/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060526.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, May 26, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 104
Headlines
ANDRX CORP: Directors Face Lawsuit in Fla. Over Watson Merger
ANDRX CORP: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. Fla.
BAUSCH & LOMB: N.Y. Man Files Suit Over Contact Lens Solution
CALIFORNIA: Trial of Bilbray's Suit Against Educ. System Delayed
CALIFORNIA: Suit Over Palo Alto's Utility Users Tax to Go Ahead
CATERPILLAR INC: AARP Lawyers Named Counsel in W.D. Tenn. Suit
CENDANT CORP: Reaches Settlement in N.J. ABI Securities Suits
CENDANT CORP: Settles Part of PRIDES Securities Suit for $32.5M
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Tex. Court Ruling in ERISA Lawsuit Appealed
C&O MOTORS: Requests Circuit Court to Decertify Daewoo Lawsuit
EASTMAN KODAK: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Consolidated Stock Suit
E.I. DUPONT: New Suit Filed in D.C. Over Teflon-Coated Cookware
E.I. DUPONT: Faces Suit in N.J. Over Alleged Water Contamination
ENRON CORP: Tex. Judge Approves $6.6B Settlement by 3 Banks
ESTEE LAUDER: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. N.Y.
FORD MOTOR: Faces Racial Bias Lawsuit in Mich. Circuit Court
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Sending More Notices on Consumer Suit Deal
GREAT EXPECTATIONS: Plaintiffs Disagree Over Settlement Terms
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: June Hearing Set for ERISA Suit Settlement
HEARTLAND HIGH-YIELD: June Trial Set for Securities Suit Deal
HOUSE OF THALLER: Recalls Salad, Dips on Risk of Contamination
ILLINOIS: Chicago Residents Sue Over Parking Meter Overcharges
INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit
KEYSPAN CORP: Faces N.Y. Investor Suit Over National Grid Merger
LABORATORY CORPORATION: N.C. Judge Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
MASSACHUSETTS: Paying $1.2M in Public Retirees' Age Bias Suit
MCI COMMUNICATIONS: Sept. Hearing Set for Stock Suit Settlement
PHILIP MORRIS: Gov't Brief Sought on Venue of Ark. "Lights" Suit
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Eighth Circuit Mulls Appeal on Iowa Suit
PRINCIPAL LIFE: Plaintiffs Dismiss Iowa Suit Without Prejudice
SAFEWAY INC: Suit Seeks Ban on Sale of Benzene-Containing Drinks
SEITEL INC: Tex. Appeals Court Mulls Dismissal of "Villarreal"
SOUTHERN CO: Court Grants Summary Judgment Motion in ERISA Case
STARWOOD HOTELS: Resort Fee Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 8
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Named in N.Y. Stock Suit
TERRA ROOFING: Proposes $2.55M Settlement in Terra-Shake Suit
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Pension Funds File Suit Against CEO in Minn.
UNITED STATES: EECO Grants Green Light to Discrimination Suit
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Court Nixes Dismissal Motion, Certifies Class
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces Consolidated OSB Antitrust Suit in Pa.
WILLIAMS COS: Seeks Dismissal of Hurricane-Related Suits in La.
WILSONART INTERNATIONAL: Jury Rejects Price-Fixing Complaints
Asbestos Alert
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Baltimore Gas Holds 519 "Premises" Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NRG Energy Inc. Holds 3,526 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Confronts 1,380 "Premises" Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Inc Receives 2,200 New Claims in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Subsidiaries Deal With 660 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Allegheny Energy Decrease to 801
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Insurers to Put in $25M to Congoleum Trust
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Attorney Mulls Suit v. Johnson Controls
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. Park-Ohio Holdings Increase to 380
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IL Court Dismisses Suit v. Parker Drilling
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Altria Tackles Lone Cigarette-Related Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Faces 3rd-Party Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Insurance Sets $25.2M Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maritrans Has 164 Asbestos & Tobacco Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Co. Dismissed From 2 Cases in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Defends Against 98,300 Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco International's Claims Surge to 14,500
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Motors Sues Royal & Sun Over Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Says Payments Are Immaterial
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairchild Corp. Deals With Indemnity Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren, Subsidiaries Face 70 Pending Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UIC, Detroit Stoker Claims Drop to 10,159
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Attorney Sues Tarragon for CAA Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Battles 1,158 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: K-Sea Dismissed From 38 of 39 Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Accrues $2.5M for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cabot Unit Faces 82,000 Claimants in Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Industries Defends Against 7 AL Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aon Corp Estimates Liabilities to Reach $4M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT, Goulds Pumps Resolve 16T Claims in '05
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Moore Files $200T Suit v. Illinois Central
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WR Grace Asks Court for 6-Month Trial Delay
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Lawyer Pleads Not Guilty to Fraud Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota Corp. Asbestos Victims Surge to 109
ASBESTOS ALERT: Siewert Const. to Pay $105T for Handling Breach
New Securities Fraud Cases
ESCALA GROUP: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
ESTEE LAUDER: May 29 Deadline Set for Filing as Lead Plaintiff
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set June 12
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Scott + Scott Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS: Howard G. Smith Files Fla. Stock Suit
XM SATELLITE: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.
XM SATELLITE: Pomerantz Haudek Files D.C. Securities Fraud Suit
*********
ANDRX CORP: Directors Face Lawsuit in Fla. Over Watson Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Members of Andrx Corp.'s board of directors are defendants in a
consolidated stockholder class action pending in the Circuit
Court of Broward County, Florida in relation to its merger with
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
On Mar. 12, 2006, the company entered into an agreement and plan
of merger with Watson. Pursuant to the terms of the merger
agreement and subject to the satisfaction of certain customary
closing conditions, Watson will acquire all of the outstanding
shares of the company's common stock for $25.00 in cash per
share.
All stock options outstanding immediately prior to the merger
will be cancelled, and each in-the-money stock option
outstanding will be exchanged for the difference in cash between
$25.00 and its exercise price. Each Restricted Stock Unit
outstanding immediately prior to the merger will be cancelled in
exchange for $25.00 in cash.
On Mar. 16, 2006, the first of two stockholder class actions
were filed against each of the members of the company's board of
directors in the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida.
This suit alleges as a general matter that each of the
defendants violated applicable law by breaching their fiduciary
duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair
dealing.
The complaint seeks injunctive relief:
-- declaring that the merger agreement was entered into in
breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants and is
therefore unlawful and unenforceable;
-- enjoining the defendants, and anyone acting in concert
with them, from consummating the proposed merger,
unless and until the company adopts and implements a
procedure or process to obtain the highest possible
price for the stockholders;
-- directing the defendants to exercise their fiduciary
duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best
interests of the company stockholders;
-- rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the
proposed merger or any of the terms thereof; and
-- imposition of a constructive trust, in favor of
plaintiff, upon any benefits alleged to have been
improperly received by the defendants as a result of
their alleged wrongful conduct.
The complaint also seeks to recover costs and disbursements from
the defendants, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees of the company's board of directors.
The second suit was filed on Mar. 24, 2006. It was also filed
against each of the members of the company's board of directors
in the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida.
It alleges as a general matter that the proposed merger
substantially undervalues the publicly traded shares of the
Company while unfairly favoring insiders, and prevents superior
bids for the company from emerging because the merger agreement
contains an excessive termination fee.
The complaint seeks injunctive relief:
-- declaring that the merger agreement was entered into in
breach of the fiduciary duties of the director
defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable;
-- enjoining the company and the director defendants from
proceeding with the proposed merger;
-- enjoining the company and the director defendants from
consummating the proposed merger, or a business
combination with a third party, unless and until the
Company adopts and implements a procedure or process,
such as an auction, to obtain the highest possible
price for the company;
-- directing the director defendants to exercise their
fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the
best interests of the company's stockholders until the
process for the sale or auction of the company is
completed and the highest price is obtained; and
-- rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the
proposed merger or any of the terms thereof.
The complaint also seeks the award of appropriate damages to
plaintiff and the class, and the recovery of costs and
disbursements from the company and the director defendants,
including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.
On Apr. 19, 2006, these cases were consolidated by order of the
Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida and lead counsel was
appointed. The court will permit plaintiffs to file an amended
consolidated complaint. The company and its directors must
respond to any amended complaint within 30 days after its
filing.
ANDRX CORP: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the securities class action
against Andrx Corp. and its chief executive officer on Apr. 10.
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of persons who purchased the
company's common stock on Mar. 9, 2005 through Sept. 5, 2005.
The complaint seeks damages under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and alleges that during the class period, the
company failed to properly disclose the status of its compliance
with the Current Good Manufacturing Practice established by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The complaint also alleges that the plaintiffs suffered damages
as a result of its disclosure on Sept. 6, 2005 that FDA placed
the company in Official Action Indicated status and a subsequent
decline in the trading price of its common stock from $17.94 on
Sept. 5, 2005 to a closing price of $14.89 on Sept. 6, 2005.
On Apr. 10, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint.
The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Jerry Lowry, et al. v. Andrx Corporation, et al., Case No. 05-
CV-61640," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge William P. Dimitrouleas. The
plaintiff firms in the litigation are:
(1) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
mail: info@dyershuman.com;
(2) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com;
(3) Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, 1515 Locust Street,
2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215-561-
3600, Fax: 215-561-3000, E-mail:
bmgross@bernardmgross.com; and
(4) 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.
BAUSCH & LOMB: N.Y. Man Files Suit Over Contact Lens Solution
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parker & Waichman, LLP filed a suit against Bausch & Lomb, Inc.
on behalf of a 53-year-old man who was diagnosed with Fusarium
keratitis in his left eye after using ReNu with MoistureLoc
manufactured by the company.
As a result of the infection, the injured man underwent a
corneal transplant after several invasive surgical procedures to
remove the infection failed. He is currently awaiting the
approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for an iris
transplant.
The suit was filed on May 23 in the Supreme Court of the state
of New York in Onondaga County. For more information on ReNu
with MoistureLoc, visit http://www.renulawsuit.comand
http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/renu_contact_solution.
On Apr. 10, 2006, the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) issued public health warnings concerning serious fungal
infections associated with contact lens solution use. The CDC
stated that it had interviewed 30 patients suspected of having
fungal keratitis. Of these 30 patients, 28 wore soft contact
lenses and 26 used a Bausch & Lomb ReNu contact lens solution in
the month prior to the fungal infection diagnosis.
On Apr. 13, 2006, Bausch & Lomb recommended that consumers
switch to another lens care solution and asked all retailers to
remove U.S.-manufactured ReNu with MoistureLoc from their
shelves. On May 2, 2006 the CDC announced that the number of
confirmed fungal infections rose to 88 cases. Just three days
later, on May 5, 2006, the CDC revised the number of confirmed
cases to 102. On May 12, 2006 the CDC made another upward
revision in the number of confirmed fungal eye infections to 122
cases.
On May 15, 2006 the FDA issued a press release stating: "Based
on this scientific and epidemiological data suggesting that ReNu
with MoistureLoc may increase susceptibility to Fusarium, Bausch
& Lomb has decided to permanently remove the ReNu with
MoistureLoc product worldwide."
The recall followed Bausch & Lomb's conclusion that the
product's formula may increase the risk of fungal eye infections
in certain situations. Bausch & Lomb and the FDA both
acknowledged there is a problem in the chemical properties of
ReNu with MoistureLoc after testing confirmed that the solution
allows a polymer film to form around the Fusarium fungus,
preventing the disinfectant in the product from killing the
fungus.
The injured party, who resides in upstate New York, was
diagnosed with a fungal infection in his left eye in October
2005, and was referred to a cornea specialist at Columbia
Presbyterian in New York City. The specialist performed a
corneal confocal microscope exam and several biopsies, which
confirmed the diagnosis of Fusarium keratitis. The specialist
notified the plaintiff that a cornea transplant would be
necessary.
Because the transplant procedure could not be performed until
the infection was under control, the victim was prescribed
voriconazole, a potent anti-fungal medication, which had to be
administered approximately every 2 hours, 24 hours each day,
over the course of several months.
After the infection appeared to be under control, the cornea
transplant procedure was performed. During the cornea
transplant surgery, additional signs of the fungal infection
were discovered. This later led to approximately 5 flush-out
surgeries, which involved accessing the back of the left eye
through an incision in order to remove additional evidence of
the Fusarium fungal infection.
The infection returned following the flush-out surgeries,
requiring the victim to undergo a lengthy and invasive surgery
with these procedures performed on his left eye: lensectomy,
capsulectomy, removal of the iris, removal of vitreous fluid,
and removal of the fungal infection. The victim is left with
only 15% vision in his left eye and is currently awaiting FDA
approval for an iris transplant.
Fungal keratitis is a severe infection of the cornea. Risk
factors for infection usually include trauma (generally with
plant material), chronic ocular surface diseases,
immunodeficiencies, and, rarely, contact lens use. An estimated
30 million persons in the U.S. wear soft contact lenses; the
annual incidence of microbial keratitis is estimated to be 4 --
21 per 10,000 soft contact lens users.
Fungal keratitis is a condition more prevalent in warm climates.
First-line treatment includes topical and oral antifungal
medications. Patients who do not respond to medical treatment
usually require surgical intervention, including corneal
transplantation. These infections are not transmitted from
person to person.
For more information, contact Jason Mark, Esq., or Melanie H.
Muhlstock, Esq. of Parker & Waichman, LLP --
http://www.yourlawyer.com-- Phone: 1-800-LAW-INFO, 1-800-529-
4636 (toll-free), E-mail: info@yourlawyer.com.
CALIFORNIA: Trial of Bilbray's Suit Against Educ. System Delayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The May 24 hearing of the case filed by former representative
Brian Bilbray against California's higher-education system has
been postponed to late July, lawyers for the plaintiff said,
according to The Hill.
Mr. Bilbray and his two college-age children filed the proposed
class action in December in Yolo County Superior Court in
Northern California. He is accusing the state's higher-
education system of discriminating students who were forced to
pay out-of-state tuition rates because undocumented immigrants
who met residency requirements were eligible for in-state
tuition rates, according to the report.
His suit alleges violation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The Act prohibits states
from giving college benefits to illegal immigrants unless U.S.
citizens and legal immigrants are eligible for such benefits,
such as in-state tuition.
The plaintiffs' lawyers are:
(1) Michael J. Brady of Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley,
1001 Marshall Street, Suite 300, Redwood City,
California 94063 (San Mateo Co.), Phone: 650-780-1724,
Fax: 650-780-1701; and
(2) Kris W. Kobach, Professor, University of Missouri -
Kansas City School of Law, 5100 Rockhill Road, Kansas
City, Missouri 64110, Phone: 816-235-1644, 816-235-
5276.
CALIFORNIA: Suit Over Palo Alto's Utility Users Tax to Go Ahead
---------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge John Herlihy denied on
Mar. 23 a motion by Palo Alto attorneys to dismiss a class
action filed over the city's utility users tax on cellular phone
services, The Mercury News reports.
The city is accused of illegally and erroneously collecting
money from residents by charging a 5% utility user's tax on
nationwide services offered by cellular companies. According to
the report, based on the city's own statue, such services are
exempt from tax. The utility user's tax applies to phone
companies that charge by distance and call length.
Palo Alto resident Allen Albert Atwood III filed the suit early
this year. His suit is asking for the rejection of the tax as
well as damages on behalf of the residents, Mr. Atwood's lawyer,
Christopher Shenfield said.
Mr. Shenfield has yet to ask the judge to certify the suit as a
class action, according to the report. Case management
conference in the case is set mid-June.
The city's attorney is Mark Strombotne of 100 Park Ctr. Plz.,
Ste. 430, San Jose, California.
CATERPILLAR INC: AARP Lawyers Named Counsel in W.D. Tenn. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
AARP Foundation Litigation attorneys have been named co-counsel
in a class action that charges Caterpillar Inc. of violating a
binding labor agreement by limiting its medical care costs for
more than 1,000 company retirees.
The suit was originally filed in March in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville). It is
believed that as many as 1,100 retirees could be eligible to
participate in the suit, according to a statement by the AARP.
The suit states that, as of September 2004, Caterpillar violated
collectively bargained agreements that provide for no- cost
retiree medical care for life, and began deducting health care
premium charges from the retirees' monthly pension checks.
The plaintiffs are asking that Caterpillar be required to
reinstate full coverage for the retirees and to reimburse them
for the costs already imposed since 2004.
This year, many retirees face medical care deductions totaling
$174 per month for themselves and dependents. The monthly
deduction is scheduled to rise to $222 in 2007, and is likely to
continue to increase thereafter, according to the statement.
Under the new policy, the retirees also are confronted with
higher co-pays for medication and for physicians' visits.
"Caterpillar is delivering a crushing financial blow by
withholding some of the promised benefits," said Jay Sushelsky,
the primary AARP Foundation Litigation attorney in the case.
"These retirees, with long careers behind them at the company,
have understandably counted on health coverage as a building
block for a reasonably secure future.
"Now they are without bargaining power and at the mercy of the
company, which has pulled the plug on them," Mr. Sushelsky
added.
The lawsuit states that many of the potential class members in
the suit began work prior to 1970. In that year, the company's
medical plan Summary Plan Description (SPD) provided for
lifetime benefits without cost. The document read:
"If you retire and are eligible for the immediate receipt of a
pension under ... (the plan) ... you will be eligible for the
Retired Medical Benefit Plan, continued at no cost ... For the
surviving spouse of a retired employee, coverage will be
continued for his or her lifetime at no cost."
Later, in 1992 during a strike at the company, Caterpillar
allegedly announced without union consent that it would cap
retiree medical costs, beginning in 2000.
The firm stated that it would begin to pay only the same amount
for retiree health care as it paid in 1999. The company said
that if the program costs for year 2000 exceeded the 1999
amount, anyone who retired after 1992 would be assessed a
monthly premium.
The monthly premium charge was then first assessed in September
2004. Caterpillar retirees who retired before 1992 are not
being assessed any charges for retiree medical benefits.
The Caterpillar suit comes at a time when other companies have
announced retiree medical care cutbacks, citing financial
setbacks. Caterpillar reported profits of more than $2 billion
for 2004 -- the year in which it began charging post-1991
retirees for medical care -- and, according to newspaper
reports, profits of $2.85 billion in 2005.
AARP Foundation Litigation attorneys are representing the
plaintiffs, along with the Chicago firm of Meites, Mulder,
Mollica & Glink and the Nashville office of the national firm
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP. Caterpillar is
headquartered in Peoria, Illinois.
The Caterpillar lawsuit comes as AARP continues its legal fight
to block a ruling by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) to exempt employers from the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in providing retiree
health care.
EEOC's proposed exemption would allow employers to eliminate
employer-sponsored health benefits for Medicare recipients,
while continuing to provide younger retirees with health care
coverage that is better than for a Medicare-eligible retiree.
AARP has appealed an adverse decision in the EEOC case to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia.
Oral arguments are expected later this year.
For more details, contact Dave Nathan of AARP, Phone: 202-434-
2560, Mobile: 202-297-2921, E-mail: dnathan@aarp.org
The suit is, "Kerns, et al. v. Caterpillar, Inc., Case No. 2:06-
cv-02213-JPM-dkv," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee under Judge Jon Phipps McCalla
with referral to Judge Diane K. Vescovo.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Samuel C. McKnight and Lisa M. Smith of Klimist,
Mcknight, Sale, Mcclow & Canzano, P.C., 400 Galleria
Officentre, Suite 117, Southfield, MI 48034-8460, U.S.,
Phone: 248-354-9650; and
(2) Samuel Morris of Godwin Morris Laurenzi & Bloomfield,
P.C., Morgan Keegan Tower, 50 N. Front St., Ste. 800,
Memphis, TN 38103, Phone: 901-528-1702, Fax: 901-528-
0246, E-mail: smorris@gmlblaw.com.
CENDANT CORP: Reaches Settlement in N.J. ABI Securities Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed $22 million settlement was reached for two purported
securities class actions filed against Cendant Corp. in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey. The suit was
filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased
securities of American Bankers Insurance Group, Inc. (ABI)
between Jan. 27, 1998 and Oct. 13, 1998.
The proceedings:
-- "Semerenko v. Cendant Corp., et al., Case No. 98-5384
(D.N.J.)," and
-- "P. Schoenfield Asset Management LLC v. Cendant Corp.,
et al., Case No. 98-4734 (D.N.J.)" (ABI Actions),
were initially commenced in October and November of 1998,
respectively.
Named as defendants were: the company, four former officers and
directors of CUC International, Inc., and Ernst & Young.
The complaints in the ABI actions, as amended on Feb. 8, 1999,
assert violations of Sections 10(b), 14(e) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.
Plaintiffs allege that they purchased shares of ABI common stock
at prices artificially inflated by the accounting irregularities
after the company announced a cash tender offer for 51% of ABI's
outstanding shares of common stock in January 1998.
They also allege that after the disclosure of the accounting
irregularities, the company misstated its intention to complete
the tender offer and a second step merger pursuant to which the
remaining shares of ABI stock were to be acquired by the
company. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages.
On Apr. 4, 2006, the company entered into an agreement to settle
the ABI Actions for $22 million. A hearing on the settlement is
scheduled for Jul. 24, 2006.
For more details, contact:
(1) [Semerenko and P. Schoenfield - Plaintiff] Allyn Zissel
Lite and Joseph J. Depalma of Lite, Depalma, Greenberg
and Rivas, LCC, Two Gateway Center, 12TH Floor, Newark,
NJ 07102-5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:
alite@ldgrlaw.com and jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com; and
(2) [Semerenko and P. Schoenfield - Defendant] Michael M.
Rosenbaum of Budd Larner, P.C., 150 John F. Kennedy
Parkway, CN 1000, Short Hills, NJ 07078-0999, Phone:
(973) 379-4800, E-mail: mrosenbaum@budd-larner.com.
CENDANT CORP: Settles Part of PRIDES Securities Suit for $32.5M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cendant Corp. has reached a settlement for claims of a specific
class in the consolidated suit filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey. The suit was
filed after its Apr. 15, 1998 announcement of the discovery of
accounting irregularities in the former CUC International, Inc.
business units.
The suit is "Welch & Forbes, Inc. v. Cendant Corp., et al., No.
98-2819 (WHW)". It is a consolidated class action filed on
behalf of purchasers of the company's PRIDES securities between
Feb. 24 and Aug. 28, 1998.
Defendants are:
-- the company;
-- Cendant Capital I, a statutory business trust formed by
the company to participate in the offering of PRIDES
securities;
-- 17 current and former officers and directors of the
company, CUC and HFS, Incorporated;
-- Ernst & Young, LLP, CUC's former independent accounting
firm; and
-- the underwriters for the PRIDES offering, Merrill Lynch
& Co.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated; and Chase Securities Inc.
The amended consolidated complaint in the PRIDES Action alleged
that, among other things, the lead plaintiffs and members of the
class were damaged when they acquired PRIDES securities because,
as a result of accounting irregularities, financial statements
issued by Cendant prior to Apr. 15, 1998 were materially false
and misleading, and Cendant's Apr. 15, 1998 press release
announcing the discovery of such accounting irregularities
failed to fully disclose the impact thereof on the company's
previously issued financial statements.
On Mar. 17, 1999, the company entered into an agreement to
settle the claims of class members in the PRIDES Action that
purchased PRIDES securities on or prior to Apr. 15, 1998. The
settlement did not resolve claims based upon the purchases of
PRIDES after Apr. 16, 1998.
On Oct. 28, 2005, the company reached a settlement, resolving
the claims of class members who purchased PRIDES on and after
Apr. 16, 1998. To settle these claims, the company agreed to
pay $32.5 million in cash plus 3.5% of any net recovery from
litigation Cendant is pursuing against Ernst & Young, LLP,
auditors for the former CUC, arising from the accounting
irregularities.
The cash payment plus interest, which accrued on the cash
settlement from Jan. 27, 2006, when the court approved the
settlement in all respects, at the federal funds rate applicable
at that time, was made in March 2006.
The suit is "Welch & Forbes, Inc. v. Cendant Corp., et al., No.
98-2819," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey under Judge William H. Walls with referral to Judge
Susan D. Wigenton. Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Roger Kirby of Kirby Mcinerney & Squire, LLP, 830 Third
Avenue, 10TH Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212)
371-6600; and
(2) Michael S. Etkin of Lowenstein Sandler, PC, 65
Livingston Ave., Roseland, NJ 07068, Phone: (973) 597-
2500.
Representing the Company are:
(i) Samuel Kadet of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom,
LLP, Four Times Square, New York, NY 10036, Phone:
(212) 735-3000, E-mail: skadet@skadden.com; and
(ii) Michael M. Rosenbaum of Budd Larner, P.C., 150 John F.
Kennedy Parkway, CN 1000, Short Hills, NJ 07078-0999,
Phone: (973) 379-4800, E-mail:
mrosenbaum@budd-larner.com.
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Tex. Court Ruling in ERISA Lawsuit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas that granted the motion of
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. for summary judgment in a purported
class action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
In May 2002, three class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston on behalf of
participants in various company-sponsored employee benefits
plans. Two of the lawsuits were dismissed without prejudice.
In the remaining lawsuit, the company and certain current and
former members of its benefits committee are defendants. That
suit alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
to various employee benefits plans, directly or indirectly
sponsored by the company, in violation of ERISA by permitting
the plans to purchase or hold securities issued by the company
when it was imprudent to do so, including after the prices for
such securities became artificially inflated because of alleged
securities fraud engaged in by the defendants.
The complaint sought monetary damages for losses suffered on
behalf of the plans and a putative class of plan participants
whose accounts held CenterPoint Energy or Reliant Resources,
Inc. securities, as well as restitution.
In January 2006, the federal district judge granted a motion for
summary judgment filed by the company and the individual
defendants. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the ruling to the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The suit is "Boca Raton Police &, et al. v. Reliant Resources,
et al., Case No. 4:02-cv-01810," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division under
Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr. Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Jacks C. Nickens of Nickens Keeton et al, 600 Travis
Ste 7500, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-571-9191, Fax:
713-571-9652;
(2) Niki L. O'Neel, Alan Schulman, David R. Stickney,
Bernstein Litowitz et al, 12544 High Bluff Dr., Ste
150, San Diego, CA 92130, Phone: 858-793-0070; and
(3) Peter A. Pease, Michael J. Pucillo, Wendy Hope
Zoberman, Berman DeValerio & Pease, One Liberty Square,
Boston, MA 09109, Phone: 617-542-8300, Fax: 617-542-
1194.
Representing the Company is James Edward Maloney of Baker &
Botts, 910 Louisiana, Ste 3000, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-
229-1255, Fax: 713-229-7755.
C&O MOTORS: Requests Circuit Court to Decertify Daewoo Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
C&O Motors' lawyer is asking Kanawha County Circuit Judge Paul
Zakaib in West Virginia to decertify a suit filed by Daewoo auto
buyers against the company, according to The West Virginia
Record.
Allyson Griffith of the Swartz firm also filed a motion on May 5
to continue the trial, which the judge has set for Jul. 17.
According to Ms. Griffith, plaintiffs who joined the class
action have changed their accusations against the company from
concealing the truth about Daewoo's trouble to misrepresentation
in their depositions.
Plaintiff attorney, Harry F. Bell, said in a response on May 10
that the motions were without merit. According to him, the
defense filed the motions to delay trial because they knew the
original plaintiff, Darryl Smith, would be deployed to military
duty in the fall. The delay would enable the plaintiff to
return and be present in the trial.
Judge Zakaib set a Jun. 23, 2006 hearing on the motions.
Mr. Bell filed the suit on behalf of Mr. Smith on Jul. 3, 2002.
He proposed a class action for at least 1,000 persons.
A settlement conference on the case was held in November, and
notices of the accord went out by mail to Daewoo buyers
afterwards. Deadline to opt out of the class is Dec. 31, 2006.
For more information, contact Mr. Bell of Bell & Bands PLLC, 30
Capitol Street, P.O. Box 1723, Charleston, WV 25326, Phone:
(304) 345-1700, (800) 342-1701, Fax: (304) 345-1715, Web site:
http://www.belllaw.com,http://www.belllaw.com.
EASTMAN KODAK: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Consolidated Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Co. has filed a motion seeking to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and two of
its then executives in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York.
On Jun. 13, 2005, a purported shareholder class action was filed
against the company and in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
On Jun. 20, 2005 and Aug. 10, 2005, similar lawsuits were filed
against the same defendants in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York. The cases have been consolidated
in the Western District of New York and the lead plaintiffs are
John Dudek and the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund.
The complaints filed in each of these actions seek to allege
claims under the Securities Exchange Act on behalf of a proposed
class of persons who purchased securities of the company between
Apr. 23, 2003 and Sept. 25, 2003, inclusive.
The substance of the complaints is that various press releases
and other public statements made by the company during the
proposed class period allegedly misrepresented the company's
financial condition and omitted material information regarding,
among other things, the state of the company's film and paper
business.
An amended complaint was filed on Jan. 20, 2006, containing
essentially the same allegations as the original complaint but
adding an additional named defendant. Defendants' motion to
dismiss was filed on Apr. 21, 2006.
The suit is "McClain v. Eastman, Case No. 6:05-cv-06326-MAT,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New
York under Judge Michael A. Telesca. Representing the
plaintiffs are:
(1) Stuart Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of
Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, US, Phone: 610-667-
7706;
(2) Eugene Welch of Harris, Chesworth, O'Brien, Johnstone,
Welch & Leone, 300 Linden Oaks, Ste. 100, Rochester, NY
14625, Phone: 585-899-1400, Fax: 585-899-1426, E-mail:
ewelch@rochester.rr.com; and
(3) Samuel H. Rudman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
& Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406,
Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Carolyn G. Nussbaum of Nixon Peabody, LLP, Clinton
Square, P.O. Box 31051, Rochester, NY 14603, Phone:
(585) 263-1558, Fax: 866-947-0625, E-mail:
cnussbaum@nixonpeabody.com; and
(ii) John C. Millian of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, 1050
Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036, Phone:
(202) 955-8213.
E.I. DUPONT: New Suit Filed in D.C. Over Teflon-Coated Cookware
---------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company is defendant in several
purported class actions on behalf of consumers that have
purchased cookware with Teflon non-stick coating.
As of Mar. 31, 2006, 16 intrastate class actions had been filed
in federal district courts against the company. The actions
were filed in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida,
Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.
On Apr. 27, 2006, a seventeenth intrastate class action was
filed in the District of Columbia. All of these actions have
been or will be consolidated for procedural purposes, including
discovery, in the federal court of the Southern District of
Iowa. None of the courts have issued rulings certifying any of
the classes.
The actions allege that the company violated state laws by
engaging in deceptive and unfair trade practices by failing "to
disclose to consumers that products containing Teflon were or
are potentially harmful to consumers" and that the company has
liability based on state law theories of negligence and strict
liability.
The actions also allege that Teflon contained or released
harmful and dangerous substances, including perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA), which is alleged to have been determined to
"likely" cause cancer in humans.
Plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages for consumers who
purchased cooking products containing Teflon, as well as the
creation of funds for medical monitoring and independent
scientific research, attorneys' fees and other relief.
In December 2005, a motion was filed by a single named plaintiff
in the Superior Court for the Province of Quebec, Canada seeking
authorization to institute a class action on behalf of all
Quebec consumers who have purchased or used kitchen items,
household appliances or food-packaging containing Teflon or
Zonyl non-stick coatings.
Damages are not quantified, but are alleged to include the cost
of replacement products as well as one hundred dollars per class
member as exemplary damages. No additional pleadings have been
filed.
E.I. DUPONT: Faces Suit in N.J. Over Alleged Water Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company is defendant in a purported
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, alleging contamination of drinking water with
perfluorinated chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid.
Filed on Apr. 18, 2006, the suit was brought on behalf of
individuals who claim to have consumed, for at least one year,
drinking water from a source containing more than 0.05 parts per
billion (ppb) of perfluorinated chemicals allegedly released
from DuPont's Chambers Works Plant in Deepwater, New Jersey.
The plaintiffs claim they are entitled to various forms of
relief, including in excess of $5 in monetary "relief," medical
monitoring, and punitive damages.
The suit is "Rowe, et al. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company,
Case No. 1:06-cv-01810-RBK-AMD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Robert B.
Kugler with referral to Judge Ann Marie Donio. Representing the
plaintiffs are Shari M. Blecher and Stuart J. Lieberman of
Lieberman & Belcher, P.C., 30 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 100,
Princeton, NJ 08540, Phone: (732) 355-1311, E-mail:
info@liebermanblecher.com.
Representing the defendant is Roy Allan Cohen of Porzio,
Bromberg & Newman, PC, 100 Southgate Parkway, P.O. BOX 1997,
Morristown, NJ 07962-1997, Phone: (973) 538-4006, E-mail:
racohen@pbnlaw.com.
ENRON CORP: Tex. Judge Approves $6.6B Settlement by 3 Banks
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon granted final approval on May
24 for three banks to pay $6.6 billion to settle civil claims of
conspiracy with Enron Corp. in an accounting fraud that led to
the energy trader's collapse in 2001, AP Worldstream reports.
The deal was made by Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,
JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup Inc. It brings the
settlement to a total of $7.3 billion, including interest.
The banks entered these settlements last year:
CIBC $2.4 billion
JPMorgan $2.2 billion
Citigroup $2 billion
Previously some $500 million of settlements had been reached
with Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Bank of America Corp.,
Andersen Worldwide, and 18 former outside Enron directors.
The non-settling defendants include Merrill Lynch & Co.,
Barclays PLC, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada,
Deutsche Bank AG and the Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC.
The lead plaintiff is the case is University of California.
At the same time the federal judge ruled on the settlement, a
jury is deliberating on the case of Enron founder Kenneth Lay
and former chief executive Jeffrey Skilling in a criminal fraud
and conspiracy trial. The two are also defendants in the civil
suit.
The civil litigation trial is set Oct. 16, 2006, according to
plaintiff attorney William Lerach. He said the judge has yet to
approve class status in the suit.
Once that is done, "we'll get the money out to the people as
quick as we can," he said.
The suit against Enron is "In Re: Enron Corp Securities, et al.
(4:02-md-01446)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon.
Representing the defendant are: J Mark Brewer of Brewer and
Pritchard, Three Riverway Ste 1800, Houston, TX 77056, Phone:
713-209-2950, Fax: 713-659-5302; E-mail: brewer@bplaw.com; and
William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin et al., 655 West Broadway,
Ste 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058.
ESTEE LAUDER: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Estee Lauder Cos. is defendant in several purported
securities class actions pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.
On Mar. 30, 2006, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Thomas S. Shin, et al. v. The Estee Lauder Companies
Inc., et al., was filed against the company and certain of its
officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
The complaint alleges that cefendants made statements during the
period Apr. 28, 2005 to Oct. 25, 2005 in press releases, the
company's public filings and during conference calls with
analysts that were materially false and misleading and which
artificially inflated the price of the company's stock.
It also alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint also asserts
that during the class period, certain executive officers and the
trust for the benefit of a director sold shares of the company's
Class A Common Stock at artificially inflated prices.
Three additional purported securities class action complaints
were subsequently filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York containing similar allegations.
No motion to consolidate the actions, appoint lead plaintiff or
for approval of the selection of lead counsel has yet been
filed.
The first identified complaint is "Thomas S. Shin, et al. v. The
Estee Lauder Companies Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-2505," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Lewis A. Kapla. Plaintiff firms in this or similar
case:
(1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;
(2) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com;
(3) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Ave. of the Stars,
Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310) 201-
915, Fax: (310) 201-916, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com;
(4) Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, 650 Poydras St., Suite 2150,
New Orleans, LA, 70130, Phone: (504) 455-1400, E-mail:
lewis.kahn@kglg.com;
(5) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, 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) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, 100 Park
Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
212.661.1100, Fax: 212.661.8665, E-mail:
info@pomerantzlaw.com;
(8) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com;
(9) 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
(10) 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.
FORD MOTOR: Faces Racial Bias Lawsuit in Mich. Circuit Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-two current and former employees of Ford Motor. Co. in
Detroit filed a lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit Court, alleging
discrimination against black employees, the Detroit News
reports.
Earlier this month, Ford Motor won a suit filed by Ford
executive assistant Vinzella Newson, one of five people who
filed separate complaints. Ms. Newson's suit said Ford managers
abruptly transferred her to an analyst position and refused to
adequately train her.
But Wayne Circuit Court Judge Michael James Callahan concluded
that nothing adverse happened to Ms. Newson -- her salary,
benefits, and rank were not reduced.
Other plaintiffs have joined a lawsuit against Ford seeking
class-action status, according to the report. The first of the
remaining cases will go to trial in August.
The suits, filed between April 2004 and January 2006 by mostly
salaried employees, claim rampant discrimination in the
material, planning and logistics division of the company.
According to court records, plaintiffs allege they were denied
job promotions in favor of less-qualified whites, paid less than
white co-workers in similar positions, overlooked for entry-
level executive programs or offered packages to leave.
Headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, Ford Motor Company --
http://www.ford.com/-- is the world's third largest automobile
manufacturer. The Company manufactures and distributes
automobiles in 200 markets across six continents. With more
than 324,000 employees worldwide, the company's core and
affiliated automotive brands include Aston Martin, Ford, Jaguar,
Land Rover, Lincoln, Mazda, Mercury and Volvo. Its automotive-
related services include Ford Motor Credit Company and The Hertz
Corp.
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Sending More Notices on Consumer Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Co. plans to send thousands of additional
notices to consumers who own refrigerators covered by a
nationwide class action settlement it entered into in December.
The notices will be mailed to about 241,000 people not later
than Jun. 6, 2006 once the list gets approval from a federal
court, spokeswoman Kim Freeman told Naplesnews.com in an e-mail.
The additional notices were discovered from a database that had
not been updated with all consumer information. The database
contains contact information for consumers who had a service
agreement with another company besides General Electric, such as
the store where they purchased the refrigerators (Class Action
Reporter, May 6, 2006).
The company has sent out 450,000 direct mailings so far, and
50,000 people have filed claim forms to benefit from the
settlement. General Electric has been fulfilling the settlement
agreement since December (Class Action Reporter, May 6, 2006).
Scott Weinstein, attorney for Naples resident Bill Turner, who
originally filed the class action, launched a nationwide lawsuit
against General Electric on his own behalf and on behalf of a
class of persons in the state of Florida who purchased and/or
own the makes and models of refrigerator manufactured, marketed,
advertised, warranted and/or sold by General Electric, under the
"General Electric" and "Hotpoint" brands. The units were found
to have moisture problems.
This suit was concluded in December with General Electric
agreeing to replace thousands of faulty refrigerators or
reimburse its customers (Class Action Reporter, May 6, 2006).
There are more than 300 model numbers on the settlement list,
which includes both General Electric and Hotpoint brands, 20, 22
and 25 cubic foot side-by-side refrigerators, according to NBC2
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 19, 2006).
The suit is "William F. Turner, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. General Electric Co.,
Case No. 2:05-CV-186-FtM-33 DNF," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division.
Representing the plaintiff are:
(1) William M. Audet of Alexander Hawes & Audet, L.L.P.,
300 Montgomery St., Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94104,
Phone: 415/921-1776, Fax: 415/576-1776;
(2) Alexander E. Barnett of The Mason Law Firm, P.C., P.O.
Box 230758, 144 West 72nd St., #3D, New York, NY 10023,
US, Phone: 202/408-4600, E-mail:
abarnett@masonlawdc.com;
(3) Gary E. Mason of The Mason Law Firm, P.C., 1225 19th
St., N.W., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036, US, Phone:
202/429-2290, Fax: 202/429-2294, E-mail:
gmason@masonlawdc.com;
(4) Jordan Lucas Chaikin and Scott Wm. Weinstein of
Weinstein, Bavly & Moon, P.A., 2400 First St., Suite
303, Ft. Myers, FL 33901, Phone: 239/334-8844, Fax:
239/334-1289, E-mail: jordan@weinsteinlawfirm.com and
scott@weinsteinlawfirm.com; and
(5) Jonathan W. Cuneo and Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, 507 C. St., NE, Washington, DC 20002,
Phone: 202/789-3960, Fax: 202/789-1813, E-mail:
jonc@cuneolaw.com and charlesl@cuneolaw.com.
Representing the defendant is Charles Wachter of Fowler White
Boggs Banker, P.A., 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 1700, P.O. Box
1438, Tampa, FL 33601-1438, Phone: 813/228-7411 ext. 1136, Fax:
813/229-6679, E-mail: cwachter@fowlerwhite.com.
The claim form: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?45a.
GREAT EXPECTATIONS: Plaintiffs Disagree Over Settlement Terms
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in separate class actions against non-Internet dating
service Great Expectations are in legal battle over which of
them should get a refund under a settlement, The Recorder
reports.
Glen Howells and Stephanie Howard alleged they paid thousands of
dollars for their membership, but were refused a refund when
they decided to end their ties with the company. Their suits
were filed before Alameda County, California, Superior Court
Judge Ronald Sabraw.
Ms. Howard's lawyer, Robert Goldstein, wants all recent
customers should get a refund, while Mr. Howell's attorney, Mark
Todzo, wants to limit it to a portion of the class who are dead,
disabled or have moved far away, which included his client.
Mr. Todzo already reached a preliminary settlement that would
change the membership contract for current and future customers
and offer refunds to all customers who had become disabled or
moved in the last four years, as well as to the estates of
customers who had died.
In his suit, Mr. Todzo claims Great Expectations failed to
notify customers of their dating service rights as required by
law. Under the 1989 Dating Service Contract Act, customers are
allowed 72 hours to cancel their contracts and another option in
cases of death, disability or relocation more than 50 miles
away. Mr. Todzo's client stands to receive a $4,775 refund.
Great Expectations emphasizes face-to-face contact, holding
invitation-only parties at its private locations. For such,
Great Expectations offers a standard membership contract that
runs three years and costs almost $4,500, plus a monthly service
charge.
Mr. Goldstein alleges unfair business practices and a violation
of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and seeks punitive damages
in the Howard litigation.
The combined action is Great Expectations Cases JCCP004470.
Great Expectations lawyer is Ted C. Lindquist, III of Sheppard,
Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Seventeenth Floor, Four
Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, California 94111 (San
Francisco Co.).
Also acting as plaintiff attorney is Steven Kazan of Kazan,
McClain, Abrams, Fernandez, Lyons, Farrise, 171 Twelfth Street,
Suite 300 Oakland, California 94607 (Alameda Co.), Phone: 510-
465-7728; 893-7211, Fax: 510-835-4913.
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: June Hearing Set for ERISA Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
will hold a fairness hearing in June for the proposed settlement
in the matter, "HealthSouth Corp. ERISA Litigation, Case No. CV-
03-BE-1700."
The case was brought on behalf of all persons who were
participants in the HealthSouth Corporation employee stock
benefit plan at any time from Jan. 1, 1996, through Jun. 3,
2005, or a beneficiary, alternate payee, representative, or
successor-in-interest of any such person.
The court will hold the fairness hearing at 2:00 p.m. on Jun.
27, 2006, at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama, Hugo L. Black U.S. Courthouse, 1729 Fifth Avenue
North, Birmingham, AL 35203, in Courtroom 509.
Any objection to the settlement must be made by Jun. 13, 2006.
For more details, contact
(1) Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq., Derek W. Loeser, Esq., Gary
A. Gotto, Esq. of Keller Rohrback L.L.P., 1201 Third
Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98101-3052, Phone:
(800) 315-0177, Fax: (206) 623-3384, E-mail:
healthsouth@kellerrohrback.com, Web site:
http://www.erisafraud.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1075;and
(2) Richard R. Rosenthal of Law Offices of Richard R.
Rosenthal, 200 Title Building, 300 North Richard,
Arrington Jr. Blvd., Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: (205)
252-1146, Fax: (205) 252-4907, E-mail:
rosenthallaw@bellsouth.net.
HEARTLAND HIGH-YIELD: June Trial Set for Securities Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
will hold a fairness hearing in June for the proposed $8.25
million settlement by PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, in the
matter: "Joseph White v. Heartland High-Yield, et al., Case No.
2:00-cv-01388-JPS."
The case was brought on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Heartland High-
Yield Municipal Bond Fund and/or shares of the Heartland Short
Duration High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund (collectively the High-
Yield Funds) either directly or dividend re-investment during
the period from and including May 1, 1998 through and including
May 1998 through and including Oct. 16, 2000.
The hearing will be held in the U.S. District Courtroom 425 of
the U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building, 517 East Wisconsin
Ave., Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202, at 10:00 a.m., on Jun. 8,
2006, before the Hon. J.P. Stadtmueller.
Any objections to the settlement must be made by May 25, 2006.
Deadline for submitting a proof of claim as well as exclusion
from the class is on May 10, 2006.
For more details, contact Heartland PwC Securitities Litigation,
c/o Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho,
NY 11754-8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax: (516) 931-0810, Web
site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claims;and C. Oliver Burt, III
and Jay W. Eng of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo,
Esperante Bldg., 222 Lakeview Ave., Ste. 900, West Palm Beach,
FL 33401, Phone: 561-835-9400 and (800) 516-9926, E-mail:
law@bermanesq.com.
HOUSE OF THALLER: Recalls Salad, Dips on Risk of Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
House of Thaller, Inc. of Knoxville, Tennessee is recalling
approximately 160,000 pounds of ham salad, chicken salad, turkey
salad, tuna salad, seafood salad, seafood salad mix, pea salad
mix, shrimp salad, artichoke shrimp dip, crab dip, cajun crab
dip because it is likely to be contaminated with harmful
bacteria.
The company said one of their suppliers provided them with an
ingredient that was not processed in a manner to prevent the
growth of harmful bacteria and affected products are a potential
risk due to the under-acidification of the celery purchased as
an ingredient in the salads spreads and dips. No illnesses have
been reported to date.
These products have been sold under the brands: Brand names
included are House of Thaller, Kroger Brand, Mrs. Gerry's, Dairy
Fresh, The Fresh Market, Southern Gourmet, and Southern Style.
Products are packaged in a variety of sizes including retail and
bulk. Clear plastic 7.5 oz. and 12 oz. rectangular containers,
opaque round 14 oz. containers, opaque plastic 5 lb. tubs, and
plastic 10 lb. & 20 lb. bags of product are all included.
Code dates include:
Product Code Dates
Chicken Salad 08 JUN 2006A LN2
Chicken Salad 13 JUN 2006A LN2
Chicken Salad 14 JUN 2006A LN2
Chicken Salad 15 JUN 2006B LN2
Chicken Salad 21 JUN 2006A LN2
Chicken Salad 21 JUN 2006B LN2
Chicken Salad 23 JUN 2006A LN2
Chicken Salad 23 JUN 2006B LN2
Chicken Salad 30 JUN 2006B LN2
Chicken Salad 02 JUL 2006A LN2
Chicken Salad 04 JUL 2006A LN2
Chef's Shortcut Chicken 25 MAY 2006A LN2
Chef's Shortcut Chicken 01 JUN 2006A LN2
Chef's Shortcut Chicken 04 JUN 2006B LN2
Chef's Shortcut Chicken 08 JUN 2006A LN2
Chef's Shortcut Chicken 08 JUN 2006B LN2
Chef's Shortcut Chicken 15 JUN 2006A LN2
Chef's Shortcut Chicken 15 JUN 2006B LN2
Chicken Cranberry Walnut 30 MAY 2006A LN2
Chicken Cranberry Walnut 04 JUN 2006B LN2
Chicken Cranberry Walnut 06 JUN 2006A LN2
Chicken Cranberry Walnut 10 JUN 2006B LN2
Chicken Cranberry Walnut 13 JUN 2006A LN2
Chicken Cranberry Walnut 17 JUN 2006B LN2
Chicken Cranberry Walnut 17 JUN 2006Z LN2
Chicken Cranberry Walnut 20 JUN 2006A LN2
Deli Chicken Salad 14 JUN 2006A LN2
Deli Chicken Salad 15 JUN 2006B LN2
Deli Chicken Salad 16 JUN 2006A LN2
Deli Chicken Salad 23 JUN 2006A LN2
Deli Chicken Salad 23 JUN 2006Z LN2
Deli Chicken Salad 02 JUL 2006A LN2
White Chicken Salad 14 JUN 2006A LN2
White Chicken Salad 02 JUL 2006A LN2
Deluxe White Chicken Salad 31 MAY 2006A LN2
Deluxe White Chicken Salad 05 JUN 2006B LN2
Deluxe White Chicken Salad 07 JUN 2006A LN2
Deluxe White Chicken Salad 12 JUN 2006B LN2
Deluxe White Chicken Salad 17 JUN 2006A LN2
Gourmet Chicken Salad 25 MAY 2006A LN2
Gourmet Chicken Salad 01 JUN 2006A LN2
Gourmet Chicken Salad 01 JUN 2006B LN2
Gourmet Chicken Salad 08 JUN 2006A LN2
Gourmet Chicken Salad 08 JUN 2006B LN2
Gourmet Chicken Salad 15 JUN 2006B LN2
Gourmet Chicken Salad 18 JUN 2006A LN2
Crab Dip 06 JUN 2006A L3
Crab Dip 10 JUN 2006B L3
Crab Dip 13 JUN 2006A L3
Crab Dip 17 JUN 2006B L3
Crab Dip 01 JUL 2006A L3
Crab Dip 01 JUL 2006B L3
Cajun Crab Dip 17 JUN 2006A L3
Cajun Crab Dip 21 JUN 2006B L3
Cajun Crab Dip 01 JUL 2006A L3
Ham Salad 06 JUN 2006A LN1
Ham Salad 06 JUN 2006A LN2
Ham Salad 06 JUN 2006B LN1
Ham Salad 06 JUN 2006A LN2
Ham Salad 07 JUN 2006B LN2
Ham Salad 08 JUN 2006A LN2
Ham Salad 10 JUN 2006Z LN2
Ham Salad 11 JUN 2006A LN1
Ham Salad 11 JUN 2006A LN2
Ham Salad 12 JUN 2006B LN1
Ham Salad 13 JUN 2006A LN2
Ham Salad 13 JUN 2006B LN2
Ham Salad 16 JUN 2006A LN1
Ham Salad 17 JUN 2006B LN1
Ham Salad 17 JUN 2006B LN2
Ham Salad 17 JUN 2006Z LN2
Ham Salad 21 JUN 2006A LN1
Ham Salad 21 JUN 2006A LN2
Ham Salad 22 JUN 2006A LN2
Pea Salad Mix 04 JUL 2006A LN2
Seafood Salad 06 JUN 2006A L3
Seafood Salad 13 JUN 2006A L3
Seafood Salad 13 JUN 2006B L3
Seafood Salad 16 JUN 2006A LN2
Seafood Salad 20 JUN 2006B L3
Seafood Salad 23 JUN 2006B LN2
Seafood Salad 26 JUN 2006A L3
Seafood Salad 26 JUN 2006B L3
Seafood Salad 29 JUN 2006A LN2
Gourmet Sea Salad 17 JUN 2006A L3
Gourmet Sea Salad 24 JUN 2006A L3
Gourmet Sea Salad 01 JUL 2006A L3
Gourmet Sea Salad 01 JUL 2006B L3
Gourmet Sea Salad 01 JUL 2006C L3
Seafood Salad Mix 14 JUN 2006A LN2
Seafood Salad Mix 24 JUN 2006B LN2
Shrimp Salad 31 MAY 2006A L3
Shrimp Salad 05 JUN 2006B L3
Shrimp Salad 07 JUN 2006A L3
Artichoke Shrimp Salad 31 MAY 2006A L3
Artichoke Shrimp Salad 04 JUN 2006B L3
Tuna Salad 08 JUN 2006A LN2
Tuna Salad 13 JUN 2006A LN2
Tuna Salad 13 JUN 2006A L3
Tuna Salad 15 JUN 2006B LN2
Tuna Salad 16 JUN 2006A LN2
Tuna Salad 20 JUN 2006A LN2
Tuna Salad 20 JUN 2006A L3
Tuna Salad 20 JUN 2006B L3
Tuna Salad 23 JUN 2006A LN2
Tuna Salad 23 JUN 2006B LN2
Tuna Salad 27 JUN 2006A LN1
Tuna Salad 27 JUN 2006A LN2
Tuna Salad 27 JUN 2006B L3
Tuna Salad 28 JUN 2006B LN2
Tuna Salad 28 JUN 2006Z LN2
Tuna Salad 01 JUL 2006A LN2
Tuna Salad 01 JUL 2006A L3
Tuna Salad 02 JUL 2006A LN1
Tuna Salad 07 JUL 2006A LN1
Tuna Salad 08 JUL 2006B LN1
Tuna Salad 11 JUL 2006A LN2
Deli Tuna Salad 14 JUN 2006A LN2
Deli Tuna Salad 16 JUN 2006A LN2
Deli Tuna Salad 21 JUN 2006A LN2
Deli Tuna Salad 23 JUN 2006B LN2
Deli Tuna Salad 27 JUN 2006B LN2
Deli Tuna Salad 27 JUN 2006Z LN2
Deli Tuna Salad 02 JUL 2006A LN2
SM Tuna Salad 06 JUN 2006A LN2
SM Tuna Salad 13 JUN 2006A LN2
SM Tuna Salad 01 JUL 2006A LN2
Turkey Salad 02 JUL 2006A LN2
Affected product was distributed to Florida, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas and reached
consumers through a variety of distribution avenues including
retail stores, and wholesale distribution centers.
Consumers who have purchased these products are urged to return
it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the House of Thaller, Inc.
at 1-800-462-3365.
ILLINOIS: Chicago Residents Sue Over Parking Meter Overcharges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three people filed a suit on May 22 against the city, claiming
they were overcharged by Chicago's "pay and display" parking
meters, CBS2chicago.com reports.
Hallie Chen of Downers Grove, Steven Samuels of Glenview, and
Joshua Herz, of Chicago filed the suit as a class action on
behalf of those who suffered a similar fate. They are seeking
damages in excess of $50 million.
The plaintiffs claim that when someone uses a credit or debit
card to pay at one of these meters when parking restrictions are
about to take affect, the parking meters charged them more than
the amount of time they actually spent in the parking spot.
Their suit charges the city with a number of counts, including
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, unjust enrichment, violation of the city
municipal code, and violation of the Illinois Credit Card and
Debit Card Act.
INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intrabiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has moved to dismiss the
amended complaint in the consolidated securities class action
filed against it and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
Beginning on Jul. 2, 2004, three purported class action
shareholder complaints were filed against the comapny. The
actions were later consolidated and a consolidated amended
complaint was filed, purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers
of IntraBiotics common stock between Sept. 5, 2003 and Jun. 22,
2004.
The amended complaint generally alleges that IntraBiotics and
several of its officers and directors made false or misleading
statements concerning the clinical trial of Isegana. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages.
On Feb. 28, 2005, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On Jan. 23,
2006, the court issued its decision on the motion, granting the
motion to dismiss the claim under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, with leave to amend, and denying the motion to dismiss the
claims under the Securities Act of 1933.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Feb. 22, 2006. The
company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on Mar. 14, 2006.
The suit is "In Re: IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-2675," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Jeffrey S. White. Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Robert S. Green of Green Welling, LLP, 595 Market
Street, Suite 2750, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone:
415/477-6700, Fax: 415-477-6710, E-mail:
RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM; and
(2) Trevan Borum and Gregory M. Castaldo of Schiffrin &
Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA
19087, Phone: 610-667-7706.
Representing the Company are Boris Feldman, Cheryl W. Foung,
Kassra Powell Nassiri and Ignacio E. Salceda of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050,
Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:
boris.feldman@wsgr.com, cfoung@wsgr.com, knassiri@wsgr.com,
isalceda@wsgr.com.
KEYSPAN CORP: Faces N.Y. Investor Suit Over National Grid Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keyspan Corp. and certain of its directors are defendants in a
purported class action in New York State Supreme Court for the
County of Kings, alleging breach of fiduciary duty.
Filed on Mar. 20, 2006, the suit relates to the execution of the
merger agreement with National Grid, PLC. It alleges that the
merger consideration, which the company's stockholders will
receive in connection with the proposed merger transaction, is
inadequate and unfair, since the transaction value of $42.00 for
each share of the company's common stock does not provide its
stockholders with a meaningful premium over the market price of
the common stock.
LABORATORY CORPORATION: N.C. Judge Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Judge James A. Beaty dismissed a class action alleging that
Laboratory Corporation of America executives released inaccurate
information to inflate the company's stock price. The judge
said plaintiffs failed to prove the alleged fraud, Times-News
reports.
Plaintiffs had to prove that the company purposely and
recklessly lied or omitted information that caused damages, and
to show that such information was not covered by the forward-
looking statement safe harbor the law provides.
The plaintiffs' complaint said that four of the 28 statements
made by the company about its financial standing in 2002 were
false. The court disagreed and ruled that the company used the
cautionary language required to be exempt from liability in all
the forward-looking statements. It also said that the other
four statements could not violate security laws because these
were simply optimistic statements.
In June 2003, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated
a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings between
Feb. 13, 2002 and Oct. 3, 2002, inclusive. It was filed against
the company and Thomas Macmahon, chief executive officer;
Richard L. Novak, chief operations officer; and Wesley
Elingburg, chief financial officer.
The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market between Feb. 13, 2002 to
Oct. 3, 2002.
The lawsuit claims that LabCorp knew it had been losing market
share to regional competitors but did not disclose the
information until Oct. 3, 2002, when the company announced it
was not going to meet analysts' growth expectations for the
third quarter. As a result of this announcement, the company's
stock fell from $33.18 to $21.68.
The company denied the accusations, saying the allegedly false
financial information was an attempt to project LabCorp's
overall performance for the entire year 2002, and not for any
particular quarter or region of the country.
In fact, the company stated, LabCorp had a record year in 2002
with revenues of $2.5 billion, which exceeded its own annual
estimates that the lawsuit alleged were misleadingly high.
The suit is "Cort v. Laboratory Corp., et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-
00591-JAB" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina under Judge James A. Beaty.
Representing the defendants are F. Hill Allen, IV of Tharrington
Smith P.O. Box 1151, Raleigh, NC 27602-1151, Phone: 919-821-
4711, Fax: 919-829-1583, E-mail: hallen@tharringtonsmith.com;
and Tracy C. Braintwain of King & Spaulding, 191 Peachtree St.,
Atlanta, GA 30303-1763, Phone: 404-572-4600.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Deborah Clark-Weintraub of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New
York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300;
(2) Lubna M. Faruqi and Nadeem Faruqi of Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, 320 East 39th St., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-
983-9330;
(3) S. Ranchor Harris, III of Wilson & Iseman, LLP, 110
Oakwood Dr. Ste. 400, Winstaon-Salem, NC 27103-1958,
Phone: 336-631-8866, Fax: 336-631-9770, E-mail:
rharris@wilsonandiseman.com.
MASSACHUSETTS: Paying $1.2M in Public Retirees' Age Bias Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission entered on May
15 a final stipulation in the class action by government
employees claiming they had been discriminated against in
applying for accidental disability retirements under the
Massachusetts public retirement system.
The settlement, which was initially announced in 2000, has
already returned $1,266,956 to 15 claimants, according to the
Kansas city infoZine. In addition, the Commonwealth agreed to
pay double damages to all those who qualified for relief under
the settlement. In the future, claimants together will receive
an additional $165,176 every year. The stipulation was endorsed
by the court on May 18.
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts in 1999 by the EEOC on behalf of age
discrimination victims (Case No. 99 CV 11233 RGS). Defendants
are the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, its Public Employees
Retirement Administration Commission and the Massachusetts
Teachers' Retirement Board.
The original settlement was announced in August 2000, and
approved during the same year by U.S. District Judge Richard G.
Stearns of the District of Massachusetts. It provided
accidental disability retirement pensions to all those otherwise
eligible who were either denied, or discouraged from applying
for these pensions solely because their ages exceeded
Massachusetts's maximum age limitations.
EEOC on the Net: http://www.eeoc.gov.
MCI COMMUNICATIONS: Sept. Hearing Set for Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will hold a
fairness hearing in September for the proposed $4.5 million
settlement in the matter, "In re: MCI Communications Corp.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 97-CV-1976 (RWR)." The case was
brought on behalf of all persons who purchased MCI common stock
between Jul. 11, 1997 and Aug. 21, 1997.
The hearing will be held on Sept. 1, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. in
Courtroom #9 of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, 333 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.
Any objection to the settlement, plan of distribution, or award
of attorney fees and reimbursement of expenses must be mailed or
delivered by Aug. 1, 2006.
For more details, contact:
(1) Jeffrey G. Smith of Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman &
Herz, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
(212) 545-4600;
(2) Ilana Kohn of Abbey Gardy, L.L.P., 212 East 39th
Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700, Fax:
212-684-5191;
(3) Herbert Esar Milstein of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500
West Tower, Washington, DC 20005-3934, Phone: (202)
208-4600, Fax: (202) 208-4699, E-mail:
hmilstein@cmht.com; and
(4) Joseph Alexander Ward of Jenner & Block, 601 13th
Street, NW Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
(202) 639-6000, E-mail: award@jenner.com.
PHILIP MORRIS: Gov't Brief Sought on Venue of Ark. "Lights" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court has asked the federal government for an
opinion on whether it should hear an appeal of a state tobacco
lawsuit against Philip Morris Co., according to NWAnews.com.
The suit was filed by two Little Rock women, Lisa Watson and
Loretta Lawson in 2003 in Pulaski County Circuit Court in
Arkansas. But Philip Morris asked to transfer the case to
federal court on grounds it involved the Federal Trade
Commission, which regulates cigarette testing and advertising
requirements.
The suit filed by the women alleged Philip Morris, now known as
Altria Group Inc., falsely advertised its Marlboro and Cambridge
brands as "light" cigarettes.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis agreed with
the transfer of the case to the federal court, prompting the
plaintiffs to appeal the ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is now asking U.S. Solicitor General Paul
Clement to comment. According to the report, Solicitor General
Clement will file a brief, later this year, on whether it thinks
the FTC meets the definition of a federal officer under the
lawsuit removal law. The opinion will be used by the Supreme
Court in the reconsideration of the suit.
The suit is "Watson v. Philip Morris, Case No. 05-1284." The
plaintiffs are asking the court to certify the case as class
action.
The plaintiffs' lawyer is Steve Cauley of Little Rock.
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Eighth Circuit Mulls Appeal on Iowa Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has yet to rule
on plaintiffs appeal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa's refusal to amend its ruling, which granted
Principal Financial Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the sales
practices class action filed against it and its wholly owned
subsidiaries, Principal Life Insurance Company and Principal
Financial Services, Inc.
On Dec. 23, 2004, a lawsuit was filed in Iowa state court
against the defendants on behalf of a proposed class comprised
of the settlement class in the Principal Life sales practices
class action settlement, which was approved in April 2001 by the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
The suit claims that the treatment of the settlement costs of
that sales practices litigation in relation to the allocation of
demutualization consideration to Principal Life policyholders
was inappropriate.
Demutualization allocation was done pursuant to the terms of a
plan of demutualization approved by the policyholders in July
2001 and Insurance Commissioner of the State of Iowa in August
2001.
The lawsuit further claims that such allocation was not
accurately described to policyholders during the demutualization
process and is a breach of the sales practices settlement.
On Jan. 27, 2005, the Company filed a notice to remove the
action from state court to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa.
On Jul. 22, 2005, the plaintiff's motion to remand the action to
state court was denied, and the company's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit was granted.
On Sept. 21, 2005, the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the
judgment was denied. On Oct. 4, 2005, the plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit.
The suit is "Sofonia v. Principal Life Insurance Company et al.,
Case No. 4:05-cv-00040-RP-TJS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa under Judge Robert W. Pratt.
Representing the plaintiffs is David J. Darrell of the Baudino
Law Group, PLC, 2600 Grand Avenue, Suite 300, Des Moines, IA
50312, Phone: 515 282 1010, Fax: 515 282 1066, E-mail:
darrell@baudino.com.
Representing the Company are:
(1) Brian L. Campbell of Faegre & Benson - DM, 801 Grand
Avenue, Suite 3100, Des Moines, IA 50309-8002, Phone:
515 248 9000, Fax: 515 248 9010, E-mail:
bcampbell@faegre.com; and
(2) Carl Micarelli of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, 919 Third
Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212 909 6000, Fax:
212 909 6836, E-mail: cmicarelli@debevoise.com.
PRINCIPAL LIFE: Plaintiffs Dismiss Iowa Suit Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported class action, "Dykes, et al. v.
Principal Life Insurance Company, et al.," which is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa have
dismissed their case without prejudice.
The suit was filed against Principal Financial Group, Inc.,
Principal Life Insurance Company and Principal Financial
Services, Inc. on Oct. 31, 2005.
The claims and allegations in the lawsuit were substantially the
same as those in the class action captioned, "Sofonia v.
Principal Life Insurance Company et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-00040-
RP-TJS," but the proposed class was limited to those members of
the settlement class in the Principal Life sales practices class
action settlement who did not own annuities and who received
demutualization consideration in the form of cash under the plan
of demutualization.
The plaintiff dismissed the case without prejudice on Mar. 17,
2006.
The suit is "Dykes, et al. v. Principal Life Insurance Company,
et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-00599-RP-TJS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa under Judge
Robert W. Pratt with referral to Judge Thomas J. Shields.
Representing the plaintiffs is E. Ralph Walker of Baudino Law
Group, PLC, 2600 Grand Avenue, Suite 300, Des Moines, IA 50312,
Phone: 515 282 1010, Fax: 282 1066, E-mail: walker@baudino.com.
Representing the defendants is Carl Micarelli of Debevoise &
Plimpton, LLP, 919 Third Avenue, 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10022,
Phone: 212 909 6000, Fax: 212 909 6836, E-mail:
cmicarelli@debevoise.com.
SAFEWAY INC: Suit Seeks Ban on Sale of Benzene-Containing Drinks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers in California filed a suit on May 23 against Safeway
Inc., a major manufacturer and retailer of soft drinks,
insisting that they stop selling their benzene-tainted products
and refund consumers' money.
Safeway Select Diet Orange contained 79.2 parts per billion
(pbb) of benzene according to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, 16 times the United State Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) limit of 5 ppb for drinking water.
Safeway is both the manufacturer and retailer for Safeway
beverages. The company also distributes products made by
Pepsico, Kraft Foods, and Sunny Delight Beverage company that
the FDA says contain benzene.
"When I read about the soft drinks that contained the chemicals,
I was astonished. Some of these are drinks that my son likes,
and that I have in my refrigerator," said California plaintiff
Karen Sheehy. "What bothers me the most is that these companies
should know they are selling soft drinks containing toxic
chemicals."
"Safeway must immediately notify consumers that these beverages
contain unsafe levels of benzene, inform consumers of the
serious health risks associated with exposure to benzene, remove
these beverages from store shelves, and issue refunds to all
purchasers," said Larry Gornick of Levin Simes Kaiser & Gornick
LLP, attorney for the California plaintiff.
California is one of the most recent of several states,
including Massachusetts, Florida, Kansas, New Jersey, and
Washington, D.C., to witness suits filed against the beverage
manufacturers Pepsico, Kraft Foods, Coca- Cola, Safeway and
others whose products contain benzene.
This week consumers in New Jersey and Florida filed suits
against manufacturers of products that contain benzene levels
well above the 1 ppb benzene limit for safe drinking water for
those states. Consumers from both states have cited in their
suits Pepsico, Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Sunny Delight Beverage
Co., Talking Rain Beverages, Meridian Beverage Co., and Faygo
Beverages Inc.
Researchers believe that benzene forms when two commonly found
soft drink ingredients, ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and the
preservative sodium benzoate react. Excessive levels of the
colorless solvent benzene can be created when soft drinks
containing these ingredients are exposed to heat or light.
"We're heading into the summer, and people have these products
sitting in their garage," said Steve Sheller, of Sheller, Ludwig
and Badey, P.C., the attorney in the New Jersey suit. "The
longer they sit there, and the warmer it gets, the more likely
it is that they'll be drinking benzene."
"These beverage manufacturers are putting our children at risk
by carelessly using these chemicals in their soft drinks," said
Neil Sader of Sader & Garvin LLC, the attorney representing the
Kansas plaintiff. "These corporations must either remove
benzene from their drinks, or remove their products from store
shelves."
"We should know if there is poison in our drinks," said Lisbeth
Gordon, plaintiff in the Florida case. "These corporate giants
must act as responsible citizens and recall these benzene-laden
drinks and refund our money."
The FDA revealed [May 19] that their tests of 100 sample soft
drinks -- http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/benzdata.html-- found
several popular beverages including Crystal Light Sunrise
Orange, made by Kraft Foods, and Safeway Select Diet Orange,
made by Safeway Brands, contained levels of benzene far above
the EPA limit for drinking water. The FDA analysis showed that
Crystal Light Sunrise Orange contained 87.9 ppb, nearly 18 times
the EPA limit for drinking water, while Safeway Select Diet
Orange contained 79.2 ppb.
"The FDA confirmed on [May 19] that there are products in the
marketplace right now that may contain levels of benzene above
the safe drinking water limit. While the FDA claims that these
products 'have been reformulated or are being reformulated,'
consumers have no way to know which is which and when a product
change was made," said Andrew Rainer of the Boston law firm
McRoberts Roberts and Rainer. "Kraft Foods, for example, has
told the FDA that it re-formulated its Crystal Light and Koolaid
Jammers products, but the FDA did not report what change was
made or when."
Independent test results released last month revealed that other
popular beverage manufacturers had products above the 5 ppb EPA
limit. As a result, class action suits were already filed in
Washington, D.C.; Boston, Massachusetts; Kansas city, Kansas;
and Tallahassee, Florida against these companies.
"There is no way for consumers to know if the products they buy
contain benzene," said Tim Howard the attorney in the Florida
case. "The only way to keep the public safe is for the
manufacturers and retailers to pull these products off the
shelves and reimburse consumers for the soft drinks that are
sitting in peoples' homes right now."
According to EPA, nervous system disorders and immune system
damage can occur following short periods of exposure to benzene.
Lifetime exposure has the potential to cause cancer, and
chromosomal aberrations, according to the EPA
(http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwh/cvoc/benzene.html).
"The soft drink industry cannot be trusted. They told the FDA
15 years ago that they would get the carcinogens out of their
drinks. It's now obvious that only a binding legal agreement
will guarantee that the benzene goes, and stays gone," added
Dick Daynard, a law professor at Northeastern University who has
been working with the consumers' counsel.
SEITEL INC: Tex. Appeals Court Mulls Dismissal of "Villarreal"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The joint motion for dismissal of the class action filed against
Seitel, Inc. and its subsidiary, Seitel Data, Ltd. is still
pending with the San Antonio Court of Appeals. The suit is
"Juan O. Villarreal v. Grant Geophysical, Inc., et al., Cause
No. DC-00-214."
The suit, filed in the 229th District Court of Starr County,
Texas on Apr. 1, 2002, alleges geophysical trespass. The
plaintiffs alleged that certain defendants conducted
unauthorized 3-D seismic exploration of the mineral interests by
obtaining seismic data on adjoining property, and sold the
information obtained to other defendants. The plaintiffs sought
an unspecified amount of damages.
All defendants obtained summary judgments dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims, and the plaintiffs appealed to the San
Antonio Court of Appeals under Cause No. 04-02-00674-CV.
During the pendency of the company's bankruptcy proceedings, the
San Antonio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision
as to the company's co-defendants and stayed the appeal as to
the Company.
The Texas Supreme Court denied plaintiffs Petition for
Certiorari, refusing to hear the matter. The plaintiffs filed
an unspecified unliquidated claim in the Chapter 11 cases. The
company objected to this claim, which was withdrawn by order of
the Bankruptcy Court on Jun. 29, 2005.
This June 2005 order includes the plaintiffs' agreement to
dismiss their appeal. The parties' joint motion for dismissal
with the San Antonio Court of Appeals is pending.
SOUTHERN CO: Court Grants Summary Judgment Motion in ERISA Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
granted in April the motion for summary judgment of The Southern
Co. in the purported class action "Woods v. Southern Company, et
al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01912-RWS," which alleges violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
In June 2004, an employee of a Southern Company subsidiary filed
a complaint, which was amended in December 2004 and November
2005 on behalf of a purported class of participants in or
beneficiaries of The Southern Company Employee Savings Plan at
any time since Apr. 2, 2001 and whose Plan accounts included
investments in Mirant Corporation common stock.
The complaint asserts claims under ERISA against defendants
Southern Company, SCS, the Employee Savings Plan Committee, the
Pension Fund Investment Review Committee, individual members of
such committees, and the SCS Board of directors during the
putative class period.
The plaintiff alleges that the various defendants had certain
fiduciary duties under ERISA regarding the Mirant shares
distributed to Southern Company shareholders in the spin-off and
held in the Mirant Stock Fund in the Plan.
The plaintiff alleges that the various defendants breached
purported fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to
adequately determine whether Mirant stock was appropriate to
hold in the Plan and failing to adequately inform Plan
participants that Mirant stock was not an appropriate investment
for their retirement assets based on Mirant's alleged improper
energy trading and accounting practices, mismanagement, and
business conditions.
The plaintiff also alleges that certain defendants failed to
monitor plan fiduciaries and that certain defendants had
conflicting interests regarding Mirant, which prevented them
from acting solely in the interests of Plan participants and
beneficiaries. The plaintiff seeks class-wide equitable relief
and an unspecified amount of monetary damages.
On Oct. 4, 2005, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for
certain types of equitable relief, but allowed the remainder of
the ERISA claims to proceed. The defendants filed answers to
the second amended complaint in January 2006, and filed motions
for summary judgment and to stay discovery in February 2006.
In April 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia granted summary judgment in favor of Southern Company
and all individually named defendants in the case. The
plaintiff has filed an appeal of the ruling, the company said in
its Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended Mar. 31, 2006.
The suit is "Woods v. Southern Company, et al., Case No. 1:04-
cv-01912-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia under Judge Richard W. Story. Representing
the plaintiffs are:
(1) Tobias J. Kammer, Cari C. Laufenberg and Derek W.
Loeser of Keller Rohrback, 1201 Third Ave, Suite 3200,
Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-1900, E-mail:
tkammer@kellerrohrback.com,
claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com and
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com; and
(2) Joseph H. Meltzer of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of
Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706,
Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail: jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) James P. Baker of Jones Day, 26th Floor, 555 California
Street, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415-626-3939,
Fax: 415-875-5700, E-mail: jpbaker@jonesday.com; and
(ii) Bridget Bobick of Troutman Sanders, Bank of America
Plaza, 600 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 5200, Atlanta,
GA 30308-2216, Phone: 404-885-3000, E-mail:
bridget.bobick@troutmansanders.com.
STARWOOD HOTELS: Resort Fee Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Orange will hold a
fairness hearing on June 8, 2006, 1:30 p.m. for the proposed
settlement in the class action "Gray, et al. v. Starwood Hotels
& Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Case No. 03CC09044."
The settlement covers all "Resort Subclass Member," who between
May 1, 1996 and Nov. 21, 2005, stayed at one of the Starwood
Hotels listed below; paid to that hotel a Resort Fee in addition
to the nightly room rate and any governmentally imposed fees or
taxes; and believes in good faith that (a) he/she did not
receive notice of the Resort Fee at the time the reservation was
made, or, if no advance reservation was made, at the time of
check-in at the hotel, and/or he/she believes in good faith that
(b) he/she were misinformed or misled about the nature, purpose,
scope, amount, or ultimate recipient of the Resort Fee due to
information received at or about the time of reservation, check-
in and/or a Resort Subclass Member if he/she stayed at a
Starwood Hotel as check-out.
The trial will be held at the Courtroom of the Honorable
Jonathon H. Cannon, Judge of the Superior Court of California,
Orange County, Complex Civil Center, Dept. CX102, 751 West Santa
Ana Blvd., Santa Ana, CA 92701.
Postmark deadline for exclusion (Opt Out) from class as well as
objections to the settlement is on May 2, 2006.
The "Starwood Hotels" that charged guests a Resort Fee include:
-- the Diplomat Country Club and Spa,
-- Four Points by Sheraton Bangor Airport,
-- Four Points by Sheraton Palmas Del Mar Resort,
-- Kapalua Bay Hotel,
-- Sheraton at the company's Lucaya Beach & Golf Resort,
-- Sheraton Bal Harbour Beach Resort,
-- Sheraton Crescent Hotel,
-- Sheraton El Conquistador Resort & Country Club,
-- Sheraton Kauai Resort,
-- Sheraton Key Largo Beach Resort,
-- Sheraton Maui Resort,
-- Sheraton Old San Juan,
-- Sheraton San Marcos Golf Resort & Conference Ctr.,
-- Sheraton Steamboat Resort,
-- Sheraton Studio City Hotel,
-- Sheraton Suites Key West,
-- Sheraton World,
-- The Atlantic,
-- The Molokai Ranch Lodge & Beach Village,
-- The Orchid at Mauna Lani,
-- The Westin at the company's Lucaya Beach & Golf Resort,
-- The Westin Casuarina,
-- The Westin Diplomat Resort and Spa,
-- The Westin Innisbrook Resort,
-- The Westin La Cantera Resort,
-- The Westin LaPaloma Resort & Spa,
-- The Westin Regina Resort & Spa,
-- The Westin Resort Hilton Head Islands,
-- The Westin Rio Mar Beach Resort & Golf Club,
-- The Westin Savannah Harbor,
-- The Westin Salishan Lodge & Golf Resort,
-- The Westin Whistler Resort & Spa,
-- The Westin Maui,
-- The Westin Mission Hills Resort & Westin Mission Hills
Villas,
-- The Westin St. John Resort,
-- The Westin St. John Villas,
-- The Wigwam Resort,
-- Walt Disney World Dolphin, a Sheraton Hotel,
-- and Walt Disney World Swan, a Westin Hotel
For more details, contact Peter D. Morgenstern of Morgenstern
Jacobs & Blue, LLC, 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040, New York, New
York 10022, Phone: 212-750-6776, Fax: 212-750-3128, Web site:
http://www.mjbllc.com/or Rust Consulting, Inc., Phone: 877-564-
7093, Web site: http://www.guestchargessettlement.com.
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Plaintiff Named in N.Y. Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
appointed on Apr. 24 the Iron Workers Local # 580 Pension Fund
as lead plaintiff in the consolidated securities class action
against Symbol Technologies, Inc. and two of its former
officers.
Initially, on Aug. 16, 2005, Robert Waring filed a purported
federal class action. Since the filing of the Waring action,
several additional purported class actions have been filed
against the company and the same former officers making
substantially similar allegations.
The new class actions have been consolidated for all purposes
and a Consolidated Amended complaint will be filed after the
appointment of a lead plaintiff. The plaintiffs in the new
class actions allege that the defendants misrepresented that, in
connection with settlements of earlier criminal and civil
investigations, the company had implemented processes to improve
its internal controls when, in fact, its internal controls were
insufficient.
In addition, plaintiffs in the new class actions allege that as
a result of the insufficient internal controls, the Company
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing
statements concerning its prospects, financial results and
financial controls that were allegedly false and misleading.
Plaintiffs allege that they were damaged by the decline in the
price of our stock on Aug. 1, 2005, the date the company
released its results for the second quarter of 2005. The
complaints seek unspecified damages.
On Apr. 24, 2006, the court appointed the Iron Workers Local #
580 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approved their retention
of lead counsel on behalf of the putative plaintiff. No
timetable for the filing of a consolidated amended complaint was
set.
The lead suit is "Waring v. Symbol Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:05-cv-03923-DRH-JO," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Denis R.
Hurley. Representing the plaintiffs are Samuel H. Rudman of
Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200
Broadhollow Road, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-
7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@cauleygeller.com.
Representing the Company are William Kennedy Dodds and Andrew J.
Levander of Dechert, Price & Rhoads, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New
York, NY 10112, Phone: (212) 698-3500, Fax: (212) 698-3599, E-
mail: william.dodds@dechert.com or Andrew.levander@dechert.com.
TERRA ROOFING: Proposes $2.55M Settlement in Terra-Shake Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terra Roofing Products Inc. proposed a $2.55 million settlement
of a class action, which will be paid into two settlement funds
for the benefit of potential class members, the US Newswire
reports.
The court will hold a final approval hearing on the settlement
Jul. 12, 2006. Deadline to submit a claim is Jan. 1, 2007.
Objections are due Jun. 28, 2006.
Under the proposed settlement $1.3 million will be made
available for potential class members with Terra-Shakes made or
sold by Terra Roofing between 1993 and 1998. Some $1.25 million
will be made available for potential class members with Terra-
Shakes made by PTX Industries, Inc. and sold by ALM Marketing
between 1999 and 2002.
Terra-Shake shakes are a type of roofing shingle made from
Portland cement and paper, manufactured and sold between 1993
and 2002. Terra Roofing made and sold the shakes between 1993
and 1998 under the name Terra-Shake.
Between 1999 and 2002, the shakes were manufactured by PTX and
sold by ALM under the name "Terra II".
The shakes were installed on homes and buildings in the counties
of Alameda, Contra Costa, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside,
San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara and
Ventura.
For more information, visit http://www.terrashakeclassaction.com
or call toll-free 1-800-868-2101.
The case is "Bowen-Fromm v. Terra Roofing Products, Case No.
2001-028588," pending in the Alameda County Superior Court.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Pension Funds File Suit Against CEO in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two major state pension funds have brought a suit against
UnitedHealth Group, Inc., charging that the health care insurer
allowed UnitedHealth chairman and Chief Executive Officer
William McGuire to "dictate his own compensation through the
manipulation of the company's stock option plans" for nearly a
decade.
The suit, brought as both a derivative and class action, was
filed by the Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio and the
Teachers' Retirement System of Ohio. The two funds hold over
five million shares of UnitedHealth stock. Their case was filed
in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
The pension funds are represented by shareholder and corporate
governance law firm Grant & Eisenhofer. In addition to Dr.
McGuire, a former pulmonologist who became UnitedHealth's chief
executive in 1991, defendants include:
-- current and former UnitedHealth board members, including
former U.S. Vice President Walter Mondale;
-- former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean;
-- former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna
Shalala, and
-- current UnitedHealth president and chief operating
officer Stephen Hemsley.
Over the last several months, UnitedHealth has been under
increasing scrutiny for possible violation of securities laws in
granting Dr. McGuire propitiously-timed options that have
translated into $1.2 billion of compensation. A Wall Street
Journal analysis published in March showed that the company's
recurring options grants to Dr. McGuire and other executives
over the years were so consistently timed on the cusp of sharp
run-ups in share value as to defy statistical probability.
UnitedHealth recently announced that it was restating $286
million in net income for the past three years as a result of
the "significant deficiency" in its reporting of the options to
financial regulators. Both the Justice Department and the
Internal Revenue Service are now investigating the company,
along with a formal inquiry underway by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that followed the Journal's detailed
analysis. Since the Journal's initial report of the company's
option timing published on Mar. 18, UnitedHealth has lost more
than $16 billion in market capitalization.
The funds allege that improper option practices go back at least
to 1996, when UnitedHealth's board allowed Dr. McGuire to
effectively set the strike price for options granted to senior
executives.
"Dr. McGuire was able to achieve a windfall for himself and his
fellow executive(s) ... by retroactively selecting the date on
which options were granted," the complaint states.
"Dr. McGuire simply picked grant dates on which the share price
closed at a relative low point and/or right before a dramatic
increase in share price." The company formalized this
arrangement in its 1999 employment contract with Dr. McGuire,
specifically delegating to its CEO the authority to determine
option grant dates for UnitedHealth employees.
The suit charges that in rubberstamping and then concealing Dr.
McGuire's control of the option grant dates, UnitedHealth's
directors "completely abdicated their fiduciary
responsibilities" to shareholders, leading the company to vastly
overstate its earnings and issue false and misleading financial
statements since at least 1997.
"Because the company failed to disclose this plan to create an
artificially low strike price, shareholders were misled every
year at proxy time, when they not only were asked to reelect the
directors that created and perpetuated the plan, but were asked
... to vote on shareholder proposals relating to stock options
that would have substantially eliminated this practice," the
complaint charges. The company was also exposed to enormous
potential tax liability for misreporting its option practices.
"Regardless of the success achieved by Dr. McGuire in turning
UnitedHealth Group into one of the country's leading health care
providers, this case exposes an egregious abuse of executive
compensation, in which a single individual was given carte
blanche to use stock options as his personal mint," said Jay
Eisenhofer, counsel to the pension funds.
The funds' complaint provides a window into UnitedHealth 's
executive compensation practices, including a 1991 Stock &
Incentive Plan mandating that a committee of independent
directors -- "none of whom shall be officers or employees of the
company" -- determine the purchase price of stock options
issued. The 1991 plan also required the committee to set any
option exercise price "not less than 100% of the fair market
value of the Common Shares at the date of grant of such option,"
a stipulation that should have prevented backdating of the
option grants.
"As has become obvious in recent weeks, the company's protocols
on options as outlined by its 1991 plan were totally subverted
by Dr. McGuire in the years to come," Mr. Eisenhofer said. "
UnitedHealth not only yielded its authority on options issuance
to Dr. McGuire counter to its 1991 plan, but it never challenged
his manipulation of the grants to continually hit the jackpot
time after time by freely dating the options to coincide with
dips in the company's stock price for ten straight years. This
is as about as extreme a case of unjust enrichment and breach of
fiduciary duty as you'll ever see."
The pension funds assert their claims for each of the options
grants issued to Dr. McGuire from 1996-2005, noting that for
each period, the CEO selectively chose his own grant dates to
match "the best possible dates for him (and) the worst possible
dates for the company."
In relief, the funds are asking that the company disgorge all
profits gained by Dr. McGuire and COO Mr. Hemsley, while also
canceling or rescinding all outstanding options not yet
exercised for which there is proof of back-dating or
manipulation of the grant dates. The investors are also seeking
compensatory and punitive damages against UHG for the various
violations of fiduciary duty.
The suit is "Public Employees' Retirement System of Ohio et al.
v. McGuire et al., Case No. 0:06-cv-02094-PAM-JSM," filed in the
U.S. District Court of Minnesota under Judge Paul A. Magnuson
with referral to Janie S. Mayeron.
Representing the plaintiffs is James R. Behrenbrinker, Attorney
at Law, 200 Lakes & Plains Bldg., 842 Raymond Ave., St Paul, MN
55114, Phone: 651-649-0695, Fax: 651-251-1183, E-mail:
jbehrenbrinker@jrb-law.net.
UNITED STATES: EECO Grants Green Light to Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paulette Taylor and Debra Harley, two long-term General-Schedule
12 employees, won a decision from the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to represent as class agents of a
group of more than 3,000 African-American women workers at the
U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) at its headquarters in
Baltimore, Maryland.
The EEOC decision grants black women employed by the SSA at the
headquarters, including its Security West and Metro West
facilities, in GS-7 through GS-13 jobs since Dec. 9, 2000, the
right to have their claims of racially discriminatory promotion
practices heard and decided for the whole class.
"We are very glad the EEOC has ruled that this case can go
forward as a certified class because we have been fighting to
vindicate the rights of African-American women at the Social
Security Administration for a long time," said Paulette Taylor.
"This decision is just what we need to move ahead, and now we
look forward to proving the merits of our case, once and for
all," added Debra Harley.
The ruling by the EEOC, which became effective on May 9, rejects
a Social Security Administration decision not to grant the women
this class certification after an administrative law judge
recommended such certification. EEOC remanded the case to its
Baltimore Field Office for assignment to an administrative judge
and for a recommended decision on the merits of the class
claims. Promotions back to December 2000 are included in the
class claims.
The class agents charge that the SSA's selection process for
promotions is biased and subjective and has a discriminatory
effect against black women in promotions to vacancies in grades
11, 12, 13 and 14. The class numbered 3,035 in 2003. The class
agents demonstrated to the Administrative Judge, and thereafter
to the EEOC, that their claims of racially discriminatory
practices in promotions and training and related matters at the
Social Security Administration are common to, and typical of the
claims of members of the class.
"This decision is an important step in efficiently presenting
the claims of black women employees of the SSA in grades 7 to 14
who have been treated differently and worse than their white
peers and juniors, and is a recognition of the pervasive nature
of the discriminatory practices that have restricted the career
progress of black women at this Agency," said David Rose, the
Rose & Rose attorney who brought the case originally for the
Class Agents and the class.
Ms. Taylor and Ms. Harley also added civil rights class action
specialists, attorneys Timothy Fleming and Lori Kisch, of the
Washington, D.C. office of Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantazis PLLC,
to their legal team for the appeal. Both firms will proceed
together to litigate the case on the merits on behalf of the
class.
For more information, contact David L. Rose Rose & Rose, P.C.,
Phone: 202-331-8555; Timothy B. Fleming and Lori B. Kisch
Wiggins of Childs Quinn & Pantazis, P.L.L.C., Phone: 202-467-
4123.
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Court Nixes Dismissal Motion, Certifies Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has certified a class in the consolidated securities lawsuit
filed against Veeco Instruments Inc. and certain of its
officers.
The suit arises out of the restatement in March 2005 of Veeco's
financial statements for the quarterly periods and nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2004 as a result of the company's discovery of
certain improper accounting transactions at its TurboDisc
business unit.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit seek unspecified damages and
assert claims against all defendants for violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and claims against
the individual defendants for violations of Section 20(b) of the
Exchange Act.
In March 2006, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the lawsuit at the pleading stage, and certified a plaintiff
class for the lawsuit consisting of all persons who acquired the
company's securities during the period from Apr. 26, 2004
through Feb. 10, 2005.
The suit is "In Re: Veeco Instruments Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 7:05-md-01695-CM," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Colleen McMahon. Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Phyllis Maza Parker of Berger & Montague, PC, 1622
Locust St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365, US, Phone:
(215) 875-4647, Fax: (215) 875-4674, E-mail:
pparker@bm.net;
(2) Eric James Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275
Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:
ebelfi@murrayfrank.com;
(3) Sherrie Raiken Savett of Berg & Androphy (Houston),
3704 Travis Street, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: (215)
875-3071, Fax: (215)-875-5715.
Representing the Company is Robert F. Serio of Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP (NYC), 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, NY
10166, Phone: 212-351-3917, Fax: 212-351-5246, E-mail:
rserio@gibsondunn.com.
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces Consolidated OSB Antitrust Suit in Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhaeuser Co. and several companies are defendants in a
consolidated antitrust class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
In February and March 2006, seven lawsuits were filed seeking
class action status for persons and entities that purchased
oriented strand boards (OSB) directly from the company,
Louisiana-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific, Potlatch, Ainsworth Lumber,
Norbord and J.M. Huber Corp. from June 2002 through the present.
These suits were subsequently consolidated. The consolidated
suit alleges that the defendants conspired to fix and raise OSB
prices in the U.S. during the class period and as a result,
class members paid artificially inflated prices for OSB during
that period.
The suit is "Sawbell Lumber Co. v. Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00826-PD," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
under Judge Paul S. Diamond. Representing the defendants are:
(1) William P. Butterfield of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
Toll, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500,
Washington, DC 20005, US, Phone: 202-408-4600, E-mail:
wbutterfield@cmht.com; and
(2) Jeffrey J. Corrigan of Spector Roseman and Kodroff,
1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
Phone: 215-496-0300, E-mail: jcorrigan@srk-law.com.
Representing the company are:
(i) Barack S. Echols, James Howard Mutchnik and James H.
Schink of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 200 East Randolph
Drive, Suite 7500, Chicago, IL 60601, US, Phone: 312-
861-3144 and 312-861-2350, E-mail: bechols@kirkland.com
and jmutchnik@kirkland.com; and
(ii) Sherry A. Swirsky of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis,
LLP, 1600 Market St., Ste. 3600, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone: 215-751-2000, Fax: 215-972-7475, E-mail:
sswirsky@schnader.com.
WILLIAMS COS: Seeks Dismissal of Hurricane-Related Suits in La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Cos., Inc., along with other defendants, filed a joint
dismissal motion against two class action petitions claiming
compensation for damages caused by hurricanes that struck
Louisiana in 2005. The suits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in September and
October 2005.
The class plaintiffs are purporting to represent all persons,
businesses and entities in the State of Louisiana who have
suffered damage as a result of the winds and storm surge from
the hurricanes.
They allege that the operating activities of the two sub-classes
of defendants, which are all oil and gas pipelines that dredged
pipeline canals or installed pipelines in the marshes of south
Louisiana, including Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.
(Transco), and all oil and gas exploration and production
companies which drilled for oil and gas or dredged canals in the
marshes of south Louisiana, have altered marshland ecology and
caused marshland destruction which otherwise would have averted
all or almost all of the destruction and loss of life caused by
the hurricanes.
Plaintiffs request that the court allow the lawsuits to proceed
as class actions and seek legal and equitable relief in an
unspecified amount.
On Apr. 17, 2006, all defendants, including the Company, filed
their joint motion to dismiss the class action petitions on
various grounds.
WILSONART INTERNATIONAL: Jury Rejects Price-Fixing Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal jury in New York unanimously rejected claims that
Wilsonart International, Inc. participated in an alleged
conspiracy with competitors to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize
prices for high-pressure laminate between 1994 and 2000.
As a wholly owned subsidiary of ITW, Wilsonart International is
a leading manufacturer of decorative surfacing products,
including Wilsonart Laminate, Wilsonart Solid Surface and
Wilsonart Flooring. Wilsonart was acquired by ITW in 1999 as
part of the Premark International, Inc. transaction.
Wilsonart was named defendant in a consolidated class action
filed in June 2000 on behalf of purchasers of high-pressure
laminate.
In March 2005, Wilsonart remained sole defendant in the suit
filed in the United States District Court in White Plains, New
York. The complaint alleges that the company participated in a
conspiracy with competitors to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize
prices for high-pressure laminate between 1994 and 2000.
Indirect purchasers of high-pressure laminate filed similar
purported class action cases under various state antitrust and
consumer protection statutes in 13 states and the District of
Columbia, all of which cases have been stayed pending the
outcome of the consolidated class action.
These lawsuits were brought following the commencement of a
federal grand jury investigation into price-fixing in the high-
pressure laminate industry. The investigation was subsequently
closed by the Department of Justice with no further proceedings
and with all documents being returned to the parties.
Plaintiffs sought damages in the range of $439,000,000 to
$475,000,000 before trebling.
Without admitting liability, two of the company's co-defendants,
International Paper Company and Panolam International, Inc.,
have settled the federal consolidated class action case for
$31,000,000 and $9,500,000, respectively. The plaintiffs'
claims against Formica Corporation, the remaining co-defendant
in the case, were dismissed with prejudice as a result of its
bankruptcy proceedings on September 27, 2004.
The suit is "High Pressure Lamina, et al v. Premark
International, et al., Case No.7:00-cv-04720-CLB", filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Charles L. Brieant. Representing the defendants are James
R. Loftis and Michael Sean Royall of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
LLP, 1050 Connecticut Avenue Washington, DC 20036, Phone: (202)
955-8500.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Steven A. Asher of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, 18 East
50th Street, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
(212) 421-7633;
(2) William J. Ban of Lowey, Dannenberg, Bemporad &
Selinger, P.C., The Gateway, 1 North Lexington Ave.,
White Plains, NY 10601-1714, Phone: (914) 997-0500;
(3) James V. Bashian of Law Offices of James V. Bashian,
P.C., 500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700, New York, NY 10110,
Phone: (212) 921-4110;
(4) David Boies, II of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 10
North Pearl Street, 4th Floor, Albany, NY 12207, Phone:
(518) 434-0660; and
(5) John M. Dillion of Caruso & Dillon, P.C., 100
Mamaroneck Avenue, Mamaroneck, NY 10563, Phone: (914) \
698-6392.
Asbestos Alert
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Baltimore Gas Holds 519 "Premises" Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group Inc. recorded about 519 non-employee
claims against its subsidiary, Baltimore Gas and Electric Corp.
These individuals seek compensatory and punitive damages.
Since 1993, Baltimore Gas co-defended against asbestos actions,
based on the theory of "premises liability." Such cases allege
that Baltimore Gas knew of and exposed individuals to asbestos.
Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other defendants
may also be filed against Baltimore Gas. To date, most claims
against the Company have been dismissed or resolved without any
payment and a minority has been resolved for immaterial amounts.
The remaining claims are pending in Maryland and Pennsylvania
state courts.
Headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland, Constellation Energy Group
Inc., through Baltimore Gas, delivers electricity and natural
gas in central Maryland.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NRG Energy Inc. Holds 3,526 Pending Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy Inc. deals with 3,526 pending asbestos-related claims
as of Mar. 31, 2006, according to the company's 10-Q Securities
and Exchange Commission report.
Company power plants have been involved in these premise-based
suits since 2001, in which claimants allege personal injury due
to asbestos exposure while working at Texas plant sites.
For the three months ending Mar. 31, 2006, no new claims were
filed, three claims were settled, and 90 claims were dismissed
with no payment. Most claimants are third party contractor or
sub-contractors involved in the construction, renovation, or
repair of industrial plants, including power plants.
For the 2006-1st quarter, having few settlements skewed the
average portion of the settlements for which the Company had
liability. To date, settlement and defense costs have not been
material and a portion of the payments to these claims have been
offset by insurance recoveries.
CenterPoint Energy Inc. has agreed to indemnify such claims to
the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by
CenterPoint.
Headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey, NRG Energy Inc. produces
power with a capacity of 24,580 MW. In 2006, the Company
acquired power generator Texas Genco Inc. for US$5.8 billion.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Confronts 1,380 "Premises" Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation deals with 1,380 asbestos-related claims,
at the 2006-1st quarter, in which the Company is named a
"premises defendant," according to the company's 10-Q Securities
and Exchange Commission report.
Of the claims, 1,347 are cases for which service has been
received that the Company has tendered to the prior owner or
operator, all of which have been accepted.
The Company has not made payments with respect to these cases.
As of Mar. 31, 2006, the Company had an accrued liability of
US$12.5 million relating to these cases and a receivable of
US$12.5 million relating to its indemnity protection with
respect to these cases.
Thirty-three claims are not subject to indemnification by prior
owners or operators. The Company paid gross settlement costs
amounting to US$5,000 for such exposure cases during each of the
three months ended Mar. 31, 2006 and 2005. As of Mar. 31, 2006,
the Company had an accrual of US$0.5 million relating to these
cases.
At the three months ended December 31, 2005, the Company had 440
claims in which it was named as a "premises defendant."
Non-employees typically file the claims, alleging asbestos
exposure while at a facility. In the past, these cases have
involved multiple plaintiffs suing multiple defendants, and the
complaints have not indicated which plaintiffs were making
claims against which defendants, where or how the alleged
injuries occurred, or what injuries each plaintiff claimed.
Where the alleged exposure occurred prior to the company's
ownership or operation of the relevant "premises," the prior
owners and operators have agreed to retain liability for
asbestos exposure claims. In the company's 11-year experience
with these cases, the Company has not made any payment with
respect to any tendered asbestos cases.
Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, Huntsman Corp. makes
chemicals with products including MDI, amines, surfactants, and
epoxy-based polymers. Its chemicals are sold in more than 100
countries to customers in the adhesives, construction products,
electronics, medical, and packaging industries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Inc Receives 2,200 New Claims in 1Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., which does business as MetLife
Inc., received about 2,220 new asbestos-related claims during
the three months ended Mar. 31, 2006 and 5,900 claims during the
three months ended Mar. 31, 2005.
During 1998, MetLife paid US$878 million in premiums for excess
insurance policies for asbestos-related claims, which provide
for recovery of losses up to US$1.500 billion, which is in
excess of a US$400 million self-insured retention.
The foregone loss reimbursements were about US$8.3 million with
respect to 2002 claims, US$15.5 million with respect to 2003
claims, US$15.1 million with respect to 2004 claims, US$12.7
million with respect to 2005 claims and estimated as of Mar. 31,
2006, to be about US$60.7 million in the aggregate.
The New York City-based Company offers products like insurance,
retirement products, and prepaid legal plans. The Company also
provides property and casualty products and reinsurance.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Subsidiaries Deal With 660 Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings Inc., US subsidiaries of Celanese
Corporation, defend against an average of 660 asbestos-related
cases as of March 31, 2006.
As of September 30, 2005, the subsidiaries faced about 650
asbestos-related cases. (Class Action Reporter, November 18,
2005)
Since many cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the Company is
subject to claims in excess of the number of actual cases. The
Company has reserves for defense costs related to claims arising
from these matters.
Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, Celanese Corp. operates as
global hybrid chemical firm. The company's business involves
processing chemical raw materials, such as ethylene and
propylene, and natural products, including natural gas and wood
pulp, into value-added chemicals and chemical-based products.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Allegheny Energy Decrease to 801
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy Inc. contends with 801 open asbestos liability
cases remaining in West Virginia and five open cases remaining
in Pennsylvania as of March 31, 2006, according to the company's
10-Q Securities and Exchange Commission report.
As of December 31, 2005, the Company had 930 open asbestos
liability cases pending in West Virginia and five cases pending
in Pennsylvania. (Class Action Reporter, March 10, 2006)
The company's utility subsidiaries, Monongahela Power Co., the
Potomac Edison Co., and West Penn Power Co., co-defend against
pending asbestos cases claiming bodily injury involving multiple
plaintiffs and sites. These suits have been filed by
contractors' employees and do not involve allegations of either
the manufacture, sale or distribution of asbestos-containing
products by Allegheny.
Arising out of historical operations, these suits are related to
the installation and removal of asbestos-containing materials at
Allegheny's generation sites. Foreign and domestic insurers,
including Lloyd's of London, insured the company's historical
operations.
To date, asbestos litigation expenses have been reimbursed in
full by recoveries from these historical insurers, and Allegheny
said that it has adequate insurance to respond to the suits.
However, certain insurers have contested their obligations to
pay for future defense and settlement costs.
Allegheny is a defendant in two asbestos insurance-related
actions, in which the parties are seeking an allocation of
responsibility for historic and potential future asbestos
liability.
Case No. 21-C-03-16733 captioned Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd's, London et al. v. Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al. is
pending in Washington County, Maryland.
Civil Action No. 03-C-281 captioned Monongahela Power Co. et al.
v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London and London Market
Companies, et al., is pending in Monongalia County, West
Virginia.
Case No. CGC 04 431719 styled Zurich Insurance Co. in
California, Fuller-Austin Asbestos Settlement Trust, et al. v.
Zurich-American Insurance Co., et al., in which Allegheny is a
plaintiff, was filed in Superior Court of California, County of
San Francisco.
In connection with a settlement, Allegheny was paid US$625,000
by one of its insurance firms on July 5, 2005, with the next
payment of US$625,000 due July 1, 2006. Allegheny released this
firm from future liabilities associated with claims against it
alleging asbestos exposure.
Based in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, Allegheny Energy Inc.'s
Allegheny Power unit distributes electricity to 1.5 million
customers in five states and natural gas to more than 200,000
customers through utilities Monongahela Power, Potomac Edison,
and West Penn Power.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Insurers to Put in $25M to Congoleum Trust
---------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. and St. Paul Fire and Marine
Insurance Co. will pay US$25 million to Congoleum Corporation's
trust for asbestos claimants upon confirmation of Congoleum's
plan of reorganization, according to American Biltrite Inc.'s
SEC report.
On May 3, 2006, Congoleum filed a motion seeking the approval of
the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey for a
settlement agreement with Travelers and St. Paul Fire and
Marine.
American Biltrite is also a signatory to this settlement.
Under the settlement, Travelers and St. Paul Fire and Marine
will pay US$25 million in two installments over 13 months to the
asbestos claimants' trust once a reorganization plan becomes
effective and the Bankruptcy Court approves the transfer of the
funds by the insurance firms.
On December 31, 2003, Congoleum filed for bankruptcy in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (Case No. 03-
51524) to resolve claims asserted against it related to the use
of asbestos in its products.
Based in Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts, American Biltrite Inc.
produces Congoleum-brand vinyl tile flooring and sheet-vinyl
floors, and it distributes fashion jewelry through its K&M
Associates supplier. The Company owns 55 percent of Congoleum.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Attorney Mulls Suit v. Johnson Controls
---------------------------------------------------------------
The US Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, in November
2005, advised Johnson Controls Inc. that it might sue the
Company for violating the Clean Air Act and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act in an
asbestos release in a Florida site.
In 2003, the Company was involved in an asbestos release during
the renovation of a building in Lakeland, Florida. Following an
investigation, the US Environmental Protection Agency turned its
results over to the US Attorney.
The Company stated the release was inadvertent and asserted that
it should not be a criminal matter.
Discussions continue with the relevant regulatory authorities in
an attempt to resolve this matter on acceptable terms.
Based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Johnson Controls Inc. makes car
seats, interior systems, and batteries, as well as environmental
control systems for commercial buildings.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. Park-Ohio Holdings Increase to 380
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corporation co-defends against an average of
380 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 10,000 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury from asbestos exposure at March 31,
2006.
At December 31, 2005, the Company co-defended against an average
of 325 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 10,000
plaintiffs alleging asbestos-related personal injury. (Class
Action Reporter, March 31, 2006)
These cases relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing
products and allege various theories of liability, including
negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek
compensatory and punitive damages.
Plaintiffs claim damages in excess of a specified amount,
typically a minimum amount to establish jurisdiction of the
court in which the case was filed. Jurisdictional minimums range
from US$25,000 to US$75,000.
There are only four asbestos cases involving 21 plaintiffs that
plead specified damages. In each of the four cases, the
plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on
a variety of potentially alternative causes of action.
In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages
in the amount of US$3 million for four separate causes of action
and US$1 million for another cause of action and punitive
damages in the amount of US$10 million.
In the other case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
damages in the amount of US$20 million for three separate causes
of action and US$5 million for another cause of action and
punitive damages in the amount of US$20 million.
Historically, the Company has been dismissed from asbestos cases
on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of its
subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any
asbestos-containing product made or sold by the Company or its
subsidiaries.
Based in Cleveland, Ohio, Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., through
Park-Ohio Industries Inc. and its subsidiaries, provides
logistics services and makes engineered products for the
aerospace, auto, semiconductor, and other industries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IL Court Dismisses Suit v. Parker Drilling
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit, filed by a single plaintiff in the
Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, against Parker
Drilling Co., was dismissed on March 29, 2006 without payment.
On March 18, 2005, the plaintiff sued about 125 defendants,
including the Company, alleging that the plaintiff suffers from
asbestos-related diseases, including mesothelioma, as a result
of exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products.
On Jan. 13, 2006, a Company subsidiary was served with a
petition filed in the District Court for the Parish of Jefferson
in Louisiana against more than 200 defendants by 88 plaintiffs
complaining of exposure to asbestos, chemicals, noise, and
metals during their work as Jones Act seamen. The plaintiffs in
these cases seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages.
In August 2004, the Company was notified that certain of its
subsidiaries have been named in several multi-defendant
complaints that have been filed in the Circuit Courts of the
State of Mississippi by several hundred persons that allege that
they were employed by some of the named defendants between
around 1965 and 1986.
The complaints alleged that Company units and other drilling
contractors used asbestos-containing products in offshore
drilling operations, land-based drilling operations and in
drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment
and assert claims based on negligence and strict liability and
claims under the Jones Act.
These complaints have been severed and venue of the claims
transferred to the county in which the plaintiff resides or the
county in which the cause of action allegedly accrued.
Based in Houston, Texas, Parker Drilling Co. owns 64 rigs,
including 34 land rigs, 19 US-based barge drilling and workover
rigs, and four international deep drilling barges. The Company
drills worldwide and has worked in more than 50 countries.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Altria Tackles Lone Cigarette-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group Inc. continues to defend against one asbestos-
related cigarette case pending in a California court, according
to the company's 10-Q Securities and Exchange Commission report.
The Group confronts cases, which seek contribution or
reimbursement for amounts expended in connection with the
defense and payment of asbestos claims that were allegedly
caused in whole or in part by cigarette smoking.
These cases were brought on behalf of former asbestos
manufacturers and affiliated entities against Philip Morris USA
and other cigarette manufacturers.
Based in New York City, Altria Group Inc., through subsidiaries
Philip Morris USA and Philip Morris International, has been
selling the Marlboro brand of cigarettes since 1972. The Group
controls about half of the US tobacco market.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Faces 3rd-Party Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation has been named a defendant in
personal injury claims, including claims by employees of third-
party contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica and
benzene while working at refineries located in Texas, California
and Oklahoma.
Union Pacific Resources Group Inc., acquired by the Company in
2000, and Howell Corp., acquired by the Company in 2002, sold
the refineries prior to being acquired by the Company.
Adjustments to litigation charges increased income before income
taxes US$8 million during the quarter ended March 31, 2006
compared to a decrease of US$27 million for the same period of
2005.
Based in The Woodlands, Texas, Anadarko Petroleum Corp. explores
for, develops, produces, and market oil, natural gas, natural
gas liquids, and related products worldwide. More than half of
the company's reserves are found in Alaska, Louisiana, Texas,
the mid-continent and Rocky Mountain regions, and the Gulf of
Mexico.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Insurance Sets $25.2M Reserves
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC, a subsidiary of Alleghany
Corporation, notes that its reserve for unpaid losses and loss
adjustment expenses includes US$25.2 million for gross reserves
and US$25.1 million for net reserves, at March 31, 2006, for
liability coverage related to asbestos and environmental
impairment claims.
These claims arose from reinsurance assumed by an affiliate,
Capitol Indemnity Corp., between 1969 and 1976. Capitol
Indemnity, a wholly owned subsidiary of Capitol Transamerica
Corp., exited this business in 1976. CATA, an Alleghany
subsidiary, assumed Capitol Indemnity's claims.
Alleghany disclosed that its reserve for unpaid losses and loss
adjustment expense includes US$25.6 million of gross and net
reserves for various liability coverage related to asbestos and
environmental impairment claims at December 31, 2005. (Class
Action Reporter, March 10, 2006)
Based in New York City, Alleghany Corp.'s main operating
subsidiaries include Capitol Transamerica, which spearheads the
company's insurance arm and provides property/casualty,
fidelity, and surety insurance. The Company has commercial and
residential real estate interests in California.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maritrans Has 164 Asbestos & Tobacco Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maritrans Inc. faces about 164 cases in which individuals
alleged unspecified damages for exposure to asbestos and, in
most cases, tobacco smoke, according to the company's quarterly
report for the period ended March 31, 2006.
The status of many of these claims is uncertain.
Headquartered in Tampa, Florida, Maritrans Inc. transports crude
oil and refined petroleum products along the Atlantic and Gulf
coasts of the US from its main docking facilities in Tampa and
Philadelphia. The company's vessels have a total carrying
capacity of 3.6 million barrels.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Co. Dismissed From 2 Cases in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ladish Co. Inc. disclosed that it has been dismissed from two of
the six asbestos-related cases pending in Illinois as of May 9,
2006, according to the company's 10-Q SEC report.
The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of cases
in Mississippi and six asbestos cases in Illinois. As of May 9,
2006, the Company has been dismissed from many of the
Mississippi cases.
The Company has never manufactured or processed asbestos. The
company's only exposure to asbestos involves products the
Company purchased from third parties. The Company has notified
its insurance carriers of these claims.
Based in Cudahy, Wisconsin, Ladish Co. Inc. designs and makes
high-strength forged and cast metal components for aerospace and
industrial markets. Jet engine parts, missile components,
landing gear, helicopter rotors, and other aerospace products
generate more than 90% of the company's sales. The Company was
established in 1905.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Defends Against 98,300 Asbestos Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation defends against about 98,300 pending asbestos-
related claims as of March 31, 2006, according to the company's
10-Q Securities and Exchange Commission report.
As of December 31, 2005, the Company had about 101,170 pending
asbestos claims and about 114,720 claims as of March 31, 2005.
Of the claims pending as of March 31, 2006, about 62,620 were
pending in state courts, 33,050 in federal courts and about
2,630 were third party claims.
During the 2006-1st quarter, the Company received about 1,970
new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket about 4,840
claims.
The Company defends against suits claiming personal injuries
related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly
occurred as a result of exposure caused by products made by
predecessor Westinghouse, which neither produced nor made
asbestos, before the early 1970s.
The Company is named as one of a large number of defendants in
state and federal cases. In most of the asbestos suits, the
plaintiffs have not identified which of the company's products
is the basis of a claim.
Claims against the Company in which a product has been
identified relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-
containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-
generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos-containing
grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial
ships.
To date, the Company has not been liable for third party claims.
The company's total costs for settlement and defense of asbestos
claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were
about US$37.2 million for 2005 and US$58.4 million for 2004.
Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, lung cancer, other cancers, and conditions that
are less serious including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly asbestos-
related disease. Claims identified as cancer remain a small
percentage of asbestos claims pending at March 31, 2006.
Based in New York City, New York, CBS Corp. owns the CBS and UPN
broadcast networks (along with about 40 affiliated TV stations),
pay-TV's Showtime, TV production houses CBS Paramount Television
and King World, CBS Radio (180 stations), and the CBS Outdoor
advertising business.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco International's Claims Surge to 14,500
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd., as of March 31, 2006, faces about
14,500 asbestos-related liability cases pending against it and
its subsidiaries, an increase from 14,000 claims as of September
30, 2005.
Tyco and some of its subsidiaries co-defend against personal
injury suits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials. In the past years, the Company has noted an increase
in these suits. Most of these cases have been filed against
units in Healthcare and Engineered Products and Services.
A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based
on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on a
subsidiary's property. Most of the cases involve product
liability claims, based on allegations of past distribution of
heat-resistant industrial products with asbestos or the past
distribution of industrial valves that had asbestos-containing
gaskets or packing.
Tyco's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because
its subsidiaries did not mine or produce asbestos. A large
percentage of these claims were never substantiated and have
been dismissed by the courts.
During 2005, the Company undertook a detailed study of its
pending asbestos claims and also developed an estimate of
asbestos claims that were incurred but not reported, as well as
related insurance and indemnification recoveries.
Based in Princeton, New Jersey, Tyco International Ltd. offers
security and fire-protection systems. The Company has been
reorganized into five main business segments: Fire and Security;
Electronics; Healthcare; Engineered Products and Services; and
Plastics & Adhesives.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Motors Sues Royal & Sun Over Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation sues UK-based Royal & Sun Alliance
Insurance Group plc, in a dispute regarding asbestos-related
personal injury policies between 1954 and 1974, Reuters reports.
Filed in London's High Court, GM asserts that RSA is liable for
insurance policies sold by its US subsidiaries and that RSA
wrongfully caused its US subsidiaries to breach their contracts.
GM said the amounts involved were "substantial," and UK media
reports said that claim could be for about US$1 billion.
In January 2005, GM sued RSA in a Michigan Court, seeking
payment of all legal claims from asbestos-related suits and
additional damages. The suit claimed RSA breached its contract
with GM and failed to pay legal liabilities from personal
injuries and property damage from asbestos claims.
GM said in a statement that as RSA said the US court lacked
jurisdiction over it, the London courts were more suitable for
the case.
The US trial is scheduled to start in September.
An RSA spokesman said, "Our view of the entire case remains the
same, that it is completely without foundation. Our view on the
UK (claim) is that this is of no major significance to the
case."
The RSA spokesman added that a US judge had twice rejected
attempts by GM to make the RSA parent firm liable, saying that
GM first had to win its case proving the policies existed and
that there was still coverage on the policies.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Says Payments Are Immaterial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver Inc.'s uninsured settlement payments for past
asbestos lawsuits have been immaterial, said the Company in its
quarterly SEC report.
Due to the bankruptcies of several asbestos manufacturers and
other primary defendants, the Company has been named as a
defendant in a rising number of asbestos personal injury suits.
The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos or
silica, in which the Company also faces suits, from many
sources. The Company is one of about 25 or more defendants. The
Company states that most of the plaintiffs are not impaired with
a disease for which it bears any responsibility.
Company predecessors sometimes made, distributed or sold
asbestos-containing products in the pending asbestos suits.
However, neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined,
manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber.
Moreover, the asbestos-containing components used in the
products were enclosed within the subject products.
The Company has entered into a series of cost-sharing agreements
with multiple insurance companies to secure coverage for
asbestos suits. The Company states some of the potential
liabilities regarding these suits are covered by indemnity
agreements with other parties.
Based in Quincy, Illinois, Gardner Denver Inc. sells Joy-brand
compressors, as well as reciprocating, rotary screw, and sliding
vane compressors and positive displacement and centrifugal
blowers.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairchild Corp. Deals With Indemnity Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Fairchild Corporation contends with asbestos-related claims
stemming from a certain pump business, which a defendant bought
from the Company.
On Jan. 21, 2003, the Company and one of its subsidiaries were
served with a third-party suit in a New York action filed by a
non-employee worker alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products.
The defendant had bought a pump business from the Company, and
asserted the right to be indemnified by the Company under its
purchase agreement. This case was discontinued as to all
defendants, and ending the indemnity claim against the Company
in the case.
During the last 29 months, plaintiffs' counsel in 25 cases
related to the same pump business has served the Company. Two of
the 19 cases were dismissed as to all defendants.
The Company has been served with 28 complaints in suits filed by
non-employee workers, alleging personal injury or wrongful death
as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products other
than those related to the pump business.
The plaintiffs' complaints do not specify which products are at
issue. The Company has resolved 11 similar non-pump business
asbestos-related suits that were served upon the Company.
In nine cases, the Company was dismissed without payment of
consideration to plaintiffs. The remaining two cases were
settled for nominal amounts.
Based in McLean, Virginia, The Fairchild Corp. used to operate
an aerospace fasteners business, which it sold to prioritize its
Banner Aerospace unit. The Company then bought three firms that
make and distribute motorcycle clothing, helmets, and
accessories. That segment, Fairchild Sports, now accounts for
most of the company's sales.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren, Subsidiaries Face 70 Pending Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation and utilities, United Electric Co., Central
Illinois Public Service Co., Ameren Energy Generating Co.,
Central Illinois Light Co., Illinois Power Co., defend against
70 pending asbestos-related lawsuits as of March 31, 2006. In
the pending cases, the average number of parties is 65.
As of March 31, 2006, the Ameren Companies noted 303 filed
asbestos-related claims, in which 93 claims were settled and 140
claims were dismissed.
Most suits have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison
County, Illinois. The suits have as many as 129 defendants named
in some pending cases and as few as six in others.
The claims filed against the Company and its utilities allege
injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs' activities
at the company's present or former electric generating plants.
Genco now owns former CIPS plants, and Ameren Energy Resources
Generating Co now owns most former CILCO plants. Most of IP's
plants were transferred to a Dynegy Inc. unit prior to Ameren's
acquisition of IP.
CIPS or CILCO has agreed to indemnify Genco or AERG for
liabilities associated with asbestos-related claims arising from
activities prior to the transfer. Each suit seeks damages in
excess of US$50,000, which would be shared among the defendants.
From Jan. 1, 2006, through March 31, 2006, seven more asbestos-
related suits were filed against UE, CIPS, CILCO and IP. Three
suits were dismissed and three were settled.
As of March 31, 2006, five asbestos-related suits were pending
against Electric Energy Inc. The general liability insurance
maintained by EEI provides coverage with respect to liabilities
arising from asbestos-related claims.
The Illinois Commerce Commission order granting Ameren's
acquisition of IP effective September 30, 2004, approved a
tariff rider to recover the costs of IP's asbestos-related
litigation claims.
Starting 2007, 90 percent of cash expenditures in excess of the
amount included in base electric rates will be recovered by IP
from a US$20 million trust fund established by IP and financed
with contributions of US$10 million each by Ameren and Dynegy.
If cash expenditures are less than the amount in base rates, IP
will contribute 90 percent of the difference to the fund.
Based in St. Louis, Missouri, Ameren Corp. distributes
electricity to 2.3 million customers and natural gas to more
than 900,000 in Missouri and Illinois through its utilities.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UIC, Detroit Stoker Claims Drop to 10,159
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Industrial Corporation and subsidiary Detroit Stoker Co.
face about 10,159 asbestos-related claims asserted in lawsuits
as of March 31, 2006, according to the company's 10-Q Securities
and Exchange Commission report.
This compares to about 11,059 pending claims as of December 31,
2005 and about 19,447 pending claims as of March 31, 2005.
As of March 31, 2006, the Company and Detroit Stoker were named
in litigation pending in Arkansas, California, Louisiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North
Dakota and Rhode Island. The decrease in claims was credited to
dismissal of Mississippi cases filed in 2002-2003.
In 2004, Detroit Stoker was named in a suit filed by one
plaintiff against 32 defendants. In the same year, Detroit
Stoker was named in a suit filed by 199 plaintiffs, reduced to
42, against 68 defendants. The suits alleged personal injuries
from silica and refractory ceramic fiber exposure, in addition
to asbestos exposure.
The Company and Detroit Stoker made several products, some of
the parts and components of which used asbestos-containing
material fabricated and provided by third parties. The use of
ACMs ceased around 1981.
Cases involving the Company and Detroit Stoker name 80 to 100
defendants. To date, the Company and Detroit Stoker have not
gone to trial in any asbestos personal injury claims. Neither
the Company nor Detroit Stoker have been required to pay
punitive damage awards.
Moreover, some previously pending claims have been settled or
dismissed with or without prejudice. To date, settlements of
claims against the Company and Detroit Stoker have been made
without any admission of liability by the two Companies.
Based in Hunt Valley, Maryland, United Industrial Corp., through
subsidiary AAI Corp., makes automatic test equipment for
avionics, electronic warfare test and training systems, training
simulators for combat systems and aircraft maintenance, and
unmanned aerial vehicle systems. The US military accounts most
of AAI's sales.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Attorney Sues Tarragon for CAA Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
The US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, on April
25, 2006, sues Tarragon Corp. subsidiary, Tarragon Management
Inc., for violating the Clean Air Act Work Practice Standards
for Asbestos, during renovation of the company's Pine Crest
site.
The suit was filed with the US District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. The maximum combined fine and community
service payment for the offense against TMI is US$1 million. The
Company has also agreed to institute an environmental compliance
program.
In April 2003, in connection with renovations at Pine Crest
Village at Victoria Park, a Company contractor disturbed
asbestos-containing materials. The US Environmental Protection
Agency and the US Attorney checked these actions for possible
violations of federal criminal laws.
The US Attorney filed separate but identical charges against the
contractor, and one current and one former Company employee with
oversight responsibility for the Pine Crest condominium
conversion. In 2005, the Company accrued a US$1 million loss
contingency for the estimated fines.
The Company has incurred legal and other professional fees and
costs of relocation of residents in connection with this matter
of US$645,000 to date. Remediation was completed in March 2004
at a cost of about US$795,000.
Based in New York City, New York, Tarragon Corp. through its two
primary divisions, Homebuilding and Investment, engages in the
development and renovation of single and multifamily residences
and communities.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Battles 1,158 Pending Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group Inc.'s subsidiary, Central Hudson Gas & Electric
Corp., has 1,158 pending asbestos-related cases out of 3,280
cases as of March 31, 2006.
Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,972
have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central
Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 150 cases.
Central Hudson faced 1,171 pending asbestos-related claims.
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 24, 2006)
Central Hudson is unable to assess the validity of the remaining
asbestos suits. Accordingly, it cannot determine the ultimate
liability relating to these cases.
Based in Poughkeepsie, New York, CH Energy Group Inc., through
subsidiary Central Hudson Gas & Electric, provides electricity
to almost 290,000 customers and natural gas to more than 67,000
customers along the Hudson River in New York. Subsidiary Central
Hudson Enterprises oversees the Group's non-regulated businesses
in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, including petroleum product
distribution and energy management services.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: K-Sea Dismissed From 38 of 39 Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
K-Sea Transportation Partners LP states that EW Transportation
LLC and its predecessors have been dismissed from 38 out of 39
asbestos and second-hand smoke actions for an aggregate sum of
about US$47,000, according to K-Sea's 10-Q SEC report.
EW Transportation is a predecessor of the Company. EW
Transportation and its predecessors are pursuing settlement of
the remaining case.
Plaintiffs in these cases are various parties, including former
employees, alleging unspecified damages from exposure aboard
some of the vessels that it contributed to K-Sea in connection
with its initial public offering.
The Staten Island, NY-based Company may face future litigation
involving these plaintiffs and others alleging exposure to
asbestos due to failure to properly encapsulate or remove
friable asbestos on its vessels.
K-Sea Transportation Partners LP operates a fleet of about 100
vessels, consisting mainly of tank barges and the tugboats that
propel them. The Company serves major oil companies, refiners,
and oil traders, mainly along the coast of the northeastern US.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Accrues $2.5M for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Properties Group Inc. accrues US$2.5 million, as of March
31, 2006, for estimated future costs regarding asbestos
remediation of the company's City National Plaza property.
Such materials have been removed or abated from certain tenant
and common areas of City National Plaza. The Company continues
to remediate asbestos materials from the structure.
At the 2101 Market Street property, the Company has begun
remediation efforts as a result of a gasoline spill on the
premises in April 2002, due to an accident caused by the
tenant's agent.
The company's lease requires the tenant to indemnify the Company
against all costs and expenses relating to the tenant's use and
occupancy of the premises.
Based in Los Angeles, California, Thomas Properties Group Inc.
invests in, develops, and manages multifamily, office, and
retail real estate, mainly in the Mid-Atlantic and West. The
firm owns or manages some 20 properties in California,
Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cabot Unit Faces 82,000 Claimants in Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation's subsidiary faces asbestos and silica
respirator cases with about 82,000 claimants, as of March 31,
2006, according to Cabot's 10-Q SEC report.
The cases relate to a safety respiratory products business that
the subsidiary acquired from American Optical Corp. in an April
1990 asset transaction.
Cabot's respirator liabilities involve claims for personal
injury, including asbestosis and silicosis, from the use of AO
respirators alleged to be negligently designed or labeled.
In the fiscal 2003-3rd quarter, the Company recorded a reserve
to cover its expected share of liability for existing and future
respirator liability claims.
The book value of the reserve is being accreted up to the
undiscounted liability through interest expense over the
expected cash flow period and, at March 31, 2006, is about US$18
million, or US$31 million on an undiscounted basis.
Based in Boston, Massachusetts, Cabot Corp. produces carbon
black, a reinforcing and pigmenting agent used in tires, inks,
cables, and coatings. It has about 25 percent of the world
market for carbon black.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Industries Defends Against 7 AL Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries Inc. defends against seven asbestos-related
lawsuits filed in Alabama state court by about 62 plaintiffs.
Over 100 defendants are named in each case.
The plaintiffs claim that they were exposed to asbestos while
employed at a former US Steel plant in Alabama, and eventually
contracted mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer or other
illness. They claim that they were exposed to the plant's
asbestos-containing products, which were made by each defendant.
In five of the cases, plaintiffs assert wrongful death claims.
Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) has filed over 1,990 pending cases
in Michigan, New Jersey, Illinois, Nevada, Mississippi, Wyoming,
Louisiana, Georgia, Massachusetts and California against the
Company for defense and compensation.
Sterling has demanded in one case that Katy indemnify it for a
US$200,000 settlement. Sterling bases its complaints on a 1993
Purchase Agreement between the parties, in which Sterling bought
the LaBour Pump Co. business and other Company assets. Sterling
has not sued Katy regarding these matters.
The complaints all purport to claims against Sterling and its
subsidiaries. The Company and its subsidiaries are not named as
defendants. The plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos and
asbestos-containing products while employed.
Each complaint names as defendants makers of asbestos-containing
products, apparently because plaintiffs came into contact with
different products while employed. LaBour Pump or Sterling may
have made some of the products, plaintiffs claim.
Regarding many of the tendered complaints, the Company has taken
the position that Sterling has waived its right to indemnity by
failing to timely request it as required under the 1993 Purchase
Agreement. The Company has elected not to assume the defense of
Sterling in these matters.
LaBour Pump Company, a former subsidiary of the Company, has
been named as a defendant in over 310 similar cases in New
Jersey. These cases have also been tendered by Sterling. The
Company has elected to defend against these cases.
Based in Arlington, Virginia, Katy Industries Inc. makes
maintenance products like cleaning supplies, abrasives, and
stains. The Company also makes electric-corded products like
extension cords, surge protectors, and garden lighting. The
Company was established in 1967.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aon Corp Estimates Liabilities to Reach $4M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corporation has liabilities of US$4 million, net of
reinsurance recoverables and other assets of US$83 million,
which represent estimates of known and future asbestos,
pollution and other exposure claims to be settled over the next
20 to 30 years.
These liabilities relate to the company's acquisition of
Alexander & Alexander Services Inc. Before acquisition, A&A
discontinued its property and casualty insurance underwriting
operations in 1985, some of which were then placed into run-off,
with the remainder sold in 1987.
In connection with those sales, A&A provided indemnities to the
purchaser for estimated and potential liabilities, including
provisions to cover future losses attributable to insurance
pooling arrangements, a stop-loss reinsurance agreement and
actions or omissions by various underwriting agencies previously
managed by an A&A subsidiary.
Based in Chicago, Illinois, Aon Corp. operates as an insurance
brokerage firm and a reinsurance broker. The firm operates in
three major segments: commercial brokerage, consulting services,
and consumer insurance underwriting.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT, Goulds Pumps Resolve 16T Claims in '05
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Industries Inc. and subsidiary Goulds Pumps Inc. co-defend
against product liability lawsuits alleging injury due to
asbestos. During 2005, ITT and Goulds resolved in excess of
16,000 claims through settlement or dismissal.
These claims stem from products sold before 1985 that had a part
made by a third party, e.g., a gasket, which allegedly contained
asbestos. The asbestos was encapsulated in the gasket material
and was non-friable.
In other cases, it is alleged that former ITT firms were
distributors for other manufacturers' products that may have
contained asbestos. The plaintiffs cannot demonstrate injury or
do not identify any ITT or Goulds product as a source of
exposure.
The Company faces two actions, each filed in California and New
York Courts.
Case No. BC 290354 captioned Cannon Electric, Inc. et al. v. Ace
Property & Casualty Co. et al. is pending in the Superior Court
of Los Angeles County in California.
Case No. 03600463 captioned Pacific Employers Insurance Co. et
al., v. ITT Industries, Inc., et al. is pending in the Supreme
Court of New York County in New York.
The parties in both cases are seeking an allocation of
responsibility for the company's historic asbestos liability
exposure among its insurers. The California suit is filed in the
same venue where the company's environmental insurance recovery
litigation has been pending since 1991. The New York action has
been stayed in favor of the California suit.
ITT and ACE and Nationwide Indemnity have resolved the matter
and the Company is working with other parties in the suit to
resolve the matter as to those insurers.
Utica National and Goulds are negotiating an agreement to
allocate the Goulds' asbestos liabilities between insurance
policies issued by Utica and those issued by others.
Based in White Plains, New York, ITT Industries Inc. has four
segments: fluid technology, defense electronics, motion and flow
control, and electronic components. ITT also provides repair and
maintenance services for the products it manufactures.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Moore Files $200T Suit v. Illinois Central
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance worker David L. Moore implicates Illinois Central
Railroad in a four-count asbestos-related lawsuit, seeking
damages in excess of US$200,000, The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.
Filed on May 5 in St. Clair County Circuit Court, the suit also
names as defendant Canadian National Railway Co., successor in
interest to ICRR.
Mr. Moore alleges he suffers from respiratory illnesses and
extreme nervousness over concerns he will develop cancer because
of work-related exposure to asbestos, silica, and diesel fumes.
Mr. Moore claims breaches of the Federal Employers' Liability
Act and the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act. He began working
for the railroad in 1959.
Mr. Moore alleges that the railroad did not provide adequate
training in the use or removal of old asbestos products and
failed to medically test him to determine if he was subject to
any ill effects to asbestos products and other toxic substances.
According to the complaint, the railroad violated the Locomotive
Boiler Inspection Act by failing to provide Mr. Moore with a
locomotive "whose appurtenances were in proper and safe
conditions." The suit also claims Mr. Moore was required to work
on contaminated equipment.
William P. Gavin of Belleville and the Jones & Granger law firm
of Houston, Texas represents Mr. Moore.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WR Grace Asks Court for 6-Month Trial Delay
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. requests the US District Court for the District
of Montana to postpone its September 11 trial, for asbestos-
related proceedings, by six months, the Associated Press
reports.
The move ends a day of pretrial arguments in the US Government's
case against Grace and some of its former top officials.
US District Judge Donald Molloy adjourned after the request. He
said that some of the defense lawyers had indicated that there
was time to prepare. Lawyers were given 18 months to prepare for
the trial.
An indictment accuses Grace and seven officials of conspiring to
hide health risks by the company's vermiculite mine in Libby,
Montana. People in the town have been sickened by exposure to
asbestos from the mine, which closed in 1990.
Defense attorney Ron Waterman said the four months remaining are
inadequate for some reasons. They include the filing of 400,000
US Environmental Protection Agency documents in the last week or
so, he said.
Prosecutor Kris McLean said the trial calendar remains workable.
The latest EPA documents were available in Denver, Colorado for
some time and were not simply loaded on the defense as a
surprise, he said.
Mr. McLean said presenting the Government's case, which involves
about 240 witnesses and 750 exhibits, will take eight to nine
weeks. He said that would leave the defense's time for rebuttal
chopped up by the winter holidays.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Lawyer Pleads Not Guilty to Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louis S. Robles, a disbarred Florida attorney, pleads not guilty
to federal charges that he defrauded clients out of US$13.5
million in settlement money from lawsuits claiming they were
made ill by asbestos exposure, the Associated Press reports.
Mr. Robles, aged 58, faces 41 counts of mail fraud contained in
a grand jury indictment. Disbarred in 2003 after findings by The
Florida Bar into his financial practices, Mr. Robles surrendered
to authorities.
The indictment alleged Mr. Robles took money from his asbestos
clients' trust fund accounts and used it to pay for personal
real estate.
Federal public defender Hector Flores was appointed to represent
Mr. Robles. The charges carry maximum prison sentences totaling
over 200 years, but Mr. Robles would face between 15 1/2 and 19
1/2 years behind bars under federal sentencing guidelines.
Prosecutors say Mr. Robles had over 7,000 clients in litigation
against various asbestos firms. Many clients were workers who
had been exposed for years when asbestos was widely used.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota Corp. Asbestos Victims Surge to 109
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to a 2005 survey conducted by Kubota Corporation, 34
employees were added to a list of those who died of asbestos-
related illnesses and raising the total to 109, The Yomiuri
Shimbun reports.
Prior surveys disclosed that 75 people had died. Most of the 34
in the 2005 survey were victims of diseases linked to asbestos
exposure, such as mesothelioma and lung cancer.
Twenty-two of the 34 died within five years of the study, but 12
died more than five years ago, exceeding the statute of
limitations and making their families ineligible for workers
compensation.
Thirty employees may have been exposed at the company's former
Kanzaki factory in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture. Of the other
four, one was exposed at another former factory in the city and
three at Kubota's Odawara factory in Kanagawa Prefecture.
A Kubota spokesman said the Company had strived to disclose
information about the problem, but that in 2005, more bereaved
families and former employees had contacted the Company with new
information.
The addition of the 34 to the list comes as more cases have
alerted the Company after wide media coverage in 2005 of
asbestos-related deaths at the Company.
ASBESTOS ALERT: Siewert Const. to Pay $105T for Handling Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Montana 13th Judicial District Court in Yellowstone County
orders Paul Siewert of Siewert Construction in Billings to pay
US$105,575 in civil penalties and interest for violating the
Montana Asbestos Control Act, The Billings Outpost reports.
The Montana Department of Environmental Quality filed the case
against Siewert Costruction.
According to a news release from the state of Montana, Siewert
Construction demolished five buildings in Billings and disturbed
more than 5,000 square feet of asbestos-containing material.
The release said that Mr. Siewert violated the Asbestos Control
Act by failing to notify the DEQ and obtain an abatement permit,
failing to use an accredited contractor, and failing to use
correct methods to remove the ACMs.
Under the Montana Asbestos Control Act, an inspection by an
accredited asbestos inspector must be conducted before the
demolition or remodeling of any commercial or public building.
If asbestos will be impacted, an asbestos abatement permit from
the DEQ is required and an accredited contractor must conduct
removal of the ACMs.
New Securities Fraud Cases
ESCALA GROUP: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC initiated a securities class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Escala Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: ESCL)
between Sept. 23, 2003 and May 8, 2006.
Institutional investors are strongly encouraged to move for lead
plaintiff status until Jul. 10, 2006.
On May 9, 2006, it was widely reported in the press that Spanish
police had arrested four people and had raided the offices of
Escala's majority shareholder, Afinsa.
The raid followed the publication of an article in Barron's on
May 23, 2005, entitled "Sticky Situation," which detailed
potential fraudulent practices at Afinsa.
In reaction to the news regarding Afinsa and Escala's business
operations, shares of Escala fell dramatically, falling from
$32.00 per share to $12.23 per share on heavy volume.
For more details, Lewis Kahn of Kahn Gauthier Swick, Phone: l-
866-467-1400, ext. 100 and 504-648-1850, E-mail:
lewis.kahn@kglg.com.
ESTEE LAUDER: May 29 Deadline Set for Filing as Lead Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, reminds
investors of The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. (EL) that May 29,
2006 is the deadline to ask the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff for the Class.
Pomerantz filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, against the Company and
certain of its officers, on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of the Company during the period from Apr. 28, 2005 to
Oct. 25, 2005, inclusive.
The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. engages in the manufacture,
marketing, and sale of skin care, makeup, fragrance, and hair
care products worldwide.
The complaint alleges that by the commencement of the class
period, the Company was losing ground to products that,
increasingly, were being distributed outside of the department
store channels upon which Estee Lauder primarily relied for
distribution of its products. Consequently, the company's actual
net sales and net earnings were trending downward.
Defendants did not disclose the steady erosion of the company's
market share, or rectify the conditions leading to this result,
but they did launch a largely successful campaign that employed
channel stuffing and the dissemination of materially false and
misleading statements to prop up the company's share price long
enough for Estee Lauder insiders to sell over 3 million shares
of their common stock at artificially inflated prices.
The truth began to emerge on Sept. 19, 2005 when defendants
disclosed that the Company would not meet its guidance for the
first half of fiscal 2006. On this disclosure, the company's
stock fell 9%, from $40.51 to $36.05 per share.
The stock, however, continued to trade at artificially inflated
levels until Oct. 26, 2005 when defendants were forced to
disclose that, for the first quarter of fiscal 2006, the Company
would earn only $61.8 million, or $0.28 per share, down 38% from
the previous year's earnings of $95.7 million, or $0.41 per
share.
These results were well below analysts' revised consensus
earnings estimate of $0.32 cents a share on revenue of $1.54
billion. Following the disclosure of the company's results and
lowered guidance, the company's share price fell to $30.71. By
this time, Estee Lauder insiders had sold the aforementioned
shares.
For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S. Moskowitz
of the Pomerantz Firm, Phone: (888) 476-6529, E-mail:
tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com.
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set June 12
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, reminds interested parties that
they have until Jun. 12, 2006 to move to be a lead plaintiff in
the shareholder lawsuit against Fairfax Financial Holdings
Limited.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, the case was brought on behalf of all persons and
institutions that purchased securities of Fairfax Financial
Holdings Limited (FFH) between Mar. 24, 2004 and Mar. 22, 2006,
inclusive.
The complaint charges Fairfax and certain of the company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Fairfax's business and operations caused
the company's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors.
Fairfax engages in property and casualty insurance and
reinsurance, conducted on a direct basis principally in Canada,
the U.S. and the United Kingdom.
The complaint alleges that defendants' class period
representations regarding Fairfax were materially false and
misleading because:
-- Defendants had manipulated Fairfax's accounting for
purchases and sales of certain "finite risk"
reinsurance to and from the company's captive
subsidiaries, and/or allowed such manipulation to
occur;
-- Defendants allowed and/or authorized the Company to
enter into bogus reinsurance contracts with Odyssey
Reinsurance Holdings Ltd. (Odyssey Re) and Northbridge
Financial Corp. (Northbridge);
-- Defendants failed to maintain adequate operational or
financial controls within Fairfax such that the
officers and directors of the Company could assure that
its reported financial statements were true, accurate
or reliable;
-- the company's financial statements and reports were not
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles and SEC rules; and
-- as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked any
reasonable basis to claim that Fairfax was operating
according to guidance sponsored and/or endorsed by
defendants, or that the Company could achieve such
guidance.
At the end of the class period, investors finally learned that
the Company had engaged in inappropriate "finite risk" insurance
transactions with its captive subsidiaries, including Odyssey Re
and Northbridge.
Defendants then revealed that the company's CEO and others
related to the Company had received subpoenas from U.S. market
regulators concerning Fairfax's finite risk insurance business.
These sudden and shocking disclosures had an immediate impact on
the price of the company's stock, causing Fairfax shares to
decline almost 30% in the days following these belated
disclosures.
For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq., of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-
9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Scott + Scott Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC, initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. (FFH) and certain officers. The
action is on behalf of Fairfax Financial securities purchasers
between Mar. 24, 2004 through Mar. 21, 2006, inclusive.
This action is also brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Fairfax Financial 7.75% senior notes due Apr. 26, 2012 (the Sub-
class), pursuant to the Aug. 25, 2004 offering registration
statements and/or prospectus.
Fairfax Financial, through its subsidiaries, operates as an
underwriter of property and casualty insurance and reinsurance.
The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the company's financial performance by
improperly accounting for transactions relating to finite
contracts and treaties at its Odyssey Re Holdings subsidiary
(Odyssey Re) and concealing an internal review of those matters.
As a result, the price of the company's securities was inflated
during the class period, thereby harming investors.
According to the complaint, defendants' class period financial
statements were false and misleading as they omitted material
facts, including that the Company:
-- employed flawed and defective accounting practices and
internal controls;
-- understated its reserves; and
-- utilized aggressive off-balance sheet mechanisms.
On Mar. 21, 2006, the complaint alleges, defendants revealed
details of a broadly escalated governmental investigation into
the Company, following the issuance of a subpoena in response to
defendant V. Prem Watsa's statements regarding the company's
internal review of improper accounting practices at the Company
and at Odyssey Re.
On this news, the price of Fairfax Financial stock plummeted
from its closing price of $130.90 on Mar. 21, 2006, to close on
Mar. 22, 2006 at $113.93, for a loss of $16.97 or 12.9%, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
Interested parties must move the Court no later than Jun. 12,
2006.
For more details, contact Scott + Scott, LLC, Phone: 800/404-
7770 and 860/537-5537, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com, Web
site: http://www.scott-scott.com.
GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS: Howard G. Smith Files Fla. Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith has initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities
of GlobeTel Communications Corp. (AMEX:GTE) between Dec. 22,
2005 and Apr. 11, 2006, inclusive. The case was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period
concerning the company's financial prospects, thereby
artificially inflating the price of GlobeTel securities. No
class has yet been certified in the above action.
For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888)
638-4847, Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.
XM SATELLITE: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC initiated a securities class action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired
the common stock of XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc. (XMSR)
between Jul. 28, 2005 and Feb. 15, 2006. No class has yet been
certified in this action.
As investors have now learned, defendants appear to have
misrepresented XMSR's ability to achieve subscriber acquisition
cost goals, and omitted to disclose that excessively large
marketing expenditures would be needed through 2005 even to
reach XMSR's revised subscriber growth projections.
On Feb. 16, 2006, XMSR's subscriber acquisition costs
skyrocketed. Shares of the Company immediately fell 13% to close
at $21.96 on Feb. 17, 2006, and have subsequently fallen further
to around $17.00 per share.
While shareholders of the Company have seen billions of dollars
of market capitalization eviscerated, during the class period,
several key insiders of XMSR made huge sales of their personal
holdings in the fourth quarter of 2005 -- taking advantage of
the artificial inflation of XMSR's common stock and selling
almost $70 million in their privately held shares during that
time.
Institutional investors are strongly encouraged to move for lead
plaintiff status.
For more information, contact Lewis Kahn of KGS toll free 1-866-
467-1400, ext. 106, or by email at lewis.kahn@kglg.com.
XM SATELLITE: Pomerantz Haudek Files D.C. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
against XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. (XMSR) and Hugh Panero,
President and Chief Executive Officer, on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of the company between Jul. 28, 2005 and
Feb. 15, 2006, inclusive. The complaint alleges violations of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
XM Satellite, a Delaware Corporation, operates as a satellite
radio service company primarily in the U.S.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements,
all of which misrepresented that XM Satellite was able to reduce
the cost of its new subscribers as it reached its goal of 6
million subscribers by yearend 2005. The fact was that XM
Satellite would be forced to spend extraordinarily large sums of
money in the fourth quarter of 2005 in order to stay on track to
achieve its stated goal.
The complaint also alleges that despite defendants' knowledge
that XM Satellite would be making those huge expenditures,
defendants failed to disclose to the market that the company's
cost of subscriber acquisitions would rise to extraordinary
levels, leading to huge increases in net losses, which was in
complete reversal of the trends of declining subscriber
acquisition costs and net losses defendants were reporting
throughout the class period.
On Feb. 15, 2006, the company's stock price closed at $25.25.
On Feb. 16, 2006 defendants issued a press release announcing
the previous undisclosed truth about the skyrocketing level of
the company's subscriber acquisition costs in the fourth quarter
of 2005. With the disclosure, on Feb. 17, 2006, XM Satellite's
common stock fell 13%, to close at $21.96.
Interested parties have until Jul. 3, 2006 to ask the Court for
appointment as lead plaintiff for the Class.
For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S. Moskowitz
of the Pomerantz Firm, Phone: (888) 476-6529, E-mail:
tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.pomerantzlaw.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 Janice
Mendoza, 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 * * *