plaintiff, Betty Robinson, attempted
to convince the court into applying the rarely used (to date)
"local controversy" exception to federal jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act.
However, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen L. Hayes was unconvinced
and after careful consideration of the exception, including an
excursion into CAFA's legislative history, denied the motion.
Ms. Robinson filed her original class action complaint in
Louisiana state court on November 28, 2005. It was brought on
behalf of all persons and businesses in Caldwell Parish that
were affected by the closure of the Columbia bridge on October
7, 2004.
The bridge, apparently the life line of the community, was
closed due to an accident that occurred when John Gaston, a
truck driver with Cheetah Transportation, struck the bridge,
effectively destroying one of the main support beams and
damaging several others. The damage was sufficiently extensive
that the bridge was closed for almost a week, resulting in the
cancellation of the Louisiana Art & Folk Festival and shutting
down the school in the small town, among other disruptions.
The company and its co-defendants moved the case to Louisiana
federal court on January 6, 2006, claiming federal jurisdiction
under CAFA.
Ms. Robinson acknowledged that CAFA's jurisdictional
requirements were satisfied, but subsequently filed a motion to
remand, attempting to persuade Judge Hayes to invoke CAFA's
"local controversy" exception.
After establishing that federal jurisdiction did exist under
CAFA, Judge Hayes declared that the exception would not apply
unless the plaintiff demonstrated these elements:
(1) greater than two thirds of the members of the putative
class are citizens of the state in which the action was
filed;
(2) at least one defendant is a defendant from whom members
of the putative class seek significant relief, whose
alleged conduct forms a significant basis of the
asserted claims, and who is a citizen in which the
action was filed;
(3) the principal injuries resulting from the alleged
conduct of each defendant were incurred in the state in
which the action was filed; and
(4) no other class action asserting the same or similar
factual allegations has been filed against any of the
defendants within the three years preceding the filing
of the instant class action."
Relying on CAFA's Senate Report and "Berry v. American Express
Publishing Corp., 381 F. Supp. 2d 118 (C.D. Cal. 2005)," Judge
Hayes concluded that, "the burden of proving the application of
CAFA's exceptions rests with the party opposing removal."
Judge Hayes took exception with Ms. Robinson's claim that the
second requirement of the local controversy exception was
satisfied, particularly the "significant relief" language.
Finding no case law to assist in defining what constitutes
significant relief, the judge was directed to CAFA's legislative
history by the defendants.
Judge Hayes took instruction on the significant relief issue
from an example in the Senate Report comparing a suit against
auto manufacturers and local dealers. The Report implied that a
"comparison of the relief sought between all defendants and each
defendant's ability to pay a potential judgment" should be
conducted to determine whether significant relief is being
sought.
After examining the dynamic of the defendants in the case and
concluding that Mr. Gaston was the only individual defendant
joined with all corporate co-defendants, Judge Hayes concluded
that the plaintiffs were not seeking significant relief from Mr.
Gaston, but rather from the corporate defendants who were
capable of paying.
Therefore, the judge concluded that Ms. Robinson failed to carry
her burden by providing evidence that significant relief was
sought from Mr. Gaston and thus, the narrow local controversy
exception to CAFA jurisdiction did not apply, and the motion for
remand was denied.
The suit is styled, "Robinson, et al. v. Cheetah Transportation,
et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00005-RGJ-KLH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana under Judge
Robert G. James with referral to Judge Karen L. Haye.
Representing the plaintiffs are: Jarvis M. Antwine of Antwine
Law Firm, 320 3rd St., Ste. 103, Baton Rouge, LA 70806, Phone:
225-383-7800, Fax: 225-383-4802; and Carlton L. Parhms of Parhms
Law Firm, P.O. Box 9494, Monroe, LA 71211, US, Phone: 318-323-
9546, Fax: 318-323-9483, E-mail: clparhms@yahoo.com;
Representing the defendants are: H. Minor Pipes, III, of
Barrasso Usdin, et al., 909 Poydras St., Ste. 1800, New Orleans,
LA 70112, Phone: 504-589-9700, Fax: 504-589-9701, E-mail:
mpipes@barrassousdin.com; and Alissa J. Allison of Baker
Donelson, et al. (NO), 201 St. Charles Ave., Ste. 3600, New
Orleans, LA 70170, Phone: 504-566-2333, E-mail:
aallison@bakerdonelson.com.
The Robinson Opinion is at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?78a;
The Berry Opinion is at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?49c.
CONOCOPHILLIPS CO: Settlement Hearing Slated for May 12, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
The First Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, State of
New Mexico will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter: "Laura Dichter, et al. v. BP America
Production Company f/k/a Amoco Production Company and
ConocoPhillips Company f/k/a Conoco, Inc., Case No. D-0101-CV-
200001620."
The case was brought on behalf of all members of the class of
owners of private royalty and overriding royalty that burden
leases or working interests of ConocoPhillips Co. in the San
Juan Basin, who receive royalties for natural gas liquids
processed at the new Blanco Plant (Dichter/Cop Class).
The hearing will be held May 12, 2006, at 8:30 a.m. in Santa Fe
County Courthouse, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
For more details, visit: http://www.dichter-cop-settlement.com/,
or contact The Gallegos Law Firm, P.C., Building 300, 460 St.,
Michael's Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505, Phone: (505) 983-
6686, Fax: (505) 986-1367, E-mail: ccarter@gallegoslawfirm.net;
and Susman Godfrey, L.L.P., Suite 5100, 1000 Louisiana, Houston,
Texas 77002-5096, Phone: (713) 653-7876, Fax: (713) 654-3392, E-
mail: rwojtczak@susmangodfrey.com or call 1-713-228-7000.
COPART INC: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit in Ga. Over Storage Liens
---------------------------------------------------------------
Copart, Inc. faces a class action filed in the State Court for
the County of Chatham, Georgia, alleging that the company
claimed unreasonable amounts for storage liens.
On September 16, 2005, Richard M. Gray filed the suit seeking
relief including class certification, damages, fees, costs and
expenses. On October 20, 2005, the Company denied the claims.
No trial date has been set.
DIOCESE OF JOLIET: To Name Priests Accused of Sexual Offenses
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Joliet will release the names of
some priests accused of sexually harassing minors, according to
The Beacon News Online.
Joliet Bishop Joseph Imesch is informing parishes the diocese
will post on its Web site (http://www.dioceseofjoliet.org)the
names of diocesan priests facing credible allegations of sexual
misconduct with minors. According to the report, the list will
not include the names of religious orders or diocesan priests
facing questionable accusations. The letter did not say when
the names will be posted, the report said.
A Minnesota man claiming to be a victim of sexual harassment by
a priest from the Diocese of Joliet filed a class action against
the parish on Feb. 28 (Class Action Reporter, March 2, 2006).
George Knotek, who filed the suit in Dupage County Circuit
Court, claimed he was abused by his family's priest at Divine
Savior Church in Downer's Grove in 1970. The priest already
died in 2004.
Mr. Knotek was not seeking monetary compensation. Instead, he
asked for:
(1) the release the names of all priests and other
employees accused of sexually abusing children since
1950;
(2) an order against the destruction of any documents
regarding suspected sexual abuse; and
(3) the turning over of the documents to the court for
safekeeping.
His lawsuit listed the names of 28 priests accused of sexual
misconduct in the Joliet Diocese based on media reports and
previous litigations.
The Diocese of Joliet said in a statement that in 2002 it gave
to the state's attorneys of Will and DuPage counties the files
of priests accused of sexual abuse of a minor.
Mr. Knotek's attorney is Marc Pearlman of Kerns, Pitrof, Frost &
Pearlman, L.L.C., Three First National Plaza, Suite 5350, 70
West Madison, Chicago, Illinois 60602 (Cook Co.), Phone: 312-
261-4550, Fax: 312-261-4565.
EINSTEIN AND NOAH: Calif. Court Approves Overtime Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California, County of San
Francisco approved the settlement of a putative class action
filed against Einstein and Noah Corp. for allegedly failing to
pay overtime wages to managers and assistant managers.
On July 31, 2002, Tristan Goldstein and Valerie Bankhordar,
former restaurant managers, filed the class action against the
company for failure to pay overtime wages to managers and
assistant managers of the California Noah's restaurants.
In April 2004, the company agreed to settle the litigation,
which agreement was subsequently approved by the court in
January 2006.
The company's estimates of a possible settlement were previously
recorded in general and administrative expenses during fiscal
2003. They were paid subsequent to fiscal year-end 2005 and did
not have a material adverse effect on the company's consolidated
financial condition or results of operations.
EXXONMOBIL CORP: Paying $1.075B in 'Discount for Cash' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal District Court Judge Alan Gold granted final approval to
the settlement of a dispute between ExxonMobil Corporation and a
class of its service station dealers under which ExxonMobil will
pay $1.075 billion to end its opposition to dealer claims in the
claims process established by the Court.
The lawsuit, filed in 1991, arose out of ExxonMobil's Discount
for Cash program in effect between 1983 and 1994 in which
ExxonMobil had promised its service station dealers a discount
in the wholesale price of motor fuel.
After a lengthy trial, in February 2001, a jury found that
ExxonMobil breached its obligation to provide the discount, and
fraudulently concealed the breach. ExxonMobil appealed the
verdict all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Supreme
Court rejected ExxonMobil's last appeal in June 2005. The
settlement was achieved as a court-appointed Special
Master was in the process of assessing damages against
ExxonMobil on individual dealer claims.
After all members of the class were given notice of the proposed
settlement and an opportunity to object, a single class member
filed an objection. At an April 5, 2006 hearing to consider the
final approval of the settlement, District Judge Gold denied the
objection, finding it to be frivolous. The $1.075 billion
payment represents payment in full of all compensatory damages,
with prejudgment interest through October 31, 2005 on all valid
claims filed by December 19, 2005. ExxonMobil is obligated to
make the payment into a settlement fund within 35 days. The
claims process before the Special Master will continue without
ExxonMobil's further involvement, which is anticipated to
accelerate the approval and payment of individual dealer claims.
In papers filed with the court, one of the leading commentators
on class actions, Columbia law professor John C. Coffee Jr.,
stated on behalf of the lawyers representing the class: "This is
a one-of-a-kind case. I do not expect that I or this Court will
see a truly similar case in the future. No other action that I
have seen approaches this one in the degree of success obtained
for the class, the effort expended by class counsel, or the risk
assumed."
"This is the latest step in bringing this case to a successful
conclusion," said Miami attorney Eugene Stearns of Stearns
Weaver Miller, who represented the Class at trial and on appeal.
"I am flattered that a world-renowned expert like Professor
Coffee shares our view of the success of this case. We look
forward to the conclusion and payment of each dealer's claim in
the claims process."
Additional information about this case is available at the web
sites of the court-appointed Claims Administrator, the Garden
City Group, http://www.exxondealerclassaction.comand Class
counsel, http://www.exxondealerattorneys.com.
The case is styled, Allapattah Services, Inc. et al. v. Exxon
Corporation, Case No. 04-70. Eugene E. Stearns, Esq. and Mark
Dikeman of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson,
P.A represent the plaintiff.
FLORIDA: Lawsuit Over Miami Fire Rescue Fee Enters New Phase
------------------------------------------------------------
Some legal issues remain in the Miami fire rescue fee
controversy after the rejection of a proposed $7 million
settlement of a class action filed over it, MiamiHerald.com
reports.
According to the report, it will now be determined whether all
the members of the original class action may be compensated, and
whether the lawyers involved have committed ethical and criminal
violations.
In March, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Peter Lopez threw out a $7
million settlement in a class action over the city's fire rescue
fee, which had been deemed unconstitutional, Miami Herald
reports (Class Action Reporter, March 21, 2006).
The judge determined parties to the 2004 settlement knew the
money was going only to just seven people, cutting off more than
80,000 potential claimants.
In May 2004, lawyer Hank Adorno and City Manager Joe Arriola
agreed to the deal, avoiding a trial. The City Commission
approved the agreement the following November believing the
settlement covered all taxpayers. But it turned out that only
five Miami landlords and two others who helped organize the suit
received the money. The city last year sued to undo the deal.
Acting on the suit, the judge determined that Mr. Adorno and the
plaintiffs deliberately concealed the details of the deal, and
ordered the return of $3.5 million that the city paid.
The original recipients of the money were Eva Nagymihaly,
Kenneth Merker, Gordon Willitts and Jean and Jocelyne Prosper,
and Judy Clark and Peter Clancy.
The report said the Florida Bar Association should investigate
the conduct of all lawyers involved so that it could bring down
punishment on anyone who has violated legal standards.
GUESS INC: Continues to Face Overtime Wage Suit in Calif. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guess Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action filed in
the Superior Court of California for the County of San
Francisco, alleging violations of the state's overtime laws.
Michele Evets filed the suit on February 1, 2005. The suit
purports to be a class action filed on behalf of current and
former Guess store managers in California. Plaintiffs seek
overtime wages and a preliminary and permanent injunction.
The company answered the complaint on April 28, 2005. No trial
date though was set.
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces New Complaint Over Pavilion Notebook
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. is facing a complaint that its Pavilion
notebook computer overheats and malfunctions during normal use,
Contra Costa Times reports.
The suit was filed in federal court in San Jose, California. It
alleges that overheating makes the computer show vertical red
lines or checkered patterns or go blank, ultimately resulting to
circuit board failure. Further, it claims that the company
unfairly charges for computer repairs not covered by warranties.
The complaint came just weeks after U.S. District Court Judge
John Corbett O'Meara entered an order granting final approval to
a nationwide settlement of one of three cases filed against
Hewlett-Packard (Class Action Reporter, March 23, 2006). The
suit was filed on behalf of consumers who purchased certain
models of HP Pavilion desktop computers.
The settlement provides cash payments, reimbursement of out-of-
pocket expenses and/or discount certificates to thousands of
consumers who experienced recurring "hanging, freezing or
locking" problems with their computers.
The class actions, pending in federal court in Michigan and in
state courts in California and Illinois, alleged that certain
models of the HP Pavilion desktop computers contain a defective
motherboard that causes the computers to frequently stop working
or "hang, freeze, or lock" while performing basic functions.
Hewlett-Packard -- http://www.hp.com- provides enterprise and
consumer customers a full range of high-tech equipment,
including personal computers, servers, storage devices,
printers, and networking equipment.
HONEYWELL INT'L: Faces Suit in Ga. Over Turtle River Pollution
--------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International, formerly Allied Chemical Corp., faces a
purported a class action in Georgia over an alleged dumping of
mercury and polychlorinated byphenols, or PCBs, into the Turtle
River over a 23-year span, The Brunswick News reports.
The suit alleges that the chemicals from the plant killed and
contaminated much of the area's marine life. It claims that the
chemicals also posed a danger to people who consume fish from
the Turtle River and the creeks it feeds.
The site from which the alleged dumping was made is the chlor-
alkilai chemical plant on Ross Road, which the company operated
from 1956 to 1979. The defunct plant is now a U.S. Superfund
Site.
In addition, the suit also alleges that the company conspired
with Linden Chemicals and Plastics which operated the plant from
1979 to 1994 to keep the dumping secret.
Surveys of the site by the state Environmental Protection
Division and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have
revealed elevated levels of mercury, lead and PCBs at the plant
site and in nearby water and organic life.
About 200 parties are seeking damages from the company. Filed
originally back in 1995, the suit is pending in both Glynn
County Superior Court and in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Georgia.
Brunswick attorney Bob Killian, one of the lawyers representing
the plaintiffs, declined comment, citing restrictions against
speaking to the news media imposed by U.S. District Judge
Anthony Alaimo, who was assigned the case.
The citizens involved in the case are seeking a number of
damages from the company, including compensation for lost
property values, legal fees and exemplary damages to serve as a
deterrent to the company from future actions similar to those
alleged in the suit, the report said.
Mr. Killian is connected with Killian and Boyd, P.C. at 506 Monk
Street, Brunswick, Georgia 31520, (Glynn Co.), Phones: 912-265-
50631-800-339-5063; Fax: 912-265-1209.
JENKENS & GILCHRIST: Court Nixes Tax Strategies Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit highlights the
difficulty of settling class action against multiple defendants
in the case "Denny v. Jenkens & Gilchrist, 05-1275," according
to Robert Loblaw of http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/.
The case stems from tax strategies marketed by BDO Seidman and
designed by law firm Jenkens & Gilchrist and investment firm
Deutsche Bank. After the IRS declared these strategies illegal
and began issuing penalties, customers brought a class action
against these three firms.
As the defendant in the best position to recognize the high
costs of litigation, Jenkens & Gilchrist settled. Some of the
class members objected to the settlement on the ground that it
unfairly included plaintiffs who had not yet been penalized,
while Deutsche Bank objected on the ground that the settlement
did not provide a clear methodology for determining the
remaining defendants' liability.
The Second Circuit rejected the class members' concerns, but
agreed with Deutsche Bank that the settlement leaves open too
many variables for the non-settling parties.
Essentially, the appeals court affirmed in part and in part
vacated and remanded the case. It cited that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in certifying the Denney class, but
that the contribution and indemnity provisions insufficiently
protected the rights of non-settling defendants and third
parties.
The suit is styled, "Denney, et al. v. Jenkens & Gilchrist, et
al., Case No. 1:03-cv-05460-SAS-RLE," on appeal from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District if New York under Judge
Shira A. Scheindlin with referral to Judge Ronald L. Ellis.
Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeffrey H. Daichman and Nahum
A. Kianovsky of Kane & Kessler, P.C., 1350 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 541-6222 and (212)
245-3009, E-mail: nkianovsky@kanekessler.com; and Othni J.
Lathram of Whatleydrake, L.L.C., 2323 2nd Avenue, North
Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: (205) 328-9576.
Representing the defendants are: Seth C. Farber of Dewey
Ballantine, LLP, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10019, Phone: (212) 259-8000, Fax: (212) 259-6333, E-mail:
lpmco@dbllp.com; and Adam Selim Hakki of Shearman & Sterling,
LLP, (New York), 599 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022,
Phone: (212)-848-4924, Fax: (646)-848-4924, E-mail:
ahakki@shearman.com.
The Denny Opinion is at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?786.
JURA CAPRESSO: Recalls Espresso Machines Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Eugster/Frismag AG, of Switzerland, is recalling about 6,600
Jura Impressa Automatic Coffee Center Espresso Machines. The
coffee machines are imported by Jura-Capresso LLC, of Closter,
New Jersey.
The company said the electrical connectors in the espresso
machine can erode, posing a fire hazard. Incidents or injuries
have been reported.
The Automatic Coffee Centers have E50, E55, E70 or E75 printed
in large type on the front panel and model number 12941, 13035,
13085 or 13088 printed on the bottom of the machine. These
machines grind, compact ground coffee, pressure brew, stop
automatically, and discard the used coffee grounds. They can
also dispense hot water for tea and hot steam to froth and steam
milk.
The coffee machines were made in Switzerland and sold at coffee
distributors and some independent specialty stores nationwide
from July 1999 through October 2004 for between $750 and $900.
Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled espresso
machines immediately, and contact Jura-Capresso to arrange for a
free wire replacement.
Pictures of the recalled coffee machines:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06124a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06124b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06124c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06124d.jpg
Consumer Contact: Jura-Capresso, Phone: (888) 406-4440 (toll-
free) between 8:30 a.m. and 9 p.m. ET Monday through Friday and
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Saturday; Web site:
http://www.capresso.com.
LAWRY'S RESTAURANTS: EEOC Files Calif. Sex Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawry's Restaurants Inc. faces a sex discrimination suit in
California alleging that the steakhouse chain barred men from
being waiters at its restaurants, The Associated Press reports.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed
the lawsuit, which seeks class action status, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California,
contending that the company is continuing a policy that dates
back to 1938 of using only women servers. It is also alleged in
the suit that men must make do with lower paying jobs such as
busing tables.
In a prepared statement, Anna Park, an attorney for the
commission, said, "The practice of denying men the opportunity
to work in the higher-paying server jobs is blatant sex
discrimination." She pointed out that the company's waitresses
can earn from $25,000 to $56,000 a year depending on tips while
busboys and others typically earn about 40 percent less. The
suit could involve several thousand people, she added.
Responding to inquiries regarding the purported class action,
the company said in its own prepared statement that it "denies
the merit" of the suit and was disappointed by the legal action,
which followed two years of negotiations with the employment
commission over its concerns. It also adds, "Lawry's is
confident that once the facts of this case and the EEOC's
unreasonable actions and positions are brought to light, Lawry's
Restaurants will prevail."
The suit is styled, "U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission v. Lawrys Restaurants Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-01963-
DDP-PLA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California under Judge Dean D. Pregerson with
referral to Judge Paul L. Abrams. Representing the plaintiffs
are, Dana C. Johnson and Anna Y. Park of U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, Los Angeles District Office, 255 E.
Temple St., 4th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90012, Phone: 213-894-1083,
E-mail: thomas.profit@eeoc.gov.
LOUISIANA: Judge Remands "Fax Filing" Lawsuits to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
remanded two class actions removed under the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA) back to state court.
The remanded class actions were:
(1) "Patterson v. Morris, No. 05-2177, Civil No. 05-2177,
2006 WL 196996 (E.D.La. January 25, 2006);" and
(2) "Bauer v. Morris, No. 05-2178, Civil No.05-2178, 2006
WL 196996 (E.D.La. January 25, 2006).
U.S. District Court Judge Stanwood Duval, Jr., of the Eastern
District of Louisiana, declared that petitions faxed to state
court on February 17, 2005, "commenced" the class actions the
day before CAFA took effect.
In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected defense
arguments that the pre-CAFA fax filing was ineffective as a
result of the plaintiffs' failure to timely pay the requisite
filing fees. The court's decision covered twin class actions
combined on removal for the purposes of the decision, addressing
the same underlying financial dispute:
(i) "Patterson v. Morris, in which putative class members
included those who had already filed for bankruptcy;
and
(ii) "Bauer v. Morris, in which the putative class was
intended to exclude plaintiffs who filed for bankruptcy
(although two named plaintiffs in the Bauer class had
actually filed for bankruptcy).
The defendants -- a law firm handling collections and
foreclosures, which was alleged to have charged borrowers
excessive fees and costs related to collection and foreclosures,
and the law firm's lender clients -- argued that the plaintiffs
failed to comply with the requirements of La. R.S. 13:850,
Louisiana's "fax filing" statute, requiring payment of the
"applicable filing fee" within five days of the fax filing.
In this instance, a failure to comply would effectively mean
that the action was not commenced until May 6, 2005, the day the
plaintiffs filed their First Supplemental and Amended Class
Action Petition for Damages, and thus would bring the action
within the purview of CAFA.
Specifically, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs failed
to remit the total amount of filing fees, $5,127, to the Clerk's
office within the requisite five days. They also pointed to the
Clerk's request for the remainder of the filing fee, $2,145, in
July as conclusive evidence of the failure.
However, plaintiffs countered that they paid what the clerk
demanded at the time of filing and could not have paid more
without a court order. Thus, they had complied with the
applicable statute.
The court agreed with the plaintiffs' view in that: "The Court
finds that plaintiffs filed the appropriate amount to the
clerk's office, both the filing fee and the fees for service,
and thus, plaintiffs satisfied the requirements of La. R.S.
13:850." It added that "costs were stamped PAID, and it was not
until significantly later that the clerk notified plaintiffs
that further fees were owed due to a mistake by the clerk's
office."
Judge Duval explained that Orleans Parish has a "pay as you go"
system with no refunds or credit, so that plaintiffs could not
have pushed the clerk to take more money than asked for on the
spot. Therefore, the judge concluded that both class actions
were properly filed February 17, 2005, the day before the
effective date of CAFA, which would preclude removal under CAFA.
After concluding that CAFA was not a proper basis for federal
jurisdiction due to the pre-CAFA commencement of both suits,
Judge Duval turned to the defendants' claim of federal
bankruptcy jurisdiction. Although the court had previously been
addressing both suits as one, the bankruptcy jurisdiction issue
forced separate consideration of these fraternal twins.
As to the Bauer class, class members who had not filed
bankruptcy, the defendants argued that the court had bankruptcy
jurisdiction since two of these named plaintiffs, the
Duckworths, had previously filed for bankruptcy.
In an attempt to remedy this blemish, the plaintiffs previously
attempted to dismiss the Duckworths from the class, but were
countered by one of the defendants, Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas, filing a successful motion to compel arbitration of
the Duckworths' claims.
Due to the court's granting the motion to compel arbitration,
thereby extracting the Duckworths from the Bauer class, and the
subsequent lack of any federal claims, Judge Duval remanded the
Bauer class back to state court.
The Patterson class offered its own interesting set of twists.
Despite the Patterson plaintiffs conceding federal bankruptcy
jurisdiction under Title 11, the defendants could not rest.
Under 28 U.S.C. 1452, the court's ability to remand the case is
broadened beyond the normal 1441 standard, and allowed the court
to remand the case "on any equitable ground." The plaintiffs
took full advantage of this broadened standard, and argued that
the court should abstain from granting jurisdiction and remand
the case on equitable grounds.
Judge Duval performed an analysis of mandatory abstention,
discretionary abstention and equitable remand, ultimately
finding that, while mandatory abstention did not apply in this
case, equitable factors dictated that the case should be
equitably remanded to state court.
In the long run, both actions were eventually remanded back to
state court, although on different grounds.
For more details, contact Jennifer N. Willis of Cater & Willis,
3723 Canal St., New Orleans, LA 70190, Phone: (504) 488-6300, E-
mail: cwlaw@bellsouth.net; and Anthony Rollo of McGlinchey
Stafford, PLLC, New Orleans, 643 Magazine St., New Orleans, L.A.
70130-3477, Phone: 504-586-1200, E-mail: arollo@mcglinchey.com;
The Patterson Opinion: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?78c;the
Bauer Opinion: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?78d.
PIPER JAFFRAY: N.D. Court Remands "Ongstad" Suit to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota tackled
the issue of which party bears the burden of proof of federal
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in its
January 4, 2006 decision to remand the class action styled,
"Ongstad v. Piper Jaffray & Co., No. 05-00108," back to state
court.
Disgruntled clients of securities firm Piper Jaffray & Co. filed
the class action seeking to recover "damages incurred as a
result of a pattern and practice of unauthorized trading in
brokerage accounts." The defendant moved the purported class
action to federal court under CAFA, and the plaintiffs sought
remand, arguing that the company could not prove that the
litigation met CAFA's amount in controversy and quantitative
requirements.
Chief District Judge Daniel L. Hovland addressed the issues,
tackling the burden of proof question first. He discussed the
rationale of courts on both sides of the fledgling split, but
eventually found the reasoning in "Brill v. Countrywide" and
"Judy v. Pfizer" more persuasive.
Judge Hovland declined to alter the "traditional" burden of
establishing diversity jurisdiction, which places the burden on
the party seeking removal, and placing it instead on the party
challenging the federal jurisdiction and attempting to avoid
remand, which is the subject of parts of the Legislative History
of CAFA, holding instead that the defendant removing this case
should shoulder the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.
As a preliminary matter, the parties agreed that at least
minimal diversity was present, leaving the issue of the amount
in controversy ripe for a fight. Since the plaintiffs'
pleadings provided scant information regarding potential
damages, the defendant was forced to pursue other avenues to
prove that CAFA's $5 million minimum amount in controversy mark
was met.
Relying on the affidavit of a Regulatory Affairs Analyst with
the firm, the company represented to the court that its North
Dakota offices (three in all) "had approximately 16,243 open
accounts, held by approximately 11,333 clients, managing in
excess of 1 billion dollars in assets." Based on these numbers,
the company argued that even if only a small percentage of the
assets were implicated, including potential punitive damages and
attorneys' fees, the $5 million requirement was easily
satisfied.
However, Judge Hovland took the more conservative approach, and
found that the company's affidavit was insufficient to satisfy
CAFA's amount in controversy requirement. Summarizing the
figures presented, the judge opined, "Standing alone, there is
little that can be drawn from such figures" and found no
"inherent correlation between the total value of the assets and
the amount of damages sustained as a result of the unauthorized
transactions."
Since the securities firm presented no evidence directly related
to the values of the unauthorized transactions, the court held
there was no reliable method to determine the true amount in
controversy. Moreover, Judge Hovland wrote, since federal
jurisdiction is limited, all close calls on the issue go to the
party seeking remand, and accordingly, remanded the case back to
state court.
The suit is styled, "Ongstad v. Piper Jaffray & Co., Case No.
1:05-cv-00108-DLH-CSM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of North Dakota under Judge Daniel L. Hovland with
referral to Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. Representing the the
plaintiffs are: Craig A. Boeckel of Tschider & Boeckel, P.O. Box
668, Bismarck, ND 58502-0668, Phone: 701-258-2400; and Mark E.
Maddox and Barbara Quinn Smith of Maddox Hargett & Caruso, PC,
Phone: 317-598-2040 and 440-605-7297, Fax: 317-598-2050 and 440-
646-1615, E-mail: bqsesq@aol.com.
Representing the defendants is Todd E. Zimmerman of Dorsey &
Whitney, 51 N. Broadway, Suite 402, P.O. Box 1344, Fargo, ND
58107-1344, Phone: 701-235-6000, E-mail:
zimmerman.todd@dorsey.com.
For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?788
(Ongstad Opinion), http://researcharchives.com/t/s?789(Judy
Opinion) and http://researcharchives.com/t/s?65b(Brill
Opinion).
QUOVADX INC: Settles Financial Restatement Lawsuit for $10.6M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quovadx, Inc. reached agreements to settle two lawsuits that
arose from the company's 2004 restatement of historical
financial results. Total settlement under the agreements is
$10.6 million, of which $7 million will be paid by the company's
insurance carriers and $3.6 million will be paid by the company.
"We're pleased to put these legacy issues behind us," said
Harvey A. Wagner, CEO of Quovadx. "The settlements announced []
will allow us to continue to invest in new business and product
initiatives as we focus on growing our business."
On April 4, 2006, the Company reached a settlement agreement
with lead plaintiffs in the class action captioned Heller v.
Quovadx, Inc., et al, filed on June 10, 2004, and pending in
federal court in the district of Colorado. Under the terms of
the settlement, the plaintiffs will receive $10 million in
exchange for their release of the Company and the individual
defendants, with prejudice, of all claims under Section 10b and
Section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
Quovadx agreed to pay $3.0 million, and its insurance carriers
have agreed to pay $7.0 million, into a settlement fund
established by the lead plaintiffs' counsel within 10 business
days. Failure to make full payment into the settlement fund
would result in immediate termination of the settlement
agreement. The agreement, which excludes claims made under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, is subject to,
among other things, approval by the Court.
The Company also reached an agreement in principle in the
shareholder derivative actions, consolidated under In re
Quovadx, Inc. Derivative Litigation, pending in state court in
Arapahoe County, Colorado. Under terms of the agreement, the
Company will pay a settlement fee of $575,000 and implement
certain corporate governance changes, in exchange for full
release of the Company and all individual defendants, with
prejudice, of all state law claims. The agreement is subject to
final agreement on the governance changes and approval by the
court.
A third lawsuit which arose out of the Company's 2004
restatement of financial results, Henderson v. Quovadx, Inc., et
al., filed in March 2004, is still pending.
The Heller suit was styled "Heller v. Quovadx, Inc., et al, case
no. 1:04-cv-00665-RPM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, under Judge Richard P. Matsch.
Representing the Company are John Alonzo Hutchings and Adam
Philip Stapen of Dill, Dill, Carr, Stonbraker & Hutchings, PC,
455 Sherman Street #300, Denver, CO 80203, U.S.A, Phone:
303-777-7373, Fax: 303-777-3823, E-mail:
jhutchings@dillanddill.com or astapen@dillanddill.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are Dennis Jeremy Herman, Jeffrey W.
Lawrence and Ex Kano S. Sams of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins, LLP-SF CA, 100 Pine Street #2600, San
Francisco, CA 94111, U.S.A, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax:
415-288-4534, E-mail: dherman@lerachlaw.com,
jeffreyl@lerachlaw.com, exkanos@lerachlaw.com; and Kip Brian
Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO
80218-1417, U.S.A, Phone: 303-861-3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-
mail: KShuman@DyerShuman.com.
REFCO INC: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Refco, Inc. faces a consolidated securities lawsuit seeking
class action status in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, styled, "In re Refco, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 05 Civ. 8626 (GEL)," The Wall Street
Journal reports.
The new lawsuit, filed on April 3, 2006, claims that the
collapsed commodity brokerage hid more than $5 billion off its
books, far more than previously thought. It also accuses
company executives, company auditors, and investment bankers of
negligence.
The suit arises from the revelation that the company, a once
prominent brokerage, had for years secreted nearly half a
billion dollars of bad debts with a related entity controlled by
Phillip Bennett, the company's chairman and chief executive
officer.
This revelation caused the stunning collapse of the Company a
mere two months after its August 10, 2005 initial public
offering of common stock, and only fourteen months after its
issuance of 9% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2012. The company
filed the fourth largest bankruptcy in U.S. history as a result.
In February 2006, U.S. District Judge Gerard Lynch appointed New
York law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann and
Wilmington, Delaware-based Grant & Eisenhofer as counsel to the
lead plaintiffs. RH Capital Associates LLC was appointed as co-
lead plaintiff in the class action as well.
The suit is styled, "In re Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 05 Civ. 8626 (GEL)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Gerard
E. Lynch. Representing the plaintiffs are: Max W. Berger (MB-
5010), John P. Coffey (JC-3832), John C. Browne (JB-0391) and
Noam N. Mandel (NM-0203) of Bernstein Litowitz Berg & Grossmann,
LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone:
(212) 554-1400, Fax: (212) 554-1444; and Stuart M. Grant (SG-
8157), James J. Sabella (JS-5454), Megan D. McIntyre, Jeff A.
Almeida, Christine M. Mackintosh and Jill Agro of Grant &
Eisenhofer, P.A., Phone: (646) 722-8500 and (302) 622-7000, Fax:
(646) 722-8501 and (302) 622-7100.
For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?78e
(New Refco Complaint).
SALOMON SMITH: GPM Settlement Hearing Slated for May 12, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Southern New York
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the
matter: "Norman v. Salomon Smith Barney/Salomon Smith Barney GPM
Account Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-04391-GEL." The case was
brought on behalf of all persons or legal beneficiaries or
participants in any persons, who maintained a Guided Portfolio
Management (GPM) account with Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. during
the period from January 3, 1998 through August 15, 2002.
The hearing will be held before the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch in
the U.S. District Courthouse for the Southern District of New
York, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007 on May 12, 2006, at 3:00
p.m.
Any objections or exclusions to the settlement must be filed by
April 21, 2006. Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on
July 14, 2006.
For more details, contact Thomas A. Doyle of Sauders & Doyle,
Suite 1720, 20 South Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
(312) 551-0051, Fax: (312) 551-4467; Steven Jeffrey Toll of
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC (DC), 1100 New York
Avenue, N.W. West Towen #500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202)
408-4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com; Thomas
Earl Patton of Tighe, Patton & Babbin, 1747 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W. Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Phone: (202) 293-8740, E-
mail: tpatton@tighepatton.com; and Salomon Smith Barney GPM
Account Litigation, c/o Berdon Claims Administrator, LLC, P.O.
Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax:
(516) 931-0810.
STOCK EXCHANGES: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set May 22, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness haring for the proposed settlement in the
matter: "In re: Stock Exchanges Options Trading Antitrust
Litigation (MDL No. 1283, Case No. 99CV0962)."
The case was brought on behalf of all persons, firms,
corporations and other entities that during period from January
22, 1990 through April 30, 2003, purchased and/or sold one or
more Class Option Contracts and/or paid transaction costs,
including without limitation all fees and other charges,
incurred in connection with the purchase and/or sale of one or
more Class Option Contracts.
The hearing will be on May 22, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. Any objections
to the settlement must be filed by May 1, 2006.
For more details, contact Options Trading Antitrust Litigation
c/o Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9007, Jericho,
NY 11753-8917, Phone: (866) 208-0188; Craig C. Corbitt of Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP, 44 Montgomery Street, Suite
3400, Suite 3400, San Francisco, CA 94104-2301, Phone: (415)
693-0700; Andrew David Friedman, Samuel K. Rosen and Stuart D.
Wechsler of Wechsler, Harwood, L.L.P., 488 Madison Avenue, New
York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 935-7400; Joseph C. Kohn of Kohn,
Swift & Graf, P.C., One South Broad Street, Suite 2100,
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389, Phone: (215) 238-1700; and Thomas
James McKenna of Gainey & McKenna, 485 Fifth Avenue, 3rd Floor,
New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 983-1300.
STONE ENERGY: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Lawsuits in La.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stone Energy Corp. and several of its officers are defendants in
several purported class actions in U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On or around November 30, 2005, George Porch filed a putative
class action against the company, David H. Welch, Kenneth H.
Beer, D. Peter Canty and James H. Prince. Three similar
complaints were filed after.
All complaints asserted a putative class period commencing on
June 17, 2005 and ending on October 6, 2005. All complaints
contended that, during the putative class period, defendants,
among other things, misstated or failed to disclose:
(1) that Stone had materially overstated Stone's financial
results by overvaluing its oil reserves through
improper and aggressive reserve methodologies;
(2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
condition; and
(3) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
company's proved reserves, assets and future net cash
flows were materially overstated at all relevant times.
A motion to consolidate these actions and to appoint a lead
plaintiff was heard on March 22, 2006.
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Faces Consolidated Consumer Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. is a defendant in a
consolidated consumer fraud class action, "Grand Theft Auto
Video Game Consumer Litigation," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
In July 2005, three purported class action complaints were filed
against the company and its subsidiary Rockstar Games. Two of
the complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York; one was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On September 8, 2005, another similar complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial District, St. Clair
County, Illinois.
The plaintiffs, alleged purchasers of the Company's "Grand Theft
Auto: San Andreas" game, allege that the company and Rockstar
Games engaged in consumer deception, false advertising and
common law fraud and were unjustly enriched as a result of the
alleged failure of the company and Rockstar Games to disclose
that "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" contained "hidden" content,
which resulted in the game receiving an "M" rating from the ESRB
rather than an "AO" rating.
The complaints sought unspecified damages, declarations of
various violations of law and litigation costs. The New York
actions and the Pennsylvania action were consolidated in the
Southern District of New York under the caption, "In re Grand
Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation, (05-CV-6734 (BSJ))."
The Illinois action has been removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, and the company has moved
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for an order
transferring the Illinois action to the Southern District of New
York for coordinated or consolidated proceedings with the
actions pending in New York.
The suit is styled, "In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer
Litigation, (05-CV-6734 (BSJ))," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Barbara
S. Jones with referral to Judge Michael H. Dolinger.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Roy Laurence Jacobs of Roy Jacobs & Associates, 60 East
42nd Street 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone: 212-
867-1156, Fax: 212-504-8343, E-mail:
rljacobs@pipeline.com;
(2) David Jonathan Meiselman of Meiselman, Denlea, Packman,
Carton & Eberz, P.C. (WPl), 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue,
White Plains, NY 10605, Phone: (914) 517-5000, Fax:
(914) 517-5055, E-mail: dmeiselman@mdpelaw.com; and
(3) Laurence Paskowitz of Paskowitz & Associates, 60 East
42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone:
(212)-685-0969, Fax: (212)-685-2306, E-mail:
classattorney@aol.com.
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. is a defendant in several
securities class actions that were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
In February and March 2006, four purported class action
complaints were filed against the company, its Chief Executive
Officer, Chief Financial Officer and former Chief Global
Operating Officer in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
Plaintiffs for the complaints are Max Kaplan, John Fenninger,
David Andrews and David Toth. The complaints alleged that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) by making or
causing the Company to make untrue statements or failing to
disclose in certain press releases and SEC periodic reports
that, among other things:
(1) Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas contained "hidden"
content which should have resulted in the game
receiving an Adults Only (AO) rating from the ESRB
rather than a Mature (M) rating;
(2) the defendants attempted to bolster sales of "Grand
Theft Auto: San Andreas" by concealing the "adult
content" from retailers who refused to carry AO
material;
(3) the Company's management failed to keep the Board of
Directors informed of important issues or failed to do
so in a timely fashion; and
(4) the Company was misstating capitalized software
development costs and amortization expense and had
inadequate internal controls and procedures to ensure
accuracy in its reported financial results.
The plaintiffs wanted to recover unspecified damages and their
costs in these actions.
The first identified complaint was styled, "John Fenninger, et
al. v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., et al." filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:
(1) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, Fax:
wfederman@aol.com;
(2) Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy, 265 Llwyds Lane, Vero
Beach La, FL 32963, Phone: 561.231.4202;
(3) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
pivenlaw@erols.com;
(4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
(Melville) 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY
11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
info@lerachlaw.com;
(5) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (New York) One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119,
Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
info@milbergweiss.com;
(6) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., 34th
Flr., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com;
(7) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT
06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com;
(8) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com; and
(9) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York) 6 East 45th Street, New
York, NY 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax: 310.209.2087,
E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com.
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Investment Fund Launches Lawsuit in Del.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. is a defendant in a
purported class and derivative action complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.
In February 6, 2006, investment fund Bamboo Partners, LLC, filed
the complaint against the company as nominal defendant and
certain officers and directors and former officers and
directors. The factual allegations in this action are similar
to the allegations contained in the federal securities class
actions pending in New York.
The plaintiff alleged that certain defendants breached their
fiduciary obligations as a result of the company's
misrepresentations regarding its business and prospects and that
they disseminated materially false information to the company's
stockholders.
Plaintiff also alleged that individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties through mismanagement and a failure of
oversight and by diluting the company's stock as a result of
omissions in the company's 2003, 2004 and 2005 proxy statements
relating to increases in share availability under its 2002 Stock
Option Plan.
In addition, plaintiff also claimed that the company is entitled
to contribution and indemnification from the individual
defendants and to a return of certain bonuses and incentive
payments made to certain officers.
Aside from the return of these payments, plaintiff sought
recovery of profits from alleged insider trading under theories
of alleged unjust enrichment and abuse of control, and
unspecified damages against the individual defendants,
attorney's fees and costs.
The suit is styled, "Bamboo Partners LLC v. Eibeler, et al., No.
1924-N, (Del. Ch. Feb. 6, 2006)."
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Retirement System Launches Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. is a defendant in a
purported class and derivative action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In January 30, 2006, the St. Clair Shores General Employees
Retirement System filed a suit against the company, as nominal
defendant, and certain of the its officers and directors and
certain former officers and directors. The factual allegations
in this action were similar to the allegations contained in the
federal securities class actions pending in New York.
Plaintiff asserted that certain defendants breached their
fiduciary duty by selling company stock while in possession of
certain material non-public information and breached their
fiduciary duty and violated Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 of the
Exchange Act by failing to disclose material facts in the
Company's 2003, 2004 and 2005 proxy statements in which the
Company solicited approval to increase share availability under
its 2002 Stock Option Plan.
Plaintiff sought the return of all profits from the alleged
insider trading conducted by the individual defendants who sold
company stock, unspecified compensatory damages with interest
and their costs in the action.
The suit was styled, "St. Clair Shores General Employees
Retirement System v. Eibeler, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00688-
MBM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York under Judge Michael B. Mukasey. Representing the
plaintiffs is James Joseph Sabella of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.,
(NY2), 45 Rockefeller Center, 630 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10111, Phone: 646-722-8520, Fax: 212 755 6503, E-
mail: jsabella@gelaw.com.
Representing the defendants are Leonard D. Steinman of Blank
Rome, LLP, The Chrysler Building, 405 Lexington Avenue, New
York, NY 10174, Phone: 212-885-5524, Fax: 917 332-3746, E-mail:
lsteinman@blankrome.com.
TENET HEALTHCARE: Securities Settlement Hearing Set May 15, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed partial settlement
in the matter: "Tenet Healthcare Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:02-cv-08462." The case was brought on behalf of all
persons and entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired Tenet
common stock, 5.375% notes maturing 2006, 6.375% notes maturing
2011, or Tenet call options, or who sold Tenet put options
between January 11, 2000 and November 7, 2002.
The hearing will be held on May 15, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew, U.S. Courthouse, 312 N. Spring
St., Los Angeles, California.
Any objections or exclusions to the settlement must be filed by
April 17, 2006. Deadline for submitting proof of claim is on
July 6, 2006.
For more details, contact Katrina Blumenkrants, Allyn Z. Lite,
Joseph J. DePalma and Bruce Daniel Greenberg of Lite Depalma
Greenberg and Rivas, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ
07102-5003, Phone: 973-623-3000, E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com
and bgreenberg@ldgrlaw.com; Gregory M. Castaldo and Richard S.
Schiffrin of Schiffrin & Barroway, 3 Bala Plaza E, Ste. 400,
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706; and In re Tenet
Healthcare Corp. Securities Litigation, c/o The Garden City
group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9000#6385, Merrick,
NY 11566-9000.
TICKETMASTER.COM: Court Refuses to Issue Judgment in Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois denied a motion by
Ticketmaster.com for summary judgment on Illinois and California
statutory claims in the class action, styled, "Mitchell B.
Zaveduk, et al. v. Ticketmaster, et al., Case No. 02 CH 21148."
The suit challenges the company's charges to customers for UPS
ticket delivery.
The lawsuit alleges in essence that it is unlawful for the
Company not to disclose that the fee it charges to customers to
have their tickets delivered by UPS contains a profit component.
It asserted claims for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act and for unjust enrichment
and sought restitution to the purported class of the difference
between what the Company charged for UPS delivery and what it
paid UPS for that service.
On May 20, 2003, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the common-law claim for unjust enrichment but declined
to dismiss the claim under the Illinois statute.
On July 7, 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
adding claims for breach of contract and for violation of the
California Consumers' Legal Remedies Act and Section 17200 of
the California Business and Professions Code.
On August 13, 2004, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the claim under the California Consumers' Legal Remedies
Act. On October 28, 2004, the court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the claim for breach of contract, but declined
again to dismiss the claim under the Illinois statute.
On June 16, 2005, the court denied the company's motion for
summary judgment on the remaining Illinois and California
statutory claims. Discovery in the case has been inactive, and
no trial date has been set.
TICKETMASTER.COM: State Court Venue Sought for Consumer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are asking that the consumer fraud lawsuit filed
against Ticketmaster.com in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California be remanded to California state
court.
On October 21, 2003, a purported representative action was filed
in California state court, challenging the Company's charges to
online customers for UPS ticket delivery. The suit was styled
"Curt Schlesinger et al. v. Ticketmaster, No. BC304565," and was
filed in the Superior Court, Los Angeles County. The lawsuit
alleged in essence that it is unlawful for the Company not to
disclose on its website that the fee it charges to online
customers to have their tickets delivered by UPS contains a
profit component.
The complaint asserted a claim for violation of Section 17200 of
the California Business and Professions Code and, like the
Illinois case, sought restitution or disgorgement of the
difference between the total UPS-delivery fees charged by the
Company in connection with online ticket sales and the amount it
paid to UPS for that service.
On January & 9, 2004, the court denied Ticketmaster's motion to
stay the case in favor of the earlier-filed Illinois case. On
December 31, 2004, the court denied the Company's motion for
summary judgment. On April 1, 2005, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to include
UPS-delivery fees charged in connection with ticket orders
placed by telephone. Citing Proposition 64, a recently approved
California ballot initiative that outlawed so-called
"representative" actions brought on behalf of the general
public, the court ruled that since the named plaintiffs did not
order their tickets by telephone, they lacked standing to assert
a claim based on telephone ticket sales. The plaintiffs were
granted leave to file an amended complaint that would survive
application of Proposition 64.
On August & 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended class
action and representative-action complaint alleging, as before,
that the Company's Web site disclosures in respect of its
charges for UPS ticket delivery violate Section 17200 of the
California Business and Professions Code, and for the first
time, that the Company's Web site disclosures in respect of its
ticket order-processing fees constitute false advertising in
violation of Section 17500 of the California Business and
Professions Code. On this latter claim, the amended complaint
wanted restitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of
order-processing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the
applicable statute-of-limitations period.
On September 1, 2005, in light of the newly pleaded claim based
upon order-processing fees, the Company removed the case to
federal court pursuant to the recently enacted federal Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The suit was filed under the
caption, "Curt Schlesinger, et al. v. Ticketmaster, Case No. CV-
05-6515," and is pending in the U.S. District Court for Central
District of California.
On October 3, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
case to state court, which Ticketmaster opposed. This motion
was argued on November 7, 2005, and remains pending.
The suit is styled, "Curt Schlesinger, et al. v. Ticketmaster,
Case No. CV-05-6515," filed in the U.S. District Court for
Central District of California under Judge Margaret M. Morrow
with referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman. Representing the
plaintiffs are:
(1) Roger Mark Franks and William M. Hensley of Jackson
DeMarco & Peckenpaugh, 2030 Main St., Ste. 1200,
Irvine, CA 92614, Phone: 949-752-8585, E-mail:
mhensley@jdplaw.com;
(2) Michael B. Hyman of Much Shelist Freed Dennenberg Ament
and Rubenstein, 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800,
Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-521-2000; and
(3) Robert J Stein, III, Stein Law Firm, 401 East Ontario
Street, Suite 2302, Chicago, IL 60611, US, Phone: 312-
943-8068.
Representing the defendants are: Frank E. Merideth, Jr., Gregory
A. Nylen and Jeff E. Scott of Greenberg Traurig, 2450 Colorado
Ave, Ste. 400, East Santa Monica, CA 90404, Phone: 310-586-7825
and 310-586-7700, E-mail: meridethf@gtlaw.com, nyleng@gtlaw.com
and scottj@gtlaw.com, Web site: http://www.gtlaw.com/.
UNITED STATES: Suit Over Post-9/11 N.Y., N.J. Arrests Continues
---------------------------------------------------------------
A closed-door deposition was held on April 3 in Toronto in the
class action filed over the treatment that hundreds of mostly
Muslim men received while being detained in New York and New
Jersey after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Lawyers for a Canadian caught up in the U.S. sweep claimed the
detainees were jailed under harsh conditions and terrorized by
snarling dogs, according to Associated Press. The New York-
based Center for Constitutional Rights, which is filing the suit
on behalf of some detainees, said their clients were held with
violent criminals because of their religion or nationality.
Akhil Sachdeva, a Hindu native who is now a Canadian citizen,
and six others, are filing the federal class action against
senior U.S. officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and
former Attorney General John Ashcroft. Mr. Sachdeva was
detained at Passaic County Jail in northern New Jersey from
December 2001 to April 2002. He was afterwards cleared of
terrorist links and deported to Canada.
Lawyers for the plaintiff alleged some 1,200 to 2,000 mostly
Muslim men were illegally detained without charge or legal
representation during the arrests. Most of the men were held in
the Metropolitan Detention Center in New York and the Passaic
County Jail. Their suit claims the basis for their arrests were
mostly minor administrative, visa or passport violations. They
are asking monetary damages for pain and suffering.
Center for Constitutional Rights Web site: http://www.ccr-ny.org
UNITED STATES: Remedies Proposed in Md. Housing Segregation Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The housing segregation case before a federal judge in
Baltimore, Maryland has entered remedy phase, according to
Baltimore Sun.
Lawyers for tenants of Baltimore public housing and the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development met in March in the
opening of a new phase in the suit's timeline. The parties
argued regarding plans to help public housing families.
Lawyer Peter Buscemi forwarded a proposal requiring the HUD to
provide 6,750 special housing vouchers and new and rehabilitated
units over 10 years for the families. But a lawyer for HUD
argued the proposal was problematic and should not be
implemented. HUD lawyer Peter Phipps said the judge does not
have the authority to order the creation of new housing but can
only ask the federal agency to review decisions that he found
problematic.
In a January 2005 ruling on the class action, U.S. District
Judge Marvin J. Garbis said HUD violated federal fair-housing
laws by failing to "affirmatively further fair housing" in
Baltimore. The suit was filed in 1995 on behalf of black
Baltimore public housing residents alleging the city and federal
government have not eliminated decades of segregated public
housing in the area. Judge Garbis absolved the city and its
Housing Authority of wrongdoing.
Judge Garbis is hearing the case without a jury. Aside from the
question on what remedy to take to correct violation of fair-
housing laws, Judge Garbis is also considering whether HUD
violated the constitutional rights of public housing residents.
The suit is styled, "Thompson, et al. v. HUD, et al. (1:95-cv-
00309-MJG)," filed in the U.S. District Court of Maryland under
Judge Marvin J. Garbis with referral to Paul W. Grimm.
Representing the plaintiffs are: Matthew B Colangelo of NAACP
Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., 99 Hudson St 16th Fl,
New York, NY 10013, Phone: 12129652200, Fax: 12122267592, E-
mail: mcolangelo@naacpldf.org; and Susan R. Podolsky of Jenner
and Block, 601 13th St NW Ste 1200 S, Washington, DC 20005,
Phone: 12026396000; Fax: 12026396066.
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: June Trial Set for Spam Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement fairness hearing in the spam filter suit filed
against Verizon Communications Inc. will be held June 20, 2006,
9:00 a.m. at Department no.308 of the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles, 600 South
Commonwealth Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005.
The case (docket no. BC32828) was brought on behalf of: "All
business and residential customers of Verizon FiOS, DSL, and
dial-up internet services in the U.S. at any time from October
1, 2004 to May 31, 2005 who had use of one or more e-mail
accounts on the Verizon.net e-mail platform." Deadline for
filing proof of claims is August 9, 2006. Requests for
exclusion are due May 19, 2006.
In February 2005, seven subscribers of Verizon's digital
subscriber line (DSL) and dial-up Internet Service filed two
class action proceedings, one in California state court and
another before the American Arbitration Association, against
Verizon Internet Services Inc. and other Verizon entities. The
Complaints in the two class action proceedings alleged that
beginning October 2004, Verizon, in an overbroad attempt to
block spam and other illegitimate e-mails, blocked legitimate
incoming e-mails to certain Verizon subscribers.
The Complaints alleged that Verizon did not provide advance
notice to its customers of the blocks and did not appropriately
respond to customer complaints about them. The Plaintiffs
alleged that Verizon's spam-blocking system constituted a breach
of an asserted contractual obligation to deliver e-mail in
accordance with accepted e-mail delivery protocols, and that
Verizon has been unjustly enriched. Verizon denies any
liability to Plaintiffs and asserts various defenses to
liability including its contractual right to block unsolicited
e-mail directed to subscribers.
In a notice, Verizon said it has agreed to implement and has
implemented certain changes to the manner in which it prevents
spam from reaching Verizon.net e-mail accounts, how it provides
notice to senders whose e-mails are blocked, and how it responds
to reports from customers and others that legitimate e-mails are
being blocked.
The cash terms of the settlement:
-- class members who did not receive legitimate e-mail
between October 2004 and May 2005 from a sender in the
Asian region -- which includes any of the countries at
http://www.EmailBlockingSettlement.com/AsianRegion.htm-
- are eligible to receive a cash payment of $3.50 per
month for each month from October 2004 to May 2005
during which they were a Verizon DSL, FiOS, or dial-up
subscriber, for a maximum of eight months, or a maximum
of $28.00; and
-- class members who did not receive legitimate e-mail
between December 2004 and May 2005 from a sender in the
European region are eligible to receive a cash payment
of $3.50 per month for each month from December 2004 to
May 2005 during which they were a Verizon DSL, FiOS, or
dial-up subscriber, for a maximum of six months, or a
maximum of $21.00;
The court will also consider at the settlement hearing the
request of class counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $1,400,000 and
special awards to the seven class representatives in the amount
of $1,000 each, for the services they have rendered in the
Actions, which Verizon has agreed to pay as a part of this
Settlement over and above the other remedies.
To submit Claim Form electronically online visit:
https://secureweb.rustconsulting.com/emailblockingsettlement/Ins
tructions.aspx; otherwise, mail completed Claim Form to the
Settlement Administrator, c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box
1324, Minneapolis, MN 55440-1324.
For more information contact, Class Counsel: Michael J. Boni
Kohn, Swift, & Graf, P.C., One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
Philadelphia, PA 19107, E-mail: verizonsettlement@kohnswift.com;
or Verizon's counsel: Henry Weissmann, Esq. of Munger, Tolles &
Olson LLP, 355 South Grand Ave, 35th Floor, Los Angeles, CA
90071-1560, Web site: http://www.emailblockingsettlement.com.
Asbestos Alert
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Reserves $475.1M for Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp., a Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd.
subsidiary, reserves US$475.1 million for asbestos,
environmental, and other latent claims at December 31, 2005,
according to the Company's 10-K SEC report.
At December 31, 2005, the Morristown, NJ-based Company recorded
428 open asbestos policyholders.
The Company's exposure is related mostly to policyholders that
are peripheral defendants, including a mix of manufacturers,
distributors and installers of asbestos-containing products, as
well as premises owners. These policyholders are defendants on a
regional rather than a nationwide basis. As the financial assets
and insurance recoveries of traditional asbestos defendants have
been depleted, plaintiffs are increasingly focusing on these
peripheral defendants.
Gross asbestos reserves were US$469.2 million, US$522.7 million
and US$495.2 million at December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003,
respectively. Gross environmental reserves were US$111.6
million, US$123.4 million and US$130.5 million, respectively.
Moreover, gross reserves for other latent claims were US$36.8
million, US$35.4 million and US$40.8 million, respectively.
Asbestos reserves, net of reinsurance, were US$376.8 million,
US$408.8 million and US$366.4 million, at December 31, 2005,
2004 and 2003, respectively. Environmental reserves, net of
reinsurance, were US$74.3 million, US$85.2 million and US$98.8
million, respectively. Reserves for other latent claims, net of
reinsurance, were US$24 million, US$22 million and US$26.7
million, respectively.
In 2005, the Company increased asbestos reserves by US$31.6
million, primarily due to an unexpected adverse court decision
related to the Company's second largest policyholder in terms of
asbestos liabilities.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Ventures Confronts 12 Pending Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Ventures LLC faces 12 pending bodily injury asbestos-
related lawsuits against Kaiser LLC and Kaiser Steel
Corporation, according to the Company's annual report to the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The bankruptcy estate of
Kaiser Steel Corp. is embodied in KSC Recovery Inc.
Kaiser Ventures LLC previously held about 17 pending asbestos-
related litigation claims, as reported in the April 22, 2005
Class Action Reporter edition.
Most plaintiffs allege that they or their families were aboard
Kaiser ships or worked in shipyards in the Oakland/San
Francisco, California area or Vancouver, Washington area in the
1940s and that the Company or KSC Recovery were in some manner
associated with one or more shipyards or has successor
liability.
However, the claims' focus is shifting from ships and shipyards
to other facilities such as the former Kaiser Steel Mill Site
Property. Plaintiff's attorneys are increasingly requesting mill
site and Eagle Mountain related documents in an effort to build
a "war chest" of documents for future litigation.
Most of these multi-defendant suits are third party premises
claims alleging injury resulting from exposure to asbestos or
asbestos containing products.
The Ontario, CA-based Company expects that it, along with KSC
Recovery, will be named as a defendant in more suits. Virtually
all of the complaints against the Company and KSC Recovery are
non-specific, but involve allegations relating to pre-bankruptcy
activities.
Of the claims resolved to date, about 76% have been resolved
without payment to the plaintiffs, and of the 46 cases that have
been settled to date involving a payment made to plaintiffs, the
settlement amount was US$37,500 or less for 38 of such cases.
In connection with the KSC plan of reorganization, Kaiser, as
the reorganized successor to KSC, was discharged from all
liabilities that may have arisen prior to confirmation of the
plan, except as otherwise provided by the plan and by law.
Although Kaiser believes that in general all pre-petition claims
were discharged under the KSC bankruptcy plan, there have been
some challenges as to the validity of the discharge of certain
specified claims, such as asbestos claims.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Converium's A&E Reserves Stuck at US$49.2M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Converium Holding AG, as of December 31, 2005, held reserves for
asbestos-related claims and environmental impairment of US$49.2
million, unchanged from the year before that, according to the
Company's 6-K report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company's survival ratio (calculated as the ratio of
reserves held, including incurred but not reported, over claims
paid over the average of the last three years) for asbestos and
environmental reserves was 14.1 years at December 31, 2005 and
13.6 years at December 31, 2004.
Headquartered in Zug, Switzerland, the Company provides treaty
and facultative coverage for risks including accident and
health, credit and surety, e-commerce, third party and
professional liability, life, and special casualty.
Converium Holding AG, which was formerly known as Zurich Re, has
spun off from Zurich Financial Services.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leap Meets No Reinstated Cases Since 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------
None of the asbestos-related cases against subsidiaries of Leap
Technology Inc. have been reinstated since May 1, 1996,
according to the Company's annual report to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Fort Lauderdale, FL-based Company was involved in asbestos-
related litigation relating to the offshore supply business
conducted before August 14, 1996 by certain Company
subsidiaries, which are now inactive.
The cases were filed against such subsidiaries and other ship
owners based on the alleged exposure of 64 former seamen to
maritime asbestos and other toxic substances while working on
vessels operated by such companies as part of an industry wide
series of similar claims.
On May 1, 1996, the claims against Company subsidiaries and the
other defendants were dismissed subject to reinstatement against
one or more specific defendants upon a specific showing that a
plaintiff suffers from an asbestos-related disease and that he
was exposed to asbestos containing products on the vessels
operated by such defendants.
During the past five years, the Company has incurred between
US$700 and US$3,600 annually in legal fees monitoring the status
of the claims against the Company's subsidiaries.
The Company believes it carries sufficient insurance coverage
for any claims.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: North Safety Products' Suits Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos suits comprise less than 7% of the 1,136 lawsuits
brought against a subsidiary of Norcross Safety Products LLC
involving respirators that were allegedly negligently designed
or manufactured.
As of December 31, 2005, about 93% of the suits against North
Safety Products involve plaintiffs alleging injury from silica
dust exposure, with the remainder alleging injury from exposure
to other particles, including asbestos, according to the
Company's 10-K report to the SEC.
The Oak Brook, IL-based Company is also monitoring an additional
12 suits in which the Company feels that North Safety Products,
its predecessors or the former owners of such businesses may be
named as defendants.
These 1,148 lawsuits collectively represent about 18,459
(excluding spousal claims) plaintiffs. These suits typically
allege that the alleged injuries resulted in part from
respirators that were negligently designed or manufactured. The
defendants in these suits are often numerous, and include
employers of the plaintiffs and manufacturers of sand, which is
used in sand blasting, and asbestos.
The Company acquired North Safety Products on October 2, 1998
from Siebe plc. Siebe, which was subsequently merged with BTR
plc, now known as Invensys plc, contractually agreed to
indemnify the Company for any losses, including costs of
defending claims, resulting from respiratory products
manufactured or sold prior to the Company's acquisition of North
Safety Products.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum to Spend US$19.5Mil More for Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corp. expects to spend an additional US$19.5 million
at a minimum in fees, expenses, and trust contributions in
connection with obtaining confirmation of its reorganization
plan during 2006, according to the Company's 10-K report to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The amount is recorded in its reserve for asbestos related
liabilities in addition to the US$8.9 million insurance
settlement being held as restricted cash. The Company also
expects to spend a further US$11.5 million at a minimum in
connection with insurance coverage litigation costs.
In February 2006, the Bankruptcy Court ordered a law firm
formerly representing Congoleum to disgorge all fees and certain
expenses it was paid by Congoleum.
The law firm is expected to appeal from this ruling once the
Bankruptcy Court has entered an order embodying the ruling. It
is expected that the amount of the disgorgement will range from
about US$8.2 million to US$9.8 million.
In 2003, Congoleum was one of many defendants in about 22,000
pending suits (including workers' compensation cases) involving
about 106,000 individuals, alleging personal injury or death
from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
Claims involving about 80,000 individuals have been settled
pursuant to the Claimant Agreement and the Bankruptcy Code
presently stays litigation related to unsettled or new claims.
In December 2005, the Company commenced the Avoidance Actions
seeking to void the security interest granted to the Collateral
Trust and such settlements.
To date, nearly all asbestos-related claims that have been filed
against the Company allege that various diseases were caused by
exposure to asbestos-containing products, including resilient
sheet vinyl and tile manufactured by the Company or, in the
workers' compensation cases, exposure to asbestos in the course
of employment with the Company.
In 1983, the Company discontinued the manufacture of asbestos-
containing sheet products and asbestos-containing tile products
in 1974.
Governmental authorities have determined that asbestos-
containing sheet and tile products are non-friable because the
asbestos was encapsulated in the products during the
manufacturing process. Hence, authorities have concluded that
these products are not risky when they are properly maintained
in place or properly removed so that they remain non-friable.
The Company has issued warnings not to remove asbestos-
containing flooring by sanding or other methods that may cause
the product to become friable.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IN Court Remands Faris Suit for Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Indiana remands for further proceedings
an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by spouses John and Patricia
Faris against ACandS Inc. and other companies.
The Appeals Court, composed of Judges John G. Baker, Edward W.
Najam, Jr. and L. Mark Bailey, heard Case No. 49A02-0506-CV-494
on February 21, 2006.
Mrs. Faris appealed from a trial court's dismissal and final
judgment in favor of ACandS and other defendants in this action
regarding personal injuries to Mr. Faris caused by asbestos.
On March 16, 2001, the Farises sued product manufacturers and
premises owners alleging that Mr. Faris' injuries were caused by
asbestos or asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold,
installed, caused to be installed, used, distributed, or placed
into the stream of commerce by ACandS and the other appellees.
The suit also alleged a loss of consortium suffered by Mrs.
Faris. On November 24, 2000, Mr. Faris had died from causes
unrelated to the injuries alleged in the suit.
On October 3, 2002, Mrs. Faris was appointed personal
representative of Mr. Faris' estate. On October 12, 2004, she
moved to substitute the personal representative of Mr. Faris'
estate as the plaintiff.
Appellees opposed, arguing that the original complaint was a
nullity and that Mrs. Faris should not be allowed to amend the
complaint because there were no pending wrongful death or
survival claims into which the personal representative could be
substituted. The defendants also sought either dismissal or
judgment on the pleadings.
On May 2, 2005, the trial court held a hearing on these motions,
and on May 4, 2005, the trial court denied Mrs. Faris' motion to
substitute.
The Appeals Court affirmed the defendants' dismissal because
Mrs. Faris did not become the personal representative of Mr.
Faris' estate until after the statute of limitations had run.
However, the Appeals Court reversed Mrs. Faris' loss of
consortium claims despite the dismissal of Mr. Faris' claims.
Linda George, W. Russell Sipes, Laudig George Rutherford &
Sipes, Indianapolis, represented the Farises.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CompuDyne, Insurers Argue Over Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------
CompuDyne Corporation, individually and as an alleged successor,
defends against lawsuits involving asbestos related personal
injury and death claims, according to the Company's 10-K SEC
report.
Most of the claims relate to exposure allegedly due to asbestos
contained in certain of its predecessor's products.
The Annapolis, MD-based Company has advised the insurers of each
of these cases, in which the insurers are providing a defense
based on its agreement with the Company, subject to reservation
of rights by the insurers.
The insurers have advised that claims in such litigation for
punitive damages, exemplary damages, malicious and willful and
wanton behavior and intentional conduct are not covered. The
insurers have additional coverage defenses, which are reserved,
including that claims may fall outside of a particular policy
period of coverage.
To date, litigation costs have not been significant and the
Company has not paid any settlements from its own funds.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Motors Challenges Increasing Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation meets, as with other companies that
have used asbestos, an increase in the number of claims related
to allegations on the use of asbestos-containing friction
products in recent years, according to the Company's Form 10-K/A
report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Over the years, the Company has used some brake products each of
which incorporated small amounts of encapsulated asbestos. These
products, usually brake linings, are known as asbestos-
containing friction products.
There is significant data showing that these asbestos-containing
friction products are not unsafe and do not create an increased
risk of asbestos-related disease.
A number of auto mechanics increasingly file suits to seek
recovery, based on their alleged exposure to the small amount of
asbestos used in brake components.
These claims identify numerous other potential sources for the
claimant's alleged exposure to asbestos, which do not involve
the Company or even asbestos-containing friction products and
many of these other potential sources would place users at much
greater risk. Consistent with the experiences reported by other
automotive manufacturers and other end users of asbestos end
users, most of the claimants do not have any asbestos-related
illness and may never develop one.
Two other types of claims related to alleged asbestos exposure
are being asserted against the Company, representing a
significantly lower exposure than the automotive friction
product claims.
The Detroit, MI-based Company, like other automotive
manufacturers, used a limited amount of asbestos in locomotive
brakes and in the insulation used in the manufacturing of some
locomotives. These uses have been the basis of suits being filed
against the Company by railroad workers seeking relief based on
their alleged exposure to asbestos.
In addition, like many other manufacturers, contractors who are
seeking recovery based on alleged exposure to asbestos-
containing products while working on premises owned by the
Company bring a relatively small number of claims.
The West Virginia Supreme Court and an Ohio trial court have
ruled that Federal law preempts asbestos tort claims asserted on
behalf of railroad workers. Such preemption means that Federal
law entirely eliminates the possibility that railroad workers
could maintain claims against the Company.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Great Lakes Dredge Holds No Active Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation reports that there are no
active asbestos-related lawsuits pending against the Company or
its ex-subsidiary, NATCO Limited Partnership, according to the
Company's 10-K report to the SEC.
The Company or NATCO are named as defendants in about 280
lawsuits, in which most of the suits were filed between 1989 and
2000, and 18 of which were filed in the last three years.
Most of these suits have been filed in the Northern District of
Ohio and a few in the Eastern District of Michigan. In these
suits, the plaintiffs allege personal injury, mainly asbestosis
or fibrosis, from exposure to asbestos on the Company's vessels.
All of the cases filed against the Company before 1996 were
administratively dismissed in May 1996 and any cases filed since
then have similarly been transferred to the inactive docket.
Plaintiffs in these cases could reinstate the cases at a future
date without being barred by the statute of limitations. To
date, no plaintiffs with claims against the Company have sought
reinstatement.
Headquartered in Oak Brook, Illinois, Great Lakes Dredge & Dock
Corp. provides dredging services worldwide. Its services include
beach improvement or re-nourishment, rock dredging, harbor
excavation, land reclamation, demolition, and restoration of
aquatic and wetland habitats.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Constar Mulls Settling Crown's $3.4B Debt
--------------------------------------------------------------
Constar International Inc. is considering the possibility of
settling with Crown Cork & Seal Co.'s creditors if the latter is
unable to meet its asbestos-related financial obligations,
according to Constar's 10-K report to the SEC.
Crown is highly leveraged and, as of December 31, 2005 the
aggregate amount of its outstanding indebtedness was about
US$3.4 billion.
Other obligations that Constar could settle are Crown's
obligations to its lenders and pension plan obligations.
If these claims are successful, they may result in significant
liabilities to Constar.
A significant portion of Crown's operating cash flow is used for
the payment of principal and interest, funding pension plan
obligations and for payments to settle asbestos-related claims
brought against Crown.
Crown may not be able to access the capital markets in the
future, or successfully repay, refinance or restructure its
debt. Crown's own creditors have asserted no claims against
Constar, and asbestos-related claims against Crown have not
involved Constar's business.
Headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Constar
International Inc., a spin-off from Crown Cork & Seal in 2002,
manufactures polyethylene terephthalate (PET) food and beverage
containers.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants v. 3M Drop from 76,600 to 48,600
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, as of December 31, 2005, co-defends against numerous
lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent about
48,600 individual claimants, a decrease from about 76,600
individual claimants with actions pending at December 31, 2004,
according to the Company's 10-K report to the SEC.
As of June 30, 2005, the Company defended against suits in
various courts that purport to assert claims by about 56,300
individual claimants. (Class Action Reporter, August 12, 2005)
Most of the suits and claims resolved by and currently pending
against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and
respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures
to asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts, found in
products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the
workplace.
The remaining claimants allege personal injury from occupational
exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by
the Company, which are often unspecified, and by other
defendants, or occasionally at Company premises.
In many of these suits and claims, the Company co-defends
against suits where no product the Company manufactured is
identified or where the Company is ultimately determined not to
have manufactured the products identified by the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs have asserted specific dollar claims for damages in
about 59% of the 9,685 suits that were pending against the
Company at the end of 2005 in all jurisdictions.
The St. Paul, MN-based Company has more than 25 years of
experience in defending litigation of this type, has resolved
the claims of over 370,000 individuals with a cumulative average
settlement amount of less than US$1,000 per claimant.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Building Materials' G-I Suit Stays Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Building Materials Corporation of America faces pending
asbestos-related litigation regarding its predecessor G-I
Holdings Inc., according to the Company's 10-K report to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
In January 2001, G-I Holdings filed for reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code due to asbestos claims,
most of which do not specify the amount of damages sought. This
Chapter 11 proceeding remains pending.
Claimants in the G-I Holdings' bankruptcy, including judgment
creditors, might seek to satisfy their claims by asking the
bankruptcy court to require the sale of G-I Holdings' assets,
including its holdings of BMCA Holdings Corporation's common
stock and its indirect holdings of the Company's common stock.
Those creditors may attempt to assert asbestos claims against
the Company. About 1,900 claims were filed against the Company
prior to February 2, 2001.
On February 2, 2001, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District
of New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order enjoining any
existing or future claimant from bringing or prosecuting an
Asbestos Claim against the Company.
By oral opinion on June 22, 2001, and written order entered
February 22, 2002, the court converted the temporary restraints
into a preliminary injunction prohibiting the bringing or
prosecution of any such asbestos claim against the Company.
On February 7, 2001, G-I Holdings sought declaratory judgment in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey that
BMCA has no successor liability for asbestos claims against G-I
Holdings and that it is not the alter ego of G-I Holdings.
One of the parties to this matter, the Official Committee of
Asbestos Claimants, subsequently filed a counterclaim against
BMCA seeking a declaration that BMCA has successor liability for
Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings and that BMCA is the alter
ego of G-I Holdings.
On May 13, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey overseeing the G-I Holdings' Bankruptcy Court withdrew
the reference of the BMCA Action from the Bankruptcy Court, and
this matter will therefore be heard by the District Court.
On July 26, 2005, the Company's party in the BMCA Action, the
legal representative of future demand holders in the G-I
bankruptcy was dismissed from the case.
The District Court originally scheduled this matter for trial
beginning April 3, 2006 but due to the retirement of the
district judge, the trial has been adjourned without date
pending reassignment to a new judge.
In connection with the Company's formation, the Company
contractually assumed and agreed to pay the first US$204.4
million of liabilities for asbestos-related bodily injury claims
relating to the inhalation of asbestos fiber of its indirect
parent, G-I Holdings.
As of March 30, 1997, the Wayne, NJ-based Company paid all of
its assumed asbestos-related liabilities.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: G-I Co-defends 3 Suits with Bldg. Materials
----------------------------------------------------------------
Building Materials Corporation of America states that its
indirect parent G-I Holdings Inc. co-defends against three
asbestos-in-building cases, in which one case has been dormant,
according to the Company's 10-K report to the SEC.
G-I Holdings has been named as a co-defendant in asbestos-in-
buildings cases for economic and property damage or other
injuries based upon an alleged present or future need to remove
asbestos containing materials from public and private buildings.
Most claims do not seek to recover an amount of specific
damages.
Since these actions were first initiated about 20 years ago, G-I
Holdings has successfully disposed of about 145 of these cases.
These actions have been stayed as to G-I Holdings pursuant to
the G-I Holdings' bankruptcy case. No building claims have ever
been filed directly against the Company.
Headquartered in Wayne, New Jersey, Building Materials Corp. of
America, deals primarily in shingles. The Company also makes
flashing, vents, and complete roofing systems.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shell Chem. Still Indemnifies Polymer Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shell Chemicals Ltd. continues to indemnify Polymer Holdings LLC
for certain liabilities and obligations, including asbestos-
related, to third parties or claims against it, according to the
Company's 10-K report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
A third party, linked to matters before the closing of the
acquisition by Ripplewood Chemical Acquisition LLC, raised such
liabilities and obligations. The agreement was in connection to
the separation from Shell Chemicals Ltd. in 2001.
Shell Chemicals has been named in several suits relating to the
elastomers business that the Company has acquired. In
particular, claims have been filed against Shell Chemicals
alleging workplace asbestos exposure at the Belpre, Ohio
facility.
The Houston, TX-based Company has been indemnified by Shell
Chemicals with respect to these claims. In addition, both
companies have entered into a consent order relating to certain
environmental remediation at the Belpre, Ohio facility.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Commercial Acquires Hilco Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corporation faces asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuits, with 118 plaintiffs, acquired from predecessor
Hilco Inc, in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Middlesex
County, according to the Company's 10-K report to the SEC. The
Company never sold any asbestos related products.
Of the existing plaintiffs, 15 sued in 2005, 38 sued 2004, 31
sued in 2003, and 34 sued in 2002. Seventy-eight other
plaintiffs have had their actions dismissed and seven other
plaintiffs have settled as of December 31, 2005 for a total of
US$3,306,000. There has been no judgment against Hilco.
In the November 18, 2005 Class Action Reporter edition, the
Company faced asbestos-related personal injury suits, with 126
plaintiffs, acquired from Hilco.
Subsidiary Universal Supply Group was named by 18 of the
existing plaintiffs. Of these, six sued in 2001, one sued in
2003, and 11 sued in 2005. No case that names Universal has been
settled or dismissed.
Universal Supply has not engaged in the sale of asbestos
products since its formation in 1997. For all years since 1998,
its product liability policies exclude asbestos claims.
Hicksville, NY-based Colonial Commercial Corp., through
subsidiaries Universal Supply Group, RAL Supply Group, and
American/Universal Supply Inc., supplies HVAC products, climate-
control systems, and plumbing fixtures to more than 5,000
customers in New York and New Jersey.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metaldyne Says Claims May Arise from TriMas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metaldyne Corporation may incur material losses and costs from
product liability and warranty claims, including asbestos-
related, that may be brought against it, according to the
Company's 10-K report to the SEC.
Such claims may arise in the event that the use of the Company's
current and formerly manufactured or sold products results in
bodily injury or property damage or fails to meet its customer
specifications.
The Company cited subsidiary TriMas Inc. in the event the
Company incurs such losses. In June 2002, the Company divested
its controlling interest in TriMas.
Certain of TriMas' subsidiaries have historical contingent and
other liabilities, including liabilities associated with their
former manufacture of asbestos containing gaskets, for which the
Company is indemnified.
In the event of financial difficulty at one of the Company's
former businesses or otherwise, claims may be made against the
Company and, to the extent arising from a TriMas business,
TriMas may not be in a position to meet its indemnification
obligations. The Plymouth, MI-based Company may experience
material product liability losses in the future or may incur
significant costs to defend such claims.
Operating as an independent company beginning 1n 1987, TriMas
was acquired in 1998 by Metaldyne Corp. (then known as MascoTech
Inc.). In November 2000, an investor group led by Heartland
Industrial Partners, which later spun the company out on its
own, acquired Metaldyne.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mestek Inc. Dismisses 300 Suits, Settles 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mestek Inc. dismissed 300 asbestos-related cases without any
payment and settled about 25 cases for a minimal value,
according to the Company's 10-K report to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The total requested damages of these cases reached over US$3
billion.
The Company is currently a party to over 100 asbestos-related
suits. In the three-month period ended February 2006, the
Company has been named in about 6 new such suits each month,
primarily in Texas where numerous asbestos-related actions have
been filed against numerous defendants.
The suits previously pending against the Company in Illinois
have all been resolved by plaintiffs' dismissals without
payment.
Almost all of these suits seek to draw liability against the
Company as successor to companies that may have manufactured,
sold or distributed asbestos-related products, and who are
currently in existence and defending thousands of asbestos
related cases.
The Company may also be facing such suits because it sells and
distributes boilers, an industry that has been historically
associated with asbestos-related products.
Headquartered in Westfield, Massachusetts, Mestek Inc. makes
heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning products, which
comprises about 75 percent of the Company's sales.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas Suits Grow to 1,609 from 1,470 in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation, as of February 28, 2006, confronts about
1,609 pending asbestos-related cases involving an aggregate of
about 19,952 claimants, according to the Company's 10-K report
to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The claimants allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos
containing materials formerly used in gaskets, encapsulated or
otherwise, manufactured or distributed by certain subsidiaries
for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration
industries.
As of the November 18, 2005 Class Action Reporter edition, the
Company was involved in about 1,470 pending cases involving
about 19,000 claimants.
Total settlement costs, exclusive of defense costs, for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 13 years ago, have been
about US$3.4 million.
To date, about 50% of the Bloomfield Hills, MI-based Company's
costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos related
litigation have been covered by its primary insurance.
Effective February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage
in place agreement with its first level excess carriers
regarding the coverage to be provided to it for asbestos related
claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. The agreement
makes coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be
disputed by the carriers and provides a methodology for the
administration of asbestos-related defense and indemnity
payments.
The coverage in place agreement allocates payment responsibility
among the primary carrier, excess carriers and the Company's
subsidiary.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Doe Run Resources Named in 4 Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Doe Run Resources Corporation defends against four asbestos-
related injury lawsuits filed in Illinois and Pennsylvania,
according to the Company's 10-K report to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
On May 16, 2002, Priesmeyer v. Union Carbide, et al. was filed
in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois. The suit
alleged that a contractor was injured by exposure to asbestos
and is seeking reimbursement for damages. Doe Run has not been
properly served.
Doe Run received notice that a similar suit, Hawrylak v. Allied
Glove Corp., et al. was filed on May 16, 2003 in the Court of
Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania.
On September 13, 2005, Straussner v. Union Carbide Corp., et
al., was filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois
against 88 corporations, including Doe Run, alleging that a
contractor has a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos.
A tentative settlement has been reached in Pagano and Roti v.
Anheuser-Busch, Inc., et al., an asbestos suit filed in the
Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois on December 17, 2004.
The St. Louis, MO-based Company is primarily involved in mining,
milling, smelting, and refining lead. The Company operates in
the US and South America.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairfax Records US$1,559M ALAE for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. divulges that its allocated loss
adjustment expenses for asbestos claims was US$1,559 million at
December 31, 2005, according to the Company's 2005 annual report
to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company stated that asbestos continues to be the most
significant and difficult mass tort for the insurance industry
in terms of claims volume and dollar exposure. It believes that
the insurance industry has been adversely affected by judicial
interpretations that have had the effect of maximizing insurance
recoveries for asbestos claims, from both a coverage and
liability perspective.
Generally speaking, only policies underwritten prior to 1986
have potential asbestos exposure, since most policies
underwritten after this date contain an absolute asbestos
exclusion.
In recent years, especially from 2001 through 2003, the industry
had experienced increasing numbers of asbestos claimants,
including claims from individuals who do not appear to be
impaired by asbestos exposure.
Since 2003, however, new claim filings have been fairly stable.
It is possible that the increases observed in the early part of
the decade were triggered by various state tort reforms.
Headquartered in Ontario, Canada, Fairfax Financial Holdings
Ltd., through its subsidiaries, offers insurance products with a
focus on property/casualty coverage such as trucking, oil, and
gas insurance.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Air in JPN Factory Sites Deemed Safe, Study
----------------------------------------------------------------
Japan's Environment Ministry released a survey indicating the
density of asbestos in the air at demolition sites and lots
formerly occupied by asbestos-related factories passed Air
Pollution Law standards, The Daily Yomiuri reports.
The study was conducted in 361 spots at 141 sites around the
country between October 2005 and March 2006.
The highest density recorded at the sites surveyed was 5.78
fibers per liter near extractor fans used during demolitions
dealing with asbestos.
The highest concentration of asbestos at industrial waste
disposal plants and demolition sites where asbestos was being
removed but that did not have extractor fans was 2.7 fibers per
liter of air.
The figures for residential and commercial areas were 1.38 and
1.56 fibers per liter of air, respectively.
The law stipulates that the density must not exceed 10 fibers
per liter of air in boundaries between the factories and
surrounding areas.
The Environment Ministry survey indicated an improvement from a
similar study ten years ago.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Awards US$258T to Ex-Railroad Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in Marion County, Illinois awards damages amounting to
US$258,000 to two former Illinois Central Railroad employees who
alleged their health was compromised by exposure to asbestos in
the rail yards, according to a 1350 WJBD AM news article.
Joe Denk received US$150,000 and Daniel Hogan gained US$310,000.
However, Mr. Hogan's award was reduced by 65 percent to
US$108,000 because Mr. Hogan was a smoker who is believed to
have developed lung cancer as a result.
Senior Manager of US Public and Governmental Affairs Jim
Kvedaras says there will be an appeal. He says the suits were
generated by an assembly line screening process performed at two
Chicago area hotels, sponsored by a Houston-based law firm.
Mr. Kvedaras says the process was further tainted by doctors
willing to diagnose people as suffering from asbestos-based lung
diseases, based on the questionable screenings with little or no
actual physical symptoms of asbestos disease.
Illinois Central Railroad co-defends against suits filed by
about 200 former employees, who worked in various rail yards
around the state. Most of the cases against the railroad have
been consolidated in Marion County.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CE Reorganization Plan Finalized, ABB Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swiss-Swedish engineering group ABB Ltd. states that the plan of
reorganization of its US Unit Combustion Engineering Inc. is
final, which draws a line under a damaging 16-year legal battle
over asbestos compensation for ABB, Forbes reports.
ABB notes that no appeals had been filed by an end-of-March
deadline against CE's reorganization plan.
"This is a milestone in the history of ABB," CEO Fred Kindle
said in a statement. "We are very glad to have a resolution of
this important issue, which removes significant uncertainty that
has harmed ABB over the years."
Under the plan, which will protect ABB and its subsidiaries
against current and future asbestos claims, ABB has committed
US1.43 billion to a trust fund for asbestos claims against CE.
A US District Court approved the plan on February 28 but the
ruling was subject to a 30-day appeals period, which has now
passed.
The economic slowdown and asbestos litigation pushed ABB to the
brink of bankruptcy in 2000, but massive restructuring involving
40,000 job cuts and the sale of some business areas put it back
on track.
ABB is paying a dividend to shareholders for last year, the
first payout since 2000, and Standard & Poor's has said that it
will restore the Company's ratings to investment grade following
resolution of its asbestos liabilities.
Having hit a low of CHF1.12 in 2002, ABB shares have since crept
back up, doubling in 2005 and rising this year to date 29
percent, although they are still worth less than half their pre-
crisis highs.
CE built industrial boilers with asbestos, which can cause long-
term damage to the lungs, including cancer. When ABB took over
CE in 1990, ABB inherited lawsuits from thousands of employees.
ASBESTOS ALERT: Canadian Pacific Rail to Accrue $4.1M Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Pacific Railway may increase its liability accrual for
asbestos-related claims by $4.1 million with a corresponding
charge to operating expense, according to the Company's 2005
annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company derived the amount based on a 2005 study the Company
conducted to better measure the level of accruals for asbestos
claims from retired US employees.
The study was also designed to better calibrate the case-by-case
accruals for other US employee claims to recent safety and other
experience trends.
COMPANY PROFILE
Canadian Pacific Railway
Gulf Canada Square, Ste. 500
401-9th Ave. SW
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 4Z4, Canada
Phone: 403-319-7000
Fax: 403-319-7567
Toll Free: 800-777-4499
http://www.cpr.ca
Fiscal Year-End: December
2005 Sales (mil.): US$3,668.6
1-Year Sales Growth: 12.8%
2005 Net Income (mil.): US$466.8
1-Year Net Income Growth: 35.6%
2004 Employees: 16,056
1-Year Employee Growth: (0.4%)
Description:
The railroad hauls freight such as grain, coal, and industrial
products over a 14,000-mile network in Canada and the US.
Canadian Pacific Railway is one of five companies spun off in
2001 from former parent Canadian Pacific Ltd.
ASBESTOS ALERT: Suits Burden Allis-Chalmers Since Reorganization
----------------------------------------------------------------
Since its 1998 reorganization under US federal bankruptcy laws,
Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc. has been regularly named in product
liability lawsuits primarily resulting from the manufacture of
asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's 10-K
report to the SEC.
The Company has not manufactured asbestos-containing products
since its reorganization.
In connection with the Company's bankruptcy, a special product
liability trust was established to address products liability
claims. Since 1988, no court has ruled that the Company is
responsible for product liability claims.
From time to time, the Company defends against suits alleging
personal injuries involving asbestos from its activities before
its reorganization. These claims are referred to and handled by
a special product liability trust formed to be responsible for
such claims in connection with the Company's reorganization.
COMPANY PROFILE
Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc.
5075 Westheimer, Ste. 890
Houston, TX 77056
Phone: 713-369-0550
Fax: 713-369-0555
Fiscal Year-End: December
2005 Sales (mil.): US$105.3
1-Year Sales Growth: 120.8%
2005 Net Income (mil.): US$7.2
1-Year Net Income Growth: 700.0%
2004 Employees: 261
Description:
Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc., which used to be Allis-Chalmers
Corp., provides drilling and oil field services to oil and gas
exploration companies operating primarily in the western US.
ASBESTOS ALERT: Graybar Electric Posts 2,800 Individual Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graybar Electric Company Inc. faces about 2,800 individual cases
and 160 class actions that involve asbestos, according to the
Company's 10-K report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
These pending suits allege actual or potential asbestos-related
injuries resulting from the use or exposure to products sold by
the Company. Additional claims will likely be filed against the
Company in the future.
Other factors that could impact this liability are: the number
of future claims filed against the Company, the defense and
settlement costs associated with these claims, changes in the
litigation environment including changes in federal or state law
governing the compensation of asbestos claimants, adverse jury
verdicts in excess of historic settlement amounts, and
bankruptcies of other asbestos defendants.
The Company's insurance carriers have historically borne all
costs and liability with respect to this litigation and are
continuing to do so.
Accordingly, the Company's future liability with respect to
pending and unasserted claims is dependent on the continued
solvency of the Company's insurance carriers.
COMPANY PROFILE
Graybar Electric Company, Inc.
34 N. Meramec Ave.
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: 314-573-9200
Fax: 314-573-9455
Toll Free: 800-472-9227
http://www.graybar.com
Description:
The employee-owned Company distributes nearly 1 million types of
electrical and communications components, including wire, cable,
and lighting products. Its customer base includes electrical
contractors, industrial plants, power utilities, and
telecommunications providers.
ASBESTOS ALERT: Houston Wire & Cable Battles Class Suits in ND
--------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Co. co-defends against a number of class
actions in North Dakota state courts, in which the suits allege
that certain wire and cable, which may have contained asbestos,
caused injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed, according to
the Company's S-1 report to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the wire
and cable in question or whether the Company distributed the
wire and cable alleged to have caused any injuries remains
unclear.
The Company did not manufacture any of the wire and cable at
issue. It would rely on any warranties from the makers of such
cable if it were determined that any of the wire or cable that
it distributed contained asbestos, which caused injury to the
plaintiffs.
In 1987, the Company completed an initial public offering and
was subsequently purchased in 1989 by ALLTEL Corporation.
In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the company in 1997, ALLTEL
provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages
associated with these claims that the Company believes it could
enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate. Moreover,
the Company maintains general liability insurance that has
applied to these claims.
To date, all costs associated with these claims have been
covered by the applicable insurance policies and the applicable
insurance companies have handled all defenses of these claims.
In 1997, the Company was purchased by an investment fund
affiliated with Code Hennessy & Simmons LLC.
COMPANY PROFILE
Houston Wire & Cable Co.
1-800-HOUWIRE
10201 North Loop East
Houston, Texas 77029
Phone: (713) 609-2100
Fax: (713) 609-2101
http://www.houwire.com/
Fiscal Year-End: December
2005 Sales (mil.): US$214.0
1-Year Sales Growth: 23.9%
2005 Net Income (mil.): US$12.5
1-Year Net Income Growth: 160.2%
2005 Employees: 269
Description:
The Company distributes specialty wire and cable products such
as cable terminators, fiber-optic cables, mining cable, and bare
copper and building wire, as well as voice, data, and premise
wire. It operates 11 regional distribution centers and sells
primarily to electrical distributors.
ASBESTOS ALERT: GATX Financial Units Contend With Injury Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several of GATX Financial Corporation's subsidiaries have been
named as defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury
pertaining to asbestos, according to the Company's amended
annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages based on
common law, statutory or premises liability or, in the case of
subsidiary American Steamship Co., the Jones Act, which makes
limited remedies available to certain maritime employees.
In addition, demand for indemnity with respect to asbestos-
related claims filed against a former subsidiary has been made
against the Company under a limited indemnity given in
connection with the sale of such subsidiary.
The number of these claims and the corresponding demands for
indemnity against the Company decreased in the aggregate in
2005.
COMPANY PROFILE
GATX Financial Corporation
500 W. Monroe St.
Chicago, IL 60661-3676
Phone: 312-621-6200
Fax: 312-621-6648
http://www.gatx.com/index.asp
Fiscal Year-End: December
2005 Sales (mil.): US$1,186.9
1-Year Sales Growth: (5.2%)
2005 Net Income (mil.): US$46.6
1-Year Net Income Growth: (78.3%)
2005 Employees: 1,660
1-Year Employee Growth: (32.2%)
Description:
GATX Financial Corp., through operating segments, GATX Rail and
Financial Services, leases railcars, aircraft, and information
technology products. The Company is the primary subsidiary of
GATX Corporation.
ASBESTOS ALERT: Kaanapali Land, D/C Contend With Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
As a successor by merger to other entities, Kaanapali Land LLC
and subsidiary D/C Distribution Corporation defend against
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, in which 77 such
cases are pending against D/C, according to Kaanapali's 10-K
report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
D/C's 77 cases, which are pending in the US mainland, are
allegedly based on the subsidiary's prior business operations.
On February 15, 2005, D/C was served with a suit entitled
American & Foreign Insurance Co. v. D/C Distribution and Amfac
Corp., Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central
Justice Center.
In the eight-count suit for declaratory relief, reimbursement
and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for such other
relief, the plaintiff alleges that it is an insurance firm to
whom D/C has tendered for defense and indemnity various personal
injury suits allegedly based on exposure to asbestos containing
products.
Plaintiff alleges that because none of the parties have been
able to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question a
judicial determination of the material terms of the missing
policy or policies is needed.
D/C has responded and filed a cross-claim. The suit is in its
early stages.
In February 2006, in order to simplify its administration and
facilitate an additional capital contribution by Kaanapali Land,
D/C merged into a newly formed Illinois limited liability
company named D/C Distribution, LLC.
ASBESTOS ALERT: RBS Global Inc. Challenges 550 Injury Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global Inc. has been named a defendant in over 550 asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits with about 8,300 claimants,
according to the Company's S-1 report to the SEC.
The suits, which are pending in state or federal courts in
numerous jurisdictions, relate to alleged personal injuries due
to asbestos found in certain brakes and clutches previously made
by the Company's Stearns division.
The Company's Prager subsidiary also co-defends against two
pending multi-defendant suits, with about 3,600 claimants,
relating to alleged personal injuries due to asbestos found in a
product allegedly made by Prager.
The Company has insurance coverage for its legal defense costs
related to the Prager suits, and has indemnity coverage by
Invensys plc for both the Stearns and Prager suits. The Company
has further indemnity coverage from a third party regarding the
Stearns lawsuits.
In May 2005, the Company acquired The Falk Corp. from United
Technologies Corp. division Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. for
US$301.3 million (US$306.2 million purchase price including
related expenses, net of cash acquired of US$4.9 million) and
the assumption of certain liabilities.
Falk is a defendant in over 50 suits pending in state or federal
court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal
injuries due to asbestos allegedly found in certain clutches and
drives previously manufactured by Falk. A total of about 10,977
claimants comprise these suits.
To date, Hamilton Sundstrand is defending Falk in these suits
pursuant to its indemnity obligations and has paid 100% of the
costs.
COMPANY PROFILE
RBS Global, Inc.
4701 W. Greenfield Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53214
Phone: 414-643-3000
Fax: 414-643-3078
http://www.rexnord.com/
Fiscal Year-End: March
2005 Sales (mil.): US$811.0
1-Year Sales Growth: 13.8%
2005 Net Income (mil.): US$21.6
1-Year Net Income Growth: 52.1%
2005 Employees: 5,680
1-Year Employee Growth: 16.2%
Description:
RBS Global Inc. makes power transmission components, drives, and
conveying equipment including bearings, chains, couplings, and
other related products under the Rexnord name. The US accounts
for 65% of the Company's sales, while the European market
accounts for about 25%.
New Securities Fraud Cases
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Spector Roseman Files Wis. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. commenced a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
Merge Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Merge Healthcare between August
2, 2005 through March 16, 2006, inclusive.
The Complaint alleged that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.
Specifically, the Complaint alleged that defendants
misrepresented that the company's merger with Cedara Software
Corporation was highly successful while concealing:
(1) that Merge lacked adequate internal controls;
(2) the company's financial statements for the second and
third quarters of 2005 were unreliable; and
(3) that the company's financial projections were
irresponsible considering the knowledge defendants
possessed concerning the company's actual financial
situation.
On March 17, 2006, Merge reported, inter alia:
(i) that the accounting improprieties necessitated that
management delay the completion of its financial
statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005;
(ii) that its audit committee, with the assistance of
outside counsel, was investigating anonymous
complaints;
(iii) that it anticipates a report of material weaknesses in
the Company's internal control over financial
reporting;
(iv) the suspension of its registration statement on Form S-
3 relating to issuance of common stock upon exchange of
exchangeable shares of "Merge/Cedara ExchangeCo Ltd.;"
and
(v) that its audit committee concluded that its previously
issued financial statements for the second and third
quarters 2005, should no longer be relied upon.
For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman of Spector, Roseman
& Kodroff, P.C., Phone: 888-844-5862 E-mail: classaction@srk-
law.com, Web site: http://www.srk-law.com.
NATURES SUNSHINE: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Suit in Utah
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (KGS) initiated a securities class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, on
behalf of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc.
(NSPI) (NASDAQ: NATRE) between October 19, 2004 and March 24,
2006. No class has yet been certified in this action.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and financial results.
As a result of defendants' false statements, NSPI's stock traded
at artificially inflated prices during the Class period,
reaching a high of $23.24 per share.
This permitted NSPI's top officers to reap hundreds of thousands
of dollars in ill-gotten bonuses and certain defendants to sell
over $2.9 million worth of their NSPI stock at artificially
inflated prices.
For more details, contact Lewis Kahn of KGS, Phone: 1-866-467-
1400, ext. 100 and 504-648-1850, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com.
NATURES SUNSHINE: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP initiated a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
on behalf of purchasers of Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc.
(NSPI) common stock during the period between October 19, 2004
and March 24, 2006.
The complaint charges NSPI and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. NSPI engages in the manufacture and marketing of
nutritional and personal care products.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.
As a result of defendants' false statements, NSPI's stock traded
at artificially inflated prices during the Class period,
reaching a high of $23.24 per share, allowing its top officers
to reap hundreds of thousands of dollars in ill-gotten bonuses
and certain of the defendants to sell over $2.9 million worth of
their NSPI stock at artificially inflated prices.
On February 17, 2006, the company issued a press release in
which it stated that it had expanded its previously announced
review of selected financial information with respect to certain
of its foreign operations and that it had received notice from
Nasdaq that its common stock was subject to delisting.
On March 20, 2006, the company filed an 8-K with the SEC
announcing that its previous financial statements could no
longer be relied upon and that it had expanded its investigation
to include other matters related to the company's financial
statements.
Then on March 24, 2006, the company announced that it had
received a non-compliance notice from the Nasdaq due to its
failure to file its Form 10-K in a timely manner. On this news
the Company's stock fell to $11.68 per share.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:
(1) the Company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as
a result, the Company's projections and reported
results issued during the Class Period were based upon
defective assumptions and/or manipulated facts; and
(2) the Company's financial statements were materially
misstated due to its failure to properly account for
foreign transactions.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of NSPI common stock during the Class Period (the Class). The
plaintiff is represented by Lerach Coughlin, which has expertise
in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience
in actions involving financial fraud.
For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/naturessunshine/.
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Federman Sherwood Files Fla. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against
PainCare Holdings, Inc. (Amex: PRZ).
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from August 27, 2002 through March 15, 2006.
For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.
PHH CORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
on behalf of all securities purchasers of PHH Corporation from
May 12, 2005 through March 1, 2006, inclusive.
The complaint charges PHH and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. PHH provides mortgage and fleet management services in
the U.S. and Canada.
The company's mortgage services include origination, sale, and
servicing of residential first and second mortgage loans and
private label mortgage outsourcing. The complaint alleges that
defendants' Class Period representations regarding PHH were
materially false and misleading when made because defendants
failed to disclose:
(1) that the company materially overstated it deferred tax
assets, thereby materially inflating its reported net
income;
(2) that the company lacked adequate internal controls;
(3) that the company's financial results were in violation
of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP);
and
(4) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the company's
financial results were materially inflated at all
relevant times.
On March 1, 2006, the company issued a press release revealing
that the Company's reported results were materially overstated.
The company also announced that it had replaced its Chief
Financial Officer, defendant Neil J. Cashen. On this news,
shares of PHH fell $2.73 per share, or 9.5 percent per share, to
close, on March 2, 2006, at $26.00 per share.
For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. and Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706,
E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.
SEA CONTAINERS: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of Sea Containers, Ltd. (NYSE: SCR-A)
between March 15, 2004 and March 24, 2006, inclusive. The class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Sea Containers
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above
action.
For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90, E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com.
*********
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.
Copyright 2006. 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 * * *