/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/061201.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 1, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 239 Headlines AWB LTD: U.S. Farmers Plan to Re-file $1B Racketeering Lawsuit AUSTRALIA: Groundwater Irrigators File Suit Against NSW Gov't. BIOGEN IDEC: Plaintiffs in Mass. Securities Suit Amend Complaint BIRDS EYE: Recalls Winter Squash Due to Ammonia Contamination CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Back-Dated Option Grants CALIFORNIA: Ventura Strip-Search Case Refused High Court Review CHOICEPOINT INC: Gets Favorable Ruling in Calif. FCRA Lawsuit CONNECTICUT RESOURCES: Trial Resumes in Lawsuit Over Enron Deal CONNETICS CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif., N.Y. CV THERAPEUTICS: Settles Calif. Securities Fraud Suit for $13.5M GENESEE & WYOMING: Rail Yard Case Settlement Conference Sought HALLIBURTON CO: AMSF Wants to Replace Stock Suit Lead Attorney HONEYBAKED FOODS: Recalls Ham, Turkey for Listeria Contamination ILLINOIS: Ex-Teacher Sues Chicago Public Schools Over Info Leak INFOUSA INC: Court Dismisses Shareholder Fiduciary Breach Suit INTERNATIONAL PAPER: $12.4M Price-Fixing Suit Deal Gets Approval LOS ALAMOS: New Mex. Court Delays Bias Suit Settlement Hearing MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Dec. 5 MERCURY INSURANCE: Settles Calif. Suit Over Premium Calculation POTTERY BARN: Recalls Gourd Candles Posing Fire, Burn Hazards SMITH BARNEY: Financial Advisors Amend Sex Bias Suit in Calif. SRAM MANUFACTURERS: Mich. Resident Files Price-Fixing Litigation TRUSTSTREET PROPERTIES: No Order Yet on "Lewis" Dismissal Appeal TRUSTREET PROPERTIES: Faces Lawsuit in Md. Over GE Merger Plan UAL CORP: High Court Review of ESOP Complaint Dismissal Sought VEGAS GRAND: Nev. Court Gives Final Approval to Condo Suit Deal VIGNETTE CORP: N.Y. Court Yet to Approve IPO Suit Settlement XM SATELLITE: Mulls Filing Motion to Dismiss D.C. Stock Lawsuit * Corporate Library Issues Report on Firms Facing Possible SCAs Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren, Utility Cos. Face 71 Suits at 3Q06 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Constellation Energy Has 522 Claims v. BGE ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Has $7.5M Liability in 3Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell, Units Still Face Injury Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Inc. Still Faces Exposure Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Faces 1,934 Pending Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Water Faces Workplace Injury Claim ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tarragon Incurs $846T for Cleanup Matters ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleco Corp. Still Faces La. Workers' Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: St. Paul Reserves $4.179B for Claims in 3Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Property Still Faces ACandS Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Worldwide Incurs $1M Unindemnified Cost ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Records $2.254B Liability in 3Q06 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Financial Contends With BCT Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Zapata Predecessor Units Still Face Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Records $572.6M Loss Reserves in 3Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Re Records $279.9M Losses, Expenses ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Corp Faces Site Exposure Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Still Faces Suit by ACE, Insurers ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Corp. Reserves $7M at 3Q06 for Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. Entrx Drop From 485 to 458 in 3Q06 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Corp. Faces 75T Active Claims in 3Q06 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flowserve Corp. Still Faces Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Tire Records 124,300 Claims in 3Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $4.039B for Losses ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Int'l. Has 305 Pending Suits at 3Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. Park-Ohio Holdings Decrease to 370 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. Parker Drilling Unit in Discovery ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Drops Charges Filed v. SDG&E ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Jury Awards $850T in Damages to Widow ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Less Suits Filed in Madison Court, ICJ Says ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Corp. Faces Hicks Lawsuit in Pa. Court New Securities Fraud Cases BODISEN TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Announces Suit Filing TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Va. TVIA INC: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif. ********* AWB LTD: U.S. Farmers Plan to Re-file $1B Racketeering Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Washington, D.C.-based attorney L. Palmer Foret plans to re-file a potential $1 billion-plus class action pending against Australian wheat exporter AWB, Ltd. in the U.S. on behalf of American farmers. Mr. Foret, who is spearheading the case against AWB, said that a new case would be filed in the coming weeks, according to AAP News. The plan follows the recent release of the Cole Commission report into the AWB's corrupt payments of about $227,668,441.44 (AUD$290 million) in kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's regime to secure wheat contracts in Iraq. In the final report, the commission found that AWB, 11 of its former executives, and one former BHP Billiton executive may have broken Australian laws, including criminal and banking codes. The lawsuit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against AWB and its U.S. unit, AWB (USA) Ltd. as a purported class action on behalf of North American farmers (Class Action Reporter, July 12, 2006). It accused the wheat exporter of engaging in a worldwide campaign of racketeering, money laundering, fraud and bribery to corner grain markets. Plaintiffs, who are claiming $1 billion in damages, allege that the defendants' actions in Iraq and several other countries breached U.S. laws and hurt thousands of American and Canadian farmers. Farmers, including lead plaintiff Veryl Switzer, are basing their claims on the U.S. Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act, which was designed to target the mafia and other criminal groups. They are also basing their claims on alleged breaches by defendants of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. However, the plaintiffs recently withdrew the case. Sources told The Australian that the decision to withdraw was done after the case was considered unlikely to succeed before the conservative court in D.C. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2006). According to Mr. Foret, the suit was withdrawn so the legal team could examine the Cole report. He said that he hopes to re-file the case by the end of the year. For more details, contact: (1) Roderick E. Edmond of Edmond & Jones, LLP, Candler Building, 127 Peachtree Street NE, Suite #410, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: (404) 525-1080, Fax: (404) 525-1073, E-mail: http://www.edmondfirm.com/index.html;and (2) L. Palmer Foret, The Law Firm of Palmer Foret, PC, Two Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 660, Chevy Chase, MD 20815, Phone: (301) 656-1888, E-mail: lpforet@aol.com. AUSTRALIA: Groundwater Irrigators File Suit Against NSW Gov't. -------------------------------------------------------------- The New South Wales government faces a purported statewide class action filed by Murray Valley groundwater irrigators over its structural adjustment packages, Queanbeyan Age reports. The irrigators are seeking "fair market value" compensation for water taken from them. They are hoping to get leave of appeal to take their case to the Federal High Court. They are arguing that the recently announced structural adjustment goes no-where near reflecting the current value of their water entitlements. According to Greg Sandford, Chair of the Murray Valley Groundwater Irrigators Association, they are trying to contact groundwater users in other regions to get more irrigators involved in the case. He added that the class action could represent as many as 1000 irrigators. For more details, contact Mr. Sandford, Phone: (03) 5882 5977. BIOGEN IDEC: Plaintiffs in Mass. Securities Suit Amend Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Biogen Idec, Inc. filed an amended consolidated complaint adding several of its executives as defendants. On March 2, 2005, the company, along with William H. Rastetter, former executive chairman, and James C. Mullen, chief executive officer, were named as defendants in a purported class action, captioned, "Brown v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action is purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's publicly-traded securities between Feb. 18, 2004 and Feb. 25, 2005. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding potentially serious side effects of TYSABRI in order to gain accelerated approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the product's distribution and sale. The plaintiff alleges that these materially false and misleading statements harmed the purported class by artificially inflating the company's stock price during the purported class period and that company insiders benefited personally from the inflated price by selling the company's stock. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, as well as interest, costs and attorneys' fees. Substantially similar actions: -- "Grill v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al." and -- "Lobel v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al.," were filed on March 10, 2005 and April 21, 2005, respectively, in the same court by other purported class representatives. Those actions have been consolidated with the Brown case. On Oct. 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint which, among other amendments to the allegations, adds as defendants: -- Peter N. Kellogg, chief financial officer, -- William R. Rohn, former chief operating officer, -- Burt A. Adelman, executive vice president of Portfolio Strategy, and -- Thomas J. Bucknum, former general counsel The suit is "Brown v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05- cv-10400-RCL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Reginald C. Lindsay. Representing the plaintiffs are Shannon L. Hopkins and Mario Alba Jr. of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 646- 733-5768, Fax: 212-273-4445, E-mail: shopkins@milbergweiss.com; and David Pastor of Gilman and Pastor, LLP, 60 State Street, 37th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-742-9700, Fax: 617-742- 9701, E-mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com. Representing the company is James R. Carroll of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, One Beacon Street, 31st Floor, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-573-4800, Fax: 617-573-4822, E-mail: jcarroll@skadden.com. BIRDS EYE: Recalls Winter Squash Due to Ammonia Contamination ------------------------------------------------------------- Birds Eye Foods is voluntarily recalling frozen Cooked Winter Squash packed in a 12-oz. carton, under certain store brands, and the Birds Eye brand, which have an eight digit code beginning with one of these characters: "5CF," "5JE" or "6JE," because some of these products were tainted with ammonia. After receiving consumer complaints -- fewer than a dozen -- about the squash, Birds Eye Foods initiated its established investigative process, including the involvement of a third party laboratory. On Nov. 17, that independent lab confirmed a problem with one store brand product. Therefore, as a precautionary measure, Birds Eye Foods is voluntarily recalling all the squash product codes mentioned while it works closely with the appropriate agencies to resolve the issue. No other Birds Eye Foods products are involved. "We will not take risks with our consumers," said Neil Harrison, Birds Eye Foods chairman, president and CEO. "Our primary concern is their health and welfare, and while we investigate the extent of the problem, it is in their best interest that we immediately recall the products." The presence of ammonia may cause headache, nausea, vomiting, and irritation of the throat. Consumers are advised not to consume the product but to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. The Birds Eye brand frozen Cooked Winter Squash codes in question as well as store brand labels are distributed nationally. In total, these brand and store brand products represent approximately three million packages sold. The Cooked Winter Squash was produced by a third party, Chase Farms, located in Walkerville, Michigan, which has ceased production and distribution for Birds Eye Foods while it continues to investigate the problem. "Like Birds Eye Foods," said Michael Chase, president of Chase Farms, "we see consumer safety as the most important part of our business. We will be working diligently to determine the cause of the issue and to assure it does not happen again." The brands and UPC codes included in the Cooked Squash recall are: -- Birds Eye, UPC 014500005168; -- Stop & Shop, UPC 688267009723; -- Shaw, UPC 045674504829; -- Price Chopper, UPC 041735303462; -- Lafe, UPC 023545071755; -- Shurfine, UPC 015400830621; -- Hannaford, UPC 041268111459; -- Flavorite, UPC 041130542541; -- Market Basket, UPC 049705630402; -- Wegmans, UPC 077890800874; -- Giant, UPC 688267009723; -- Tops, UPC 688267009723; -- Safeway, UPC 021130090372; -- IGA, UPC 041270497640; -- Roundy's UPC 011150548304; -- Remarkable, UPC 755566308618; and -- Dominicks, UPC 038281906285. Consumers with questions may call: 800-807-8817. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Back-Dated Option Grants ------------------------------------------------------------- Directors and former directors of Cablevision Systems were named defendants in a suit filed by Delaware law firm Grant & Eisenhofer on behalf of Cablevision shareholders over the company's disclosures this year that it had back-dated stock options granted to company executives, the Consultant reports. Named plaintiffs in the suit are: -- Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, -- the Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund, and -- two individual shareholders Plaintiffs' lawyer Stuart M. Grant said the teachers' group owns about 25,000 Cablevision shares and the Teamsters' Fund 7,470. The lawsuit alleges that Cablevision's former compensation- consulting firm -- Lyons Benenson & Co. of New York -- sat in on meetings where: -- grants of back-dated options were approved; -- received back-dated stock options itself; and -- received them from a stock-option plan designed for employees of Cablevision. The charges came in a complaint that consolidates previous lawsuits filed in New York State Supreme Court in Nassau County. New York Action In August 2003, a purported class action naming as defendants the company, directors and officers of Cablevision and certain current and former officers and employees of the company's Rainbow Media Holdings and American Movie Classics subsidiaries was filed in New York Supreme Court by the Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana (TRSL). The actions relate to the August 2002 Rainbow Media Group tracking stock exchange and allege, among other things, that the exchange ratio was based upon a price of the Rainbow Media Group tracking stock that was artificially deflated as a result of the improper recognition of certain expenses at the national services division of Rainbow Media Holdings. The complaint alleges breaches by the individual defendants of fiduciary duties. It also alleges breaches of contract and unjust enrichment by Cablevision. Thus, the complaint seeks monetary damages and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. On Oct. 31, 2003, Cablevision and other defendants moved to stay the action in favor of the previously filed actions pending in Delaware or, in the alternative, to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On June 10, 2004, the court stayed the action on the basis of the previously filed action in Delaware. TRSL subsequently filed a motion to vacate the stay in the New York action, and simultaneously filed a motion to intervene in the Delaware action and to stay that action. Cablevision opposed both motions. On April 19, 2005, the court in the Delaware action denied the motion to stay the Delaware action and granted TRSL's motion to intervene in it. On June 22, 2005, the court in the New York action denied TRSL's motion to vacate the stay in that action. Bethpage, New York-based Cablevision Systems, Corp. (NYSE: CVC) -- http://www.cablevision.com/-- is a cable operator in the U.S. that operates cable programming networks, entertainment businesses and telecommunications companies. Cablevision owns all of the outstanding common stock of CSC Holdings. Cablevision has no operations independent of its CSC Holdings subsidiary. Through wholly owned subsidiary, Rainbow Media Holdings LLC, the company owns interests in and manages national and regional programming networks, the Madison Square Garden sports and entertainment business, and cable television advertising sales companies. Through wholly owned subsidiary Cablevision Lightpath, Inc., the company provides telephone services and Internet access to the business market. The company classifies its business interests into three segments: Telecommunications Services, Rainbow and Madison Square Garden. CALIFORNIA: Ventura Strip-Search Case Refused High Court Review --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that finds the strip search policy of Ventura County as unconstitutional, The Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports. Previously, attorneys representing Ventura County in the civil case challenged the Ninth Circuit's ruling by filing a petition that asks the Supreme Court to strike down the decision. They contended that the strip-search policy is modeled on state laws and three Ninth Circuit decisions (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2006). After a scheduled Nov. 21 case conference, supreme court justices, without comment, left standing the Ninth Circuit's ruling, which held that the county cannot conduct the intrusive search when a suspect is charged with a misdemeanor offense of being under the influence of drugs, unless there is individualized suspicion that the accused is hiding contraband or the person is going to enter the general jail population. With the high court declining to review the appeals court decision, Alan Wisotsky, the attorney representing the county, explains that the case will now return to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for trial on damages, "or possibly mediation." Case Background The suit was brought on behalf of Noelle Way, former bartender, who was arrested by a Ventura police officer in September 2000 on suspicions of being under the influence of a controlled substance, a misdemeanor (Class Action Reporter, July 28, 2006). The officer took her to Ventura County Jail, where she went through the booking process, which, following jail security policy, included a strip search. Ms. Way tested negative for drugs, bailed out of jail and was never charged. In 2001, she sued the county over the strip search policy in a class action, "Noelle Way v. Ventura County, et al., Case No. 2:01-cv-05401-CBM-E." The county defended the policy on the basis of public safety needs and Penal Code Sec. 4030(a), which permits strip searches and bodily cavity inspections of misdemeanor suspects held on weapons, drug, or violence charges. However, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that a "blanket strip search" policy violated Ms. Way's Fourth Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure. It also found that neither Sheriff Bob Brooks nor the female deputy who conducted the search, were entitled to qualified immunity. In rejecting the immunity claim, Judge Marshall reasoned that the defendants should have known, based on prior Ninth Circuit decisions, that the policy would not pass constitutional muster. The Ninth Circuit in San Francisco upheld that decision in a 16- page ruling in April. The panel, composed of Judges Pamela Ann Rymer, Kim Wardlaw and Edward J. Reed, Jr., generally agreed that the policy was unconstitutional as applied. The panel though stated that the individual defendants acted in good faith and were entitled to qualified immunity, since the court had never specifically ruled as to whether the fact that someone was charged with being under the influence of drugs was enough to justify an intrusive search. The suit is "Noelle Way v. Ventura County, et al., Case No. 2:01-cv-05401-CBM-E," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Consuelo B. Marshall with referral to Judge Charles F. Eick. Representing the plaintiffs is Earnest C.S. Bell, Earnest C.S. Bell Law Offices, 3897 Market St., Ventura, CA 93003, Phone: 805-650-5458, Fax: 805-650-3778. Representing the defendants are Jeffrey Held and Alan E. Wisotsky of Alan E. Wisotsky Law Offices, 300 Esplanade Dr., Ste. 1500, Oxnard, CA 93036, Phone: 805-278-0920, Fax: 805-278- 0289. CHOICEPOINT INC: Gets Favorable Ruling in Calif. FCRA Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion by Choicepoint Inc. for a partial summary judgment in the suit "Harrington, et al. v ChoicePoint." The suit is a purported class action that resulted from the consolidation of four previously filed class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs' first amended consolidated class action complaint against ChoicePoint Inc. and three subsidiaries alleges violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and certain California statutes. The six named plaintiffs purport to bring the lawsuit on behalf of a national class of persons about whom ChoicePoint provided a consumer report as defined in the FCRA to rogue customers, as well as five California classes of affected persons. Plaintiffs seek actual, statutory and exemplary damages and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. Limited discovery was conducted and the company filed a motion for partial summary judgment on Aug. 10, 2006. The court granted that motion on Oct. 12, 2006. With respect to five of the named plaintiffs, the court dismissed the FCRA claims with prejudice and dismissed the other claims without prejudice. The FCRA and state law claims of one plaintiff remain pending. The suit is, "Jennifer Harrington v. Choicepoint Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-01294-MRP-JWJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer with referral to Judge Jeffrey W. Johnson. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Robert M. Bramson of Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, 2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120, Walnut Creek, CA 94598, Phone: 925-945-0200, E-mail: rbramson@bramsonplutzik.com; and (2) John Glugoski of Righetti & Wynne, 456 Montgomery St., Ste. 1400, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415-983- 0900, E-mail: jglugoski@righettilaw.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Laurie S Fulton of Williams & Connolly, 725 12th Street, Northwest, Washington, DC 20005-5901, Phone: 202-434-5787; (ii) Jeffrey A. Kent of Poindexter & Doutre, 624 S Grand Ave., Ste. 2420, Los Angeles, CA 90017-3325, Phone: 213-628-8297, E-mail: jkent@pdlawyers.com. CONNECTICUT RESOURCES: Trial Resumes in Lawsuit Over Enron Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- The trial of a class action against the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA), which was filed by a consortium of 70 cities and towns, has resumed, The Republican American reports. The suit was filed in Waterbury Superior Court against the regional trash authority over its attempt to pass to consumers the cost of a $220 million failed deal with now-defunct Enron Corp. It was originally filed by the cities of New Hartford and Barkhamsted. Trial in the suit started Nov. 13. CRRA entered into an agreement to loan Enron $220 million in exchange for some $28.5 million a year payment from Enron between 2001 to 2012 for operating a Hartford trash-to-energy plant, the power produced from which will be sold by Enron. But Enron filed for bankruptcy in 2001. The authority only recovered $111 million after the collapse. The consortium of Connecticut cities and towns is pushing ahead with the case, which seeks to recover at least $53 million that they claim was lost by the authority in the disastrous deal with Enron six years ago. The cities had agreements to dispose trash at the CRRA's Mid-Connecticut Project. In a ruling on March 22, which allowed the case to proceed, Judge Dennis G. Eveleigh said, "The court finds that several of the statements made by CRRA have been misleading, and that the existence of these statements has made it difficult, if not impossible" for the towns to join for the purposes of the suit. The judge cited letters written in 2004 and 2005 by CRRA President Thomas Kirk to the 70 municipalities in central Connecticut (Class Action Reporter, March 27, 2006). The judge said that CRRA misled the public by: -- saying the towns would have to shoulder costs of the lawsuit through increased disposal fees; -- it has substantial legal fees in defending itself in the lawsuit, without disclosing that insurance carriers had paid for most of those costs; and -- not telling them that costs incurred in making the failed $220 million loan to Enron potentially could be recouped through various indemnification agreements made with law firms advising the authority on the transaction. Overhauled by the state legislature in 2002, after Enron collapsed, CRRA argues that state law protects it from paying financial damages to its municipal members. Nearly all towns in Greater Waterbury and Northwestern Connecticut are parties to the suit, which was initiated two years ago by the town of New Hartford, according to plaintiffs' attorney David S. Golub. Despite the protracted legal dispute, CRRA continues to work with the 70 towns in the Mid-Connecticut Project and 48 others throughout the state on a daily basis, collecting and processing solid waste and recyclables. For more details, contact David S. Golub of Silver Golub & Teitell, LLP, 184 Atlantic Street, P.O. Box 389, Stamford, Connecticut 06904, (Fairfield Co.), Phone: 203-325-4491; Fax: 203-325-3769. CONNETICS CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif., N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is conducting an investigation into potential securities law violations by the Connetics Corp. and/or current and former officers, directors and employees. The company has received and responded to multiple subpoenas and requests for information, most recently a document subpoena dated Oct. 6, 2006, to which the company has responded. The SEC investigation is ongoing. In relation to this, the company is facing these purported class action litigations: (1) "Plumbers & Pipefitters Local #562 Pension Fund vs. Connetics Corp., Thomas G. Wiggans, C. Gregory Vontz, and Alexander J. Yaroshinsky (N.D. Cal. Case No. 06-5691 PJH)." On Sept. 18, 2006, a purported shareholder class action complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased common stock of the company between June 28, 2004 and May 3, 2006, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint names the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors as defendants, and is pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. (2) "Almar T. Widiger Living Trust vs. Connetics Corp., Thomas G. Wiggans, C. Gregory Vontz, and Alexander J. Yaroshinsky (N.D. Cal. Case No. 06-06250 VRW)." On Oct. 4, 2006, a purported shareholder class action complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased common stock of the company between June 28, 2004 and July 9, 2006, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint names the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors as defendants, and is pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. (3) "Fishbury, Ltd. vs. Connetics Corp., Thomas G. Wiggans, C. Gregory Vontz, and Alexander J. Yaroshinsky (S.D. N.Y. Case No. 06-CV-11496)." On Oct. 31, 2006, a purported shareholder class action complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased common stock of the company between June 28, 2004 and July 9, 2006, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint names the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors as defendants, and is pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. (4) "Bruce Gallant vs. Connetics Corp., Thomas G. Wiggans, C. Gregory Vontz, and Alexander J. Yaroshinsky (S.D. N.Y. Case No. 06-CV-12875)." On Nov. 2, 2006, a purported shareholder class action complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased common stock of the company between June 28, 2004 and July 9, 2006, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint names the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors as defendants, and is pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. CV THERAPEUTICS: Settles Calif. Securities Fraud Suit for $13.5M ---------------------------------------------------------------- CV Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors reached a preliminary agreement to settle for $13.5 million a consolidated securities class action pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Several suits were initially filed on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's securities, seeking unspecified damages. As is typical in this type of litigation, several other purported securities class actions containing substantially similar allegations have since been filed against the defendants, and the company expects that additional lawsuits containing substantially similar allegations may be filed in the future. In Nov. 2003, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and in December 2003, the court consolidated all of the securities class actions filed to date into a single action, "In re CV Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation." In January 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. The company and the other named defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint in March 2004. In August 2004, these motions were granted in part and denied in part. The ourt granted the motions to dismiss by two individual defendants, dismissing both individuals from the action with prejudice, but denied the motions to dismiss by the company and the two other individual defendants. After the motion to dismiss was decided, this action entered the discovery phase. In October 2006, the company's reached a preliminary agreement to settle this action. Under the terms of the preliminary agreement, the company's insurers will pay an aggregate of $13.5 million to settle all claims and to pay the court-approved fees of plaintiff's counsel. The defendants will receive a complete release of all claims and expressly deny any wrongdoing. The preliminary agreement is subject to standard conditions, including final court approval. There can be no assurance that final court approval will be obtained. Separately, the company's will participate in dispute resolution proceedings with an insurer over whether or not the company's will reimburse that insurer for a portion of the insurer's contribution to the settlement. The amount of the company's reimbursement will not exceed $2.25 million, and may be a lesser amount or zero. The timing of these dispute resolution proceedings has not been determined. The suit is "In Re: CV Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 03-CV-03709," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Susan Illston. Plaintiff firms named in the complaint were: (1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin, LLP, Phone: 415.288.4545 and 619.231.1058, Fax: 415.288.4534 and 619.231.7423, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com; and (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP, Phone: 415.288.4545 and 800.449.4900, Fax: 415.288.4534, E- mail: support@milberg.com. GENESEE & WYOMING: Rail Yard Case Settlement Conference Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in a class action over noise pollution pending against Genesee & Wyoming, Inc. in the Quebec Superior Court has requested a settlement conference prior to commencing proceedings on the merits of his claim. On February 2002, an individual living adjacent to the Outremont rail yard filed a motion for authorization of class certification in the Quebec Superior Court in Canada in connection with a claim against: -- two of the company's subsidiaries: * Genesee Rail-One Inc., now Genesee & Wyoming Canada Inc., and * Quebec-Gatineau Railway Inc.; and -- Canadian Pacific Railways, which owns the rail yard. The individual alleged that the noise emanating from the Outremont rail yard causes significant nuisance problems to the residents who live near the rail yard. The rail yard has a part of it leased to and operated by Quebec-Gatineau Railway. The plaintiff described the proposed class as comprised of all owners and tenants of dwellings who have lived within a defined section of the Outremont neighborhood in Montreal, which is adjacent to the rail yard. Plaintiff requested the issuance of an injunction in order to limit the hours when the rail yard may operate. The plaintiff has not alleged any specific monetary claim with respect to the damages of other members of the class, but is seeking to recover for his "trouble and inconvenience" as well as for "potential devaluation of the value of his property." On May 27, 2004, the Quebec Superior Court dismissed the plaintiff's request to institute the class action, and the plaintiff filed an appeal with Quebec Court of Appeal. On Nov. 11, 2005, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the Quebec Superior Court's finding a class could not be certified, but noted the proposed class could only include owners and tenants within the defined geographic area since 1999. This case was remanded back to the same judge who previously dismissed the plaintiff's request to institute a class action. On Jan. 9, 2006, Genesee & Wyoming Canada Inc., Quebec-Gatineau Railway and CP filed applications for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision to allow the class action to proceed. On May 18, 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision, rejected the application for leave and remanded the matter back to the Quebec Superior Court, where the class action will be heard in accordance with the ruling of the Quebec Court of Appeal. The plaintiff published notices of the class action in local newspapers on June 7, 2006. On June 26, 2006, the plaintiff filed a Bill of Costs before the Quebec Court of Appeal and was awarded immaterial costs. The plaintiff has not yet commenced proceedings on the merits of the underlying claim and has requested a settlement conference be held prior to any proceedings being instituted. The settlement conference is expected to take place by early 2007. HALLIBURTON CO: AMSF Wants to Replace Stock Suit Lead Attorney -------------------------------------------------------------- The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF), the lead plaintiff in the securities fraud lawsuit against Halliburton Co., has asked a Texas federal court to replace William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, as the lead attorney in the case. In what has been described by legal observers as an unusual move, AMSF filed a motion on Nov. 22, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that seeks to have Mr. Lerach and his firm replaced with David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, according to a report by Forbes. AMSF cited in its motion that its relationship with Mr. Lerach's San Diego firm has "deteriorated to the point that substitution of new counsel is required." According to Mr. Neil Rothstein, an attorney who is advising the AMSF, it was concerned that Mr. Lerach's own mounting legal difficulties might pose a conflict with the estimated 800,000 shareholders in this case. Previously, two partners of Mr. Lerach's former firm have been indicted for paying clients to participate in securities lawsuits, and Mr. Lerach himself has been investigated by a grand jury. A trial on the indictment has been slated for Jan. 8, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 29, 2006). Case Background In June 2002, a class action was filed against the company in federal court on behalf of purchasers of its common stock during approximately May 1998 until approximately May 2002. Defendants in the suit are Halliburton Co., David J. Lesar, Douglas L. Foshee, Gary V. Morris, and Robert Charles Muchmore, Jr. The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the accounting change and disclosures involved in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation. In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the company overstated its revenue from unapproved claims by recognizing amounts not reasonably estimable or probable of collection. In the weeks that followed, approximately 20 similar class actions were filed against the company. Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants Arthur Andersen LLP, the company's independent accountants for the period covered by the lawsuits, and several of the company's present or former officers and directors. The class actions were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint was named, "Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al.," which was filed and served upon the company in April 2003. In early May 2003, the company announced that it entered into a written memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms upon which the Moore class action would be settled. In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs in the Moore class action filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint includes claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc. by Halliburton, including that the company failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure (Dresser claims). The Dresser claims were included in the settlement discussions leading up to the signing of the memorandum of understanding and were among the claims the parties intended to have resolved by the terms of the proposed settlement of the consolidated Moore class action and the derivative action. The memorandum of understanding called for Halliburton Co. to pay $6 million, which would be funded by insurance proceeds. In June 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Following the transfer of the case to another district judge and a final hearing on the fairness of the settlement, the court entered an order in September 2004 holding that evidence of the settlement's fairness was inadequate, denying the motion for final approval of the settlement in the Moore class action, and ordering the parties, among others, to mediate. After the court's denial of the motion to approve the settlement, the company withdrew from the settlement, as it believes that it is entitled to do by its terms. The mediation was held in January 2005, but was declared by the mediator to be at an impasse with no settlement having been reached. In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and a new lead plaintiff, directed that they file a third consolidated amended complaint, and that the company file motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under advisement. On Mar. 14, 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims while permitting the plaintiffs to re-plead those claims to correct deficiencies in their earlier complaint. With respect to those issues regarding which the court denied the motion, the company requested that the court certify its order for interlocutory appeal. On Apr. 4, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their fourth amended consolidated complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that have been repled. A hearing was held on the motion to dismiss in July 2006, and the company awaits the court's ruling. Mr. Lerach's Involvement Mr. Lerach got involved in the case in 2005 after three other law firms withdrew amid fierce criticism of the $6 million settlement they negotiated without consulting AMSF, which was supposedly in control of the litigation. The law firms would have received more than half the proceeds in fees, while an investor with 100 shares would have received as little as 62 cents. Apparently, as late as June 2006, Mr. Lerach still had the support of the AMSF. At that time, Judge Barbara Lynn asked the firm to explain why Mr. Lerach sought to add pension funds affiliated with the laborers and plumbers and pipefitters unions, as well as the City of Dearborn Heights, Michigan -- all frequent Lerach Coughlin clients -- as "non-Lead plaintiffs." The suit is "The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc., et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01152," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Richard S. Schiffrin of Schiffrin & Barroway - Radnor, 280 King of Prussia Rd, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610- 667-7706, Fax: 610/667-7056; (2) Marc R. Stanley, Stanley Mandel & Iola, 3100 Monticello Ave, Suite 750, Dallas, TX 75205, Phone: 214/443-4301, Fax: 214/443-0358, E-mail: mstanley@smi-law.com; and (3) Thomas Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, 270 Madison Ave, Ninth Floor, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212/545-4600. Representing the company is Thomas E Bilek of Hoeffner & Bilek, 1000 Louisiana St, Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713/227-7720, Fax: 713/227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com. For more details, contact David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 333 Main Street, Armonk, New York 10504, (Westchester Co.), Phone: 914-749-8200, Fax: 914-749-8300, Web site: http://www.bsfllp.com. HONEYBAKED FOODS: Recalls Ham, Turkey for Listeria Contamination ---------------------------------------------------------------- HoneyBaked Foods Inc., of Holland, Ohio, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 46,941 lbs. of cooked ham and turkey products that may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. The following products are subject to recall: -- 6- to 11-pound packages of "Sliced & Glazed Fully Cooked Half Ham." Each package bears the establishment number "EST. 15875" inside the USDA mark of inspection. Each label also bears a package code between "6261" and "6310." -- 12- to 16- pound packages of "Sliced & Glazed Fully Cooked Whole Ham." Each package bears the establishment number "EST. 15875" inside the USDA mark of inspection. Each label also bears a package code between "6261" and "6310." -- 3-pound approximate weight packages of "Sliced and Glazed Cooked Boneless Turkey Breast." Each package bears the establishment number "P-15875" inside the USDA mark of inspection. Each label also bears the product code "30505 02099", as well as a package code between "6248" and "6258." -- 3-pound approximate weight packages of "Sliced and Glazed Fully Cooked Smoked Boneless Turkey Breast." Each package bears the establishment number "P-15875" inside the USDA mark of inspection. Each label also bears the product code "30504 02099", as well as a package code between "6248" and "6258." The ham and turkey labels also stated "Dist. by Honeybaked Foods Inc., Holland, OH 49528." The ham and turkey products were produced between Sept. 5 and Nov. 13, and were sold at the company's retail stores and kiosks in the Toledo, Ohio, region, as well as through internet and telephone catalogue sales nationwide. HoneyBaked Foods Inc. has contacted catalogue sale customers who purchased products subject to recall. The problem was discovered through the company's microbiological testing. FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of this product. Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease. Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis. However, listeriosis can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and nausea. Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths, as well as serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with weakened immune systems, such as infants, the elderly and persons with HIV infection or undergoing chemotherapy. Consumers with questions about the recall should contact company Customer Service Hotline at (800) 461-3998. Media with questions about the recall should contact company Vice President of Public Affairs, Crises and Issues Management Steve Behm at (800) 461-4105. ILLINOIS: Ex-Teacher Sues Chicago Public Schools Over Info Leak --------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Public Schools faces a purported class action in Cook County Circuit Court over the accidental release of Social Security numbers and other personal data belonging to nearly 1,740 former public school employees Filed on Nov. 27, 2006 by Mark Cohen, a former teacher, the suit is alleging that the release has left him and other former employees vulnerable to identity theft. Local attorney Robert A. Holstein is representing Mr. Cohen in the case. The suit is seeking certification as a class action, alleging that the error violated two state statutes and the privacy rights of the almost former teachers. Defendants in the case, included: -- the school district, -- Chicago Board of Education, and -- printing contractor All Printing & Graphics Inc. of Broadview. Last week, All Printing, the printing contractor for the Chicago schools apologized for mailing the data as part of a packet of health-insurance information sent to retirees and other former employees. According to Chicago school officials, the company mailed a spreadsheet used to make mailing labels, thinking it was a list of health-care providers. However, the suit alleges that Mr. Cohen and others already have been "irreparably injured" by having their private data sent "with reckless abandon to unauthorized persons." Mr. Cohen seeks a court order that would force the defendants to pay an unspecified amount into a fund, which could then be used to compensate any former employees who are harmed because of the error. He also wants the school district to immediately stop distributing documents containing Social Security numbers. For more details, contact Robert A. Holstein, 100 W. Randolph St., Ste. 7-900, Chicago, IL 60601-3218, Phone: (312) 906-8000. INFOUSA INC: Court Dismisses Shareholder Fiduciary Breach Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County dismissed without prejudice a lawsuit filed by Cardinal Value Equity Partners, L.P., which beneficially owns 6.1% of the infoUSA Inc.'s stock, against certain directors of the company including Vinod Gupta. The lawsuit was filed on February 2006 as a derivative action on behalf of the company and as a class action on behalf of Cardinal Value Equity Partners, L.P. and other shareholders. It asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and seeks an order that would require the company to reinstate the special committee of directors. The special committee was formed to consider a proposal from Mr. Gupta to acquire the shares of the company not owned by him and was dissolved in August 2005 following Mr. Gupta's withdrawal of his proposal. The suit seeks an order awarding the company and the class unspecified damages. In May 2006, Cardinal amended its complaint to add several new allegations and named two additional directors of the company as defendants. The company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On Oct. 17, 2006, the court granted that motion and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. The court's order permits Cardinal to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the order. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: $12.4M Price-Fixing Suit Deal Gets Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina approved a $12.4 million settlement of a price-fixing class suit filed against International Paper Co. In 2002, a group of private landowners filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina against International Paper alleging that the company and certain of its fiber suppliers, known as "Quality Suppliers," engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to artificially depress the prices at which International Paper procures fibers for its mills. On March 31, 2004, the case was certified as a class action. The suit seeks injunctive relief as well as treble damages and other costs associated with the litigation. The company denies all claims asserted in the lawsuit and maintains its supplier program didn't violate any antitrust laws. It agreed to the settlement to avoid further expense, inconvenience and burden of litigation. An order from the Federal District Court in Columbia, South Carolina approving the settlement was issued on Sept. 27, 2006. The class is defined as: -- all persons, firms, corporations and other entities who sold pulpwood, or the rights to harvest pulpwood, to or through International Paper's Quality Suppliers; -- where such pulpwood was pre-priced by International Paper and a Quality Supplier and a price was agreed to between the timber seller and Quality Supplier between Sept. 1, 2000 and June 27, 2002; -- the tract was "baseloaded" under the Quality Supplier Program; -- in the states where International Paper implemented the alleged price-fixing conspiracy, including South Carolina, North Carolina, and portions of Georgia and Virginia. A copy of the settlement agreement is available for free at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?f25 The suit is "Crane, et al. v. Intl Paper Co, et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-03352-CMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina under Judge Cameron M. Currie. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Jacquelyn Lee Bartley of Jacquelyn L Bartley Law Office, PO Box 11896, Columbia, SC 29211, Phone: 803- 376-1260, Fax: 803-376-1557, E-mail: jlbartley@bellsouth.net; and (2) Russell Thomas Burke and John F Emerson both of Nexsen Pruet Jacobs and Pollard, PO Drawer 2426, Columbia, SC 29202, Phone: 803-771-8900, Fax: 803-253-8277, E-mail: rburke@nexsenpruet.com or jemerson@nexsenpruet.com. Representing the defendants are: (1) Kevin Kendrick Bell of Robinson McFadden and Moore, PO Box 944, Columbia, SC 29202, Phone: 803-779-8900, Fax: 803-252-0724, E-mail: kbell@robinsonlaw.com; (2) Craig Thomas Cronheim of Hogan and Hartson, Columbia Square, 555 13th Street NW, Suite 12W-303, Washington, DC 20004-1109, Phone: 202-637-6853; (3) Paul Madison Eckles of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom, Four Times Square, New York, NY 10036, Phone: 212-735-3000, E-mail: pmeckles@skadden.com; and (4) Andrew Kenneth Epting, Jr. of Pratt-Thomas Pearce Epting and Walker, PO Box 22247, Charleston, SC 29413- 2247, Phone: 843-727-2207, Fax: 843-727-2236, E-mail: ake@wiselaw.com. LOS ALAMOS: New Mex. Court Delays Bias Suit Settlement Hearing -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico postponed an Oct. 31 hearing on the settlement of the discrimination case filed against Los Alamos National Laboratory because of court- scheduling conflicts, the Associated Press reports. A rescheduled final approval hearing date is yet to be determined. Attorney John Bienvenu, who is representing current and former Los Alamos National Laboratory employees in the discrimination case said a hitch in the court approval of the suit settlement means more people will have time to file claims. Key issues in the dispute include the way attorney's fees would be handled under the agreement. State District Judge William Johnson now wants more information from workers who object to the proposed settlement. Laurie Quon and her attorneys contend that the terms of the agreement, which release the lab from future discrimination claims, are too broad, and that requested attorneys fees of $5.8 million are excessive, the report said. The amount in attorney's fees has not been set, but Mr. Bienvenu has said the fees will not exceed $5.8 million. On Dec. 10, 2003, Veronique A. Longmire and Laura Barber filed a complaint alleging violation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and breach of contract in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, on their own behalf and as representatives of a class of similarly situated employees at the Laboratory. The suit is "Veronique A. Longmire and Laura Barber et al v. Regents of the University of California d/b/a Los Alamos National Laboratory, No. CIV-03-1404 WJ/RLP." On Jan. 6, 2004, a second lawsuit was filed in Rio Arriba County District Court by Yolanda Garcia, Loyda Martinez, Gloria A. Bennett, Yvonne Ebelacker, Hispanic Roundtable of New Mexico, and University Professional & Technical Employees CWA 9119 (AFL- CIO) alleging violation of the EPA, breach of contract and other claims. The Garcia Action is "Yolanda Garcia e. al. v. Regents of the University of California d/b/a Los Alamos National Laboratory et al., No. CIV-04-112 WJ/RLP." The Garcia Action was removed and consolidated with the Barber Action to become the Consolidated Actions. The plaintiffs in the consolidated actions claim that the Regents, which operates and manages the Laboratory, and G. Peter Nanos, discriminated against female and Hispanic employees in terms of pay, promotion, educational opportunities, and other terms and conditions of employment. Specifically, the consolidated actions allege these causes of action against the Regents: -- violations of the EPA, 29 U.S.C. Section 206(d); -- violations of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; -- violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"); -- violations of the New Mexico Human Rights Act, as amended, NMSA 1978, Section 28-1-1 et seq. (the "NMHRA"); and -- breach of contract. The consolidated actions seek unspecified damages for lost earnings and benefits, emotional distress damages, liquidated damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, in addition to certain injunctive and declaratory relief. On June 1, 2006, upon the stipulation of the parties, the court granted certification of a class pursuant to Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class consists of all females and Hispanics employed by the Regents of the University of California at the Laboratory who are or were regular, limited-term or short-term employees at any time between Dec. 10, 2000, and the preliminary approval date of the settlement agreement. The court also granted certification of the EPA claims as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). A proposed settlement reached between the class Representatives on behalf of themselves and the class and the Regents, entered on June 1, 2006 provides that the Regents will pay $12 million, not including attorneys' fees and costs to be determined, in settlement of the consolidated actions. The District Court has granted preliminary approval to the parties' Settlement Agreement, authorizing notice of the settlement to be sent to persons who may be members of the class. The Regents continues to deny liability. A final approval hearing was set Oct. 31, but was postponed. The parties plan to consult the court regarding an extension of the claims submission deadline. Los Alamos National Laboratory Settlement on the net: http://www.lanlclassactionsettlement.com./index.htm A copy of the Settlement Notice is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?15e9 The court-appointed Class Counsels are: (1) Patrick D. Allen of Yenson, Lynn, Allen & Wosick, 4908 Alameda Blvd., NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113, Phone: (505) 266-3995; (2) Michael J. Flannery of Carey & Danis, 8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63105, Phone: (314) 725-7700; and (3) John C. Bienvenu of Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienvenu, P.O. Box 8180, Santa Fe, NM 87504-8180, Phone: (505) 988-8004. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Dec. 5 ------------------------------------------------------------- Roy Jacobs & Associates reminds that all motions for appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock and other securities of Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. from Oct. 3, 2001 through Oct. 3, 2006 must be filed with the court by Dec. 5, 2006. The complaint alleges that Marvell and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the backdating of the grant of stock options to management. The practice of manipulating stock option dates not only potentially lines the pockets of the executives, but here resulted in the overstatement of Marvell's earnings during the Class Period, and the under-booking of compensation expenses. Under accounting rules, back-dating an option grant is deemed the payment of additional compensation and must be accounted for as an expense, which Marvell failed to do. On Oct. 3, 2006, the defendants announced that the company would be forced to restate its financial statements to correct for the backdating of stock options. From the time that assertions were first made in the press that Marvell's options practices might be questionable to the date of this announcement, Marvell stock sank from over $28 per share to roughly $16 per share, and has not recovered. The company has now said that its financial statements from June of 2000 to the present cannot be relied upon, and that it will be restating financial results. For more information, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs & Associates, Phone: (888) 884-4490, E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com. MERCURY INSURANCE: Settles Calif. Suit Over Premium Calculation --------------------------------------------------------------- Mercury Insurance Co. reached an agreement to settle a suit claiming that the company's calculation of persistency discounts to determine premiums is an unfair business practice. Sam Donabedian filed the suit, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, on April 20, 2001 in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The suit asserts, among other things, a claim that the company's calculation of persistency discounts to determine premiums is an unfair business practice, a violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The company originally prevailed on a demurrer to the complaint and the case was dismissed, however, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling, deciding that the California Insurance Commissioner does not have the exclusive right to review the calculation of insurance rates/premiums. After filing two additional pleadings, on June 28, 2005, the plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint asserting claims for violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (the CLRA claim previously had been dismissed with prejudice). Plaintiff again sought injunctive relief, unspecified restitution and monetary damages as well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Without leave of court, the plaintiff has attempted to state claims for breach of contract and fraud. The company filed a demurrer and motion to strike certain portions of the plaintiff's fourth amended complaint. Following a hearing on Sept. 19, 2005, the court took the matter under submission. While the motions were under submission, counsel for the plaintiff asked that Mercury engage in settlement discussions. The court agreed to stay the matter and counsel for the plaintiff and the company met on several occasions to seek resolution, but none was reached. The court ordered the parties to a settlement conference before another judge. On Aug. 1, 2006, following three settlement conferences, the company and the plaintiff reached a preliminary settlement which is subject to completion of the class approval process and may be subject to objections, which would be reviewed by the court. A hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and temporary and conditional class certification was held on Oct. 30, 2006. The California Department of Insurance raised additional issues for the court's consideration and the hearing was continued until Dec. 19, 2006. If the proposed settlement is approved, the company will issue a $65 Rebate Certificate to each prospective class member who does not opt out of the class. The class member could apply the certificate toward the purchase of a new policy, and not a renewal, from the company or transfer it to a third party who is not a broker or agent. The $65 rebate would be offset against the future related gross premium if and when the certificate is redeemed. POTTERY BARN: Recalls Gourd Candles Posing Fire, Burn Hazards ------------------------------------------------------------- Pottery Barn, of San Francisco, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 68,000 units of gourd candles. The company said the gourd candles can have excessive flame height and could fail to self-extinguish when burning down to the bottom of the candle, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers. No injuries were reported. This recall involves five styles of individual gourd-shaped candles and a set of eight mini-gourd candles. The style number for the candles can be found on the price ticket, receipt or shipping invoice. Gourd-Shaped Candles Style Number Price Medium Dark Green Gourd 6249403 $12 Long Tan Gourd that is butternut 6278204 $16 squash-shaped with two wicks Tall Beige Gourd 6841803 $16 Tall Dark Green Gourd 8119265 $19 Medium, Light Green Gourd 8119331 $12 A set of eight Mini Gourd candles 8117798 $24 that contains two white, two green and four beige candles These recalled gourd candles were manufactured in Vietnam and are being sold at Pottery Barn stores nationwide, the Pottery Barn catalog and PotteryBarn.com from September 2006 through October 2006 for between $12 and $24. Picture of the recalled gourd candles: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07038.jpg Pottery Barn on the Net: http://www.potterybarn.com SMITH BARNEY: Financial Advisors Amend Sex Bias Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Five female financial advisors filed an amended class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, charging sex discrimination at Smith Barney, the retail brokerage arm of Citigroup Inc. The filing amends a class action complaint filed in March of last year by adding additional plaintiffs from Southern California and Florida, and amplifies the allegations in the original class action complaint. "Today, two more women, from two more Smith Barney branches, have come forward to join the class action gender discrimination lawsuit against the company. Their stories confirm the allegations of the complaint that female financial advisors are not treated fairly and are denied compensation at Smith Barney branches from coast to coast," said Kelly Dermody of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein in San Francisco, California, one of the firms representing the plaintiffs. Adam Klein, of Outten & Golden, LLP in New York City, another of the plaintiffs' attorneys, explained, "These courageous women have come forward to hold Smith Barney accountable for treating female brokers like second-class citizens. We are long past the day when 100% effort means 70% pay for women in the workplace." The original plaintiffs -- Renee Fassbender-Amochaev, Deborah Orlando and Kathryn N. Varner, and two new plaintiffs, Ivy So and Lisa Strange Weatherby -- claim they were discriminated against with respect to their compensation at Smith Barney. Specifically, the women allege that Smith Barney: -- systemically discriminates against women in allocating business opportunities; -- discriminates in the account distribution process, routinely assigning smaller and less valuable accounts to female brokers, including those who outperform their male counterparts, than to male brokers; -- fails to provide women with the same level of sales support, administrative support, and other support as it provides to men; and -- maintains a corporate culture hostile to female professionals. Cyrus Mehri of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC in Washington, DC, who also represents the plaintiffs, said, "Smith Barney's corporate practices foster a good old boy culture, where men receive a disproportionate share of business opportunities. By bringing this case, these women will ultimately be a catalyst for systemic change." Since the original complaint was filed, the plaintiffs have had several important victories in the case. Discovery Most recently, the plaintiffs were successful in forcing Smith Barney to turn over many documents that may help prove their case, including documents that Smith Barney sought to withhold from a prior gender discrimination case against Smith Barney, Martens v. Smith Barney, Inc., which settled in 1998. Specifically, on Oct. 20, 2006, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero ordered Smith Barney to produce transcripts and expert reports from the Martens case, as well as some of the claims filed in that case by female brokers -- a huge victory for the plaintiffs and the class. Plaintiffs' counsel believes these documents will demonstrate a history and culture of inequality toward women at Smith Barney that persists today; assist the plaintiffs in understanding Smith Barney's current policies and procedures; and educate the plaintiffs about the types of policies and practices that led to past gender-related complaints, and the procedures Smith Barney implemented, or failed to implement, to address such complaints. Venue The plaintiffs successfully resisted efforts by Smith Barney to transfer the case to a judge in New York City that retained jurisdiction over a prior case filed against Smith Barney. The plaintiffs' victory on this motion ensures the case will stay in San Francisco, California, in the court where it was originally filed. Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Smith Barney on the net: http://www.genderlawsuitagainstsmithbarney.com. The suit is "Amochaev et al v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Case No. 3:05-cv-01298-PJH," filed in the U.S. District court for the Northern District of California under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, with referral to Judge Joseph C. Spero. Representing plaintiffs are: (1) Elizabeth A. Alexander of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 3319 West End Avenue, Suite 600, Nashville, TN 37203-1074, Phone: 615-313-9000, E-mail: ealexander@lchb.com; (2) Kelly M. Dermody, James M. Finberg and Bill Lann Lee all of Leiff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111- 3339, Phone: 415-956-1000, Fax: 415-956-1008, E-mail: kdermody@lchb.com or JFinberg@lchb.com or blee@lchb.com; (3) Lisa M. Bornstein, Sandi Farrell, Cyrus Mehri and Anna M. Pohl all of Mehri & Skalet PLLC, 1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: 202- 822-5100, Fax: 202-822-4997, E-mail: lbornstein@findjustice.com or cmehri@findjustice.com; (4) Piper Hoffman, Adam T. Klein and Justin M. Swartz all of Outten & Golden LLP, 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-245-1000, Fax: 212-977-4005, E-mail: ph@outtengolden.com or jms@outtengolden.com; and (5) Heather Huynh Wong, 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-956-1000 x2150, E-mail: hwong@lchb.com. Representing defendants are: (1) Jay Cohen, Beth Susan Frank, Brad S. Karp, Audra Jan Soloway and Daniel John Toal all of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, 1285 Avenue of Americas, New York, NY 10019-6064, Phone: 212-373-3000 or 212-373- 3163 or 212-373-3550 or 212-373-3869; Fax: 212-373-2399 or 212-492-0550 or 212-492-0289 or 212-373-2773, E- mail: jaycohen@paulweiss.com or bfrank@paulweiss.com or asoloway@paulweiss.com or dtoal@paulweiss.com; and (2) Malcolm A. Heinicke of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105- 2907, Phone: 415-512-4000, Fax: 415-512-4077, E-mail: heinickema@mto.com. SRAM MANUFACTURERS: Mich. Resident Files Price-Fixing Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Several Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) manufacturers were named as defendants in a purported antitrust class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, engadget.com reports. Michigan resident Kenneth Bagwell filed the suit on Nov. 21, 2006, claiming the defendants conspired to "fix, maintain or stabilize prices and to allocate markets for the sale of SRAM." The suit was brought on behalf of a purported class of individuals and businesses entities that purchased SRAM indirectly from defendants, their predecessors, or their controlled subsidiaries and affiliates, during the period from Jan. 1, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2005. Named as defendants in the suit are: -- Alliance Semiconductor Corp., -- Cypress Semiconductor Corp., -- Etron Technology, Inc., -- Etron Technology America, Inc., -- GSI Technology, Inc., -- Hitachi, Ltd., -- Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., -- Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc., -- Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc., -- Micron Technology, Inc., -- Crucial Technology, Inc. -- Mitsubishi Electric Corp., -- Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc., -- NEC Electronics Corp., -- NEC Electronics America, Inc., -- Renesas Technology Corp., -- Renesas Technology America, Inc., -- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., -- Samsung Electronics America, -- Sony Corp., -- Sony Electronics, Inc., -- Toshiba Corp., -- Toshiba America Electronic Components, -- Winbond Electronics Corp., -- Winbond Electronics Corp. America, -- Fujitsu, Ltd., -- Fujitsu American, Inc., -- International Business Machines Corp., -- IBM Microelectronics, Ltd., -- Seiko Epson Corp., -- Epson America, Inc., -- Epson Electronics America, Inc., -- Sharp Corp., -- Sharp Electronics Corp., -- STMicroelectronics N.V., and -- STMicroelectronics, Inc., A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?161a The suit is "Bagwell v. Alliance Semiconductor Corp. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00825-RAE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan under Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen. Representing the plaintiff is Marc L. Newman of The Miller Law Firm, PC, 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300, Rochester, MI 48307, Phone: (248) 841-2200, E-mail: mln@millerlawpc.com. TRUSTSTREET PROPERTIES: No Order Yet on "Lewis" Dismissal Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals has yet to rule on a motion challenging the dismissal of a purported class action filed against Trustreet Properties, Inc. in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas. On Jan. 18, 2005, Robert Lewis and Sutter Acquisition Fund, LLC, two limited partners in the Income Funds, filed a class action on behalf of the limited partners of the Income Funds against: -- Trustreet Properties, Inc., -- CNL Restaurant Properties, Inc. (CNLRP), -- the Income Funds, -- the general partners of the Income Funds, -- CNL Restaurant Investments, Inc., and -- CNL Restaurant Capital Corp. in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Cause No. 05- 00083). The complaint alleged that the general partners of the Income Funds breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed mergers between the Income Funds and subsidiaries of the operating partnership of the company and that the company and CNLRP aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. It further alleged that the Income Funds' general partners violated provisions of the Income Funds' partnership agreements and demanded an accounting as to the affairs of the Income Funds. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and exemplary damages and equitable relief, including an injunction of the Mergers. On Apr. 26, 2005, a supplemental plea to jurisdiction hearing was held with a ruling expected May 13, 2005. On May 2, 2005, the plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to add allegations that the general partners of the Income Funds, with CNLRP and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc., prepared and distributed a false and misleading final proxy statement filing to the limited partners of the Income Funds and the shareholders of CNLRP and USRP. On May 26, 2005, the court entered a final order dismissing action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On June 22, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the order of dismissal. On Sept. 7, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an appellant's brief. At the same time, the company and the other defendants filed their Brief of Appellees.' On Dec. 12, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their Appellants' Reply Brief. On Sept. 21, 2006, the plaintiffs submitted a letter brief to the Court of Appeals setting forth additional arguments; the defendants filed a responsive letter brief on Sept. 25, 2006. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on Sept. 27, 2006. As of Nov. 8, 2006, the Court of Appeals has not yet issued its decision. TRUSTREET PROPERTIES: Faces Lawsuit in Md. Over GE Merger Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- Trustreet Properties Inc. is facing a purported class action in relation to a merger plan it entered into with an affiliate of General Electric Capital Corp. on Oct. 30. On Oct. 31, 2006, a purported shareholder class action related to the GE Merger Agreement was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland naming the company, each of its directors and GE Capital Solutions as defendants. The lawsuit, "Dr. Hila Louise-Chashin-Simon Foundation, Inc. v. Trustreet Properties, Inc., et al (Case No. 24-C06-008654)," alleges, among other things, that $17.05 per share in cash to be paid to the holders of company common stock in connection with the GE Merger is inadequate, that: -- the individual director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of the company in negotiating and approving the GE Merger; -- that GE Capital Solutions aided and abetted the director defendants in such alleged breach and that all defendants conspired in such breach. The complaint seeks these relief: -- declaring that the lawsuit is properly maintainable as a class action and certification of the plaintiff as a class representative; -- declaring that the director defendants have breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff and other members of the class, that GE Capital Solutions aided and abetted such breaches and that all defendants conspired in such breaches; -- enjoining the GE Merger and, if such transaction is consummated, rescinding the transaction; -- appropriate damages; and -- awarding attorneys' and experts' fees to the plaintiff. UAL CORP: High Court Review of ESOP Complaint Dismissal Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the suit, "Summers v. UAL Corp. ESOP, et. al." asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the underlying claims in the case. Certain participants in the UAL Corp. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) sued the ESOP, the ESOP Committee and State Street Bank and Trust company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in February 2003. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages in a purported class action that alleges that the ESOP Committee breached its fiduciary duty by not selling UAL stock held by the ESOP commencing as of July 19, 2001. The ESOP Committee appointed State Street in September 2002 to act as investment manager and fiduciary to manage the assets of the ESOP itself. In August 2005, a proposed settlement was reached between the plaintiffs and the ESOP Committee defendants. The agreed upon settlement amount is to be paid out of the $5.2 million in insurance proceeds remaining after deducting legal fees. State Street objected to the agreement during the required fairness hearing before the District Court. The court nevertheless approved the settlement in October 2005, but also granted State Street's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the underlying claims. Both sides appealed, from the District Court's decision, and as a result, no settlement funds have been disbursed pending a ruling on appeal. In June 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling dismissing the claims against State Street and in effect rendering State Street's challenge to the settlement agreement moot. Both parties have requested the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals and have until Dec. 5, 2006 to file supporting briefs. Although there is no set time for a ruling on whether the Supreme Court will review the matter, based on past experience the company would expect that the Supreme Court will reach a decision sometime in early 2007 on whether or not it will hear this matter. The suit is "Summers, et al. v. UAL Corp. ESOP, et al., (Case No. 1:03-cv-01537)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan. Representing the plaintiffs are Elizabeth A. Fegan of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, 60 West Randolph, #200, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 762-9235, Fax: 312-762-9286, E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com; and Kenneth A. Wexler of Wexler Firm, LLP, 1 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2000, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 312- 346-2222, E-mail: kawexler@wexlerfirm.com. Representing the defendants are, Randall J. Sunshine of Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif, LLP, 1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024, Phone: (310) 500-3500, E- mail: rsunshine@linerlaw.com; and Heather R.M. Becker of Laner Muchin Dombrow Becker Levin & Tominberg, Ltd., 515 N. State St., Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: (312) 494-5391, E-mail: hbecker@lanermuchin.com. VEGAS GRAND: Nev. Court Gives Final Approval to Condo Suit Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada gave final approval to the proposed settlement in class action against Vegas Grand Condominiums Ltd. Partnership and developer Florida- based developer Del American, The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports. Judge Brian E. Sandoval issued the final approval order on a Nov. 17, 2006 fairness hearing. Del American along with other defendants were sued in 2005 for canceling reservation contracts and raising prices at the $650 million mid-rise condo community under construction at Flamingo Road and Swenson Street. According to attorney Richard Donahoo of California, 638 Vegas Grand reservation holders will receive periodic payments as the project is built and sold. The final amount paid to the plaintiffs will depend on sales in five buildings at Vegas Grand. Based on recent market prices, the fund to be distributed among class members is projected to total more than $15 million, the attorney said. Reservation deposits of $25,000 are also being returned. A few months back, Judge Sandoval gave preliminary approval to the proposed settlement. That preliminary approval allows that all claims asserted by the purchasers will be settled without admission of any wrongdoing on the part of Del American or Vegas Grand (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 1, 2006). Under the settlement, the payout for each class member will be determined partly by the strength of their legal claims and the amount of their earnest money deposit, attorneys for the plaintiffs said. The settlement stipulates: -- payment of 2.5% of the gross sales proceeds of each condominium unit sold and closed at the project into a common settlement fund. If any or all of the project is sold, defendants shall pay $4,000 per unsold unit in buildings currently described Bella I or Bella II unit and $2,000) per unit in buildings currently described as Ana Capri, Villa D'Este and Villagio; -- payment from the common fund of attorneys fees to class counsel equal to 1/3 of the gross funds recovered via the settlement; -- payment of costs in the amount of $117,310.22; -- payment of service payment awards in the following amounts based on the time and effort each contributed: -- Thomas Blinkinsop $30,000 -- Trisha Blinkinsop $25,000 -- Jack Thompson $25,000 -- Maryann Thompson $ 5,000 -- Phillip Jorge $ 5,000 -- Barry Sands $ 5,000 -- Michael Courtney $ 5,000 -- Robert Leslie $ 5,000 -- Cynthia Leslie $ 5,000 -- Robert Dow $ 5,000 -- Constance Umidon $ 5,000 -- distribution of the settlement according to the plan of allocation dated June 29, 2006 and agreed to by the parties and made part of the settlement. The court approves the use of CPT Group, Inc., as the settlement administrator in the action, with administration costs to be paid by defendants in the amount of $25,000. Pursuant to the settlement, any costs of settlement administration over and above the $25,000 paid by defendants will be deducted from the Common Fund amounts prior to distribution. Case Background On May 2005, Las Vegas attorney George O. West III filed a class action against the developer of the Vegas Grand condominium project (Class Action Reporter, May 24, 2005). The suit, filed on behalf of Nevada residents Thomas Blinkinsop, Trisha Blinkinsop, John Thompson and Maryan Thompson and California resident Phillip C. George, contends that reservation agreements are in full force and effect and that the defendants' purported cancellation of their agreements is of no legal force or effect, and they are entitled purchase of the condominium unit at the project referenced in their agreement at the price specified in their agreement. Named defendants in the suit: -- Anacapri-D'Este, LLC; -- Bella Venezia, LLC; -- Capri-Este, LLC; -- Del American, Inc.; -- Nevada Title Co.; -- Vegas Grand Condominium Ltd Partnership; -- Vegas Grand Condominiums General Partner, Inc.; -- Vegas Grand General, LLC; -- Vegas Grand Limited Holding Co., LLC; -- Vegas Grand, Ltd.; -- VG General Partner, Inc.; -- Villa-D'Este, LLC; and -- Villaggio-Anacapri Condominium, LLC. The suit was filed in Clark County District Court. It alleged breach of contract, fraud and deceptive trade practices, among other allegations. According to the suit, buyers signed reservation agreements and made deposits of $10,000 to $25,000 possibly as early as Nov. 2003. They were notified, however, the suit stated, that in April 2005, the project was being "reconstituted." The new option for reservation holders was to accept a discount on new unit prices or have their deposits refunded, plus a 5 percent bonus. The lawsuit claims that the new prices were nearly double the original price and that "the defendants had no intention of selling the condominium units to plaintiffs and the class members for the original price." The suit is "Thomas Blinkinsop, et al. v. Vegas Grand Condominium, LP, et al. Case No. 2:05-cv-00714-BES-RJJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Brian E. Sandoval, with referral to Judge Robert J. Johnston. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Craig R. Anderson and Albert G. Marquis both of Marquis & Aurbach, 10001 Park Run Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89145, Phone: 702-382-0711, Fax: 702-382-5816, E-mail: canderson@marquisaurbach.com or amarquis@marquisaurbach.com; (2) Thomas G. Foley of Foley & Bezek, 15 West Carrillo Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, Phone: (805) 962-9495, E-mail: tfoley@foleybezek.com; (3) John M Schaefer of The Law Office of J. Michael Schaefer, 3930 Swenson St., Suite 103, Las Vegas, NV 89119, Phone: 702-792-6710, Fax: 702-792-6721; and (4) Alan H. Shifrin of Alan H. Shifrin & Associates LLC, 3315 Algonquin Rd, Ste 202, Rolling Meadows, IL 60008, Phone: 847-222-0500. Representing the defendants are: (i) F. Christopher Austin and Laraine M I Burrell both of Greenberg Traurig LLP, 3773 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 500 North, Las Vegas, NV 89109, Phone: 702-792-3773, Fax: 702-792-9002, E-mail: austinc@gtlaw.com or burrelll@gtlaw.com; (ii) David C. Castleberry and Thomas F. Kummer both of Kummer Kaempfer Bonner & Renshaw, 3800 Howard Hughes Pkwy., 7th Floor, Las Vegas, NV 89109, Phone: 702-792- 7000, Fax: 702-796-7181, E-mail: dcastleberry@kkbrf.com or tkummer@kkbrf.com; and (3) Nikola Skrinjaric of The Law Office of Nik Skrinjaric, 2500 N Buffalo Dr., Suite 150, Las Vegas, NV 89128, Phone: 702-251-5000, Fax: 702-000-0000. VIGNETTE CORP: N.Y. Court Yet to Approve IPO Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of the settlement of a consolidated securities class action filed against Vignette Corp. On Oct. 26, 2001, a class action, "Leon Leybovich v. Vignette Corp., et al.," was filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class that purchased Vignette common stock between Feb. 18, 1999 and Dec. 6, 2000. Also named as defendants were four underwriters involved in the company's initial public offering of Vignette stock in February 1999 and the company's secondary public offering of Vignette stock in December 1999: -- Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc., -- Hambrecht & Quist, LLC, -- Dain Rauscher Wessels, and -- U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc. A consolidated amended complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on, among other things, claims that the four underwriters awarded material portions of the shares in the company's initial and secondary public offerings to certain customers in exchange for excessive commissions. Plaintiff also asserts that the underwriters engaged in "tie-in arrangements" whereby certain customers were allocated shares of company stock sold in its initial and secondary public offerings in exchange for an agreement to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. With respect to the company, the complaint alleges that the company and its officers and directors failed to disclose the existence of these purported excessive commissions and tie-in arrangements in the prospectus and registration statement for the company's initial public offering and the prospectus and registration statement for the company's secondary public offering. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. On Oct. 9, 2002, the court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants. On Feb. 19, 2003, the court denied a motion to dismiss the complaint against the company. On Oct. 13, 2004, the court certified a class in six of the other nearly identical actions and noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases. Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the company's case. The company has approved a settlement agreement and related agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement between the company, the individual defendants, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other issuer defendants. Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of the company and the individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful. The company would agree to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims the company may have against its underwriters. The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers' settlement agreement. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up the difference. It is anticipated that any potential financial obligation of the company to plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement and related agreements will be covered by existing insurance. The company currently is not aware of any material limitations on the expected recovery of any potential financial obligation to plaintiffs from its insurance carriers. Its carriers are solvent, and the company is not aware of any uncertainties as to the legal sufficiency of an insurance claim with respect to any recovery by plaintiffs. Therefore, the company does not expect that the settlement will involve any payment by the company. Even if material limitations on the expected recovery of any potential financial obligation to the plaintiffs from the company's insurance carriers should arise, the company's maximum financial obligation to plaintiffs pursuant to the settlement agreement is less than $3.4 million. On Feb. 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications consistent with its opinion. Those modifications have been made. The company reported no material development in the case at its Nov. 8, 2006 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006 For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/. The suit is "Vignette Corp. IPO, et al v. Vignette Corp., et al., Case No. 1:01-cv-09514-SAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Representing plaintiffs is Melvyn I. Weiss of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212 594 5300, Fax: 212 868 1229, E-mail: mweiss@milberg.com. Representing defendants are: (1) Stewart David Aaron of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 250 Park Avenue, NY, NY 10177, Phone: (212) 715-1000, Fax: 212- 715-1399, E-mail: stewart_aaron@aporter.com; (2) Steven G. Bradbury of Kirkland & Ellis, 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 879- 5000; (3) Dean M. Jeske of Foley & Lardner, 321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: (312) 832-4500; (4) Joseph Michael McLaughlin of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (NY), 425 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-455-2000, Fax: 212-455-2502, E-mail: jmclaughlin@stblaw.com; and (5) Ronit Setton of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP (NYC), One World Financial Center, New York, NY 10281, Phone: 212-504-6000 x6130, Fax: 212-504-6591, E-mail: ronit.setton@cwt.com. XM SATELLITE: Mulls Filing Motion to Dismiss D.C. Stock Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc. plans to file a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud class action pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On May 8, 2006 an investor sued XM Satellite seeking damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who acquired XM securities from July 28, 2005 through and including Feb. 15, 2006. The lawsuit claims that XM and Hugh Panero, its president and chief executive officer, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 78j(b) and 78t of the U.S. Commerce and Trade Code, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 Code of Federal Regulations Section 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, Washington-based XM and Mr. Panero violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements during the class period that artificially inflated the company's stock price. Specifically, the complaint says defendants led the market to believe that XM would grow its subscriber base to 6 million by year-end 2005, while lowering two of its "key metrics:" Subscriber Acquisition Costs and Cost Per Gross Addition. In reality, however, the company was allegedly well aware that costs, especially SAC and CPGA, would skyrocket in the fourth quarter of 2005 due to a $25 million promotional campaign to combat the debut of the popular "Howard Stern Show" on Sirius Satellite Radio, XM's chief competitor. On Feb. 16, 2006, the company announced a net loss of $268.3 million for the fourth quarter of 2005, compared with $188.2 million a year earlier. For the full 2005 year, XM's net loss was $666.7 million, compared to $642.4 million in 2004. In addition, the company announced that both SAC and CPGA were much higher than the market had been led to believe. The market reacted swiftly to those revelations, sending the price of XM's common stock down 5.03%, from a close of $25.25 per share on Feb. 15, 2006, to $23.98 per share the next day. The company's stock price fell a further 10.05% to $21.57 per share at the close of trading Feb. 17, 2006, the complaint says. According to the complaint, Mr. Panero and other insiders engaged in highly suspicious stock sales during the class period, with Mr. Panero selling approximately 413,334 shares, or 98.71% of his personally held XM stock, for approximately $8,841,161. Collectively, company insiders sold approximately 2,769,516 of personally held XM stock during the fourth quarter of 2005, reaping proceeds of approximately $73,325,009. On June 7, 2006, Judge Ellen Huvelle signed a Consolidation Order, consolidating all related cases into one class action as "In re XM Satellite Radio Holdings Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 06-0802." On July 3, 2006, competing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with the court. On Aug. 1, 2006, Judge Huvelle issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On Aug. 31, 2006, the company said it received a letter from the staff of the SEC requesting that the company voluntarily provide documents to the Staff regarding the company's subscriber targets, costs associated with attempting to reach those targets, and related matters during the third and fourth quarters of 2005. On Sept. 26, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint. The company anticipate filing a motion to dismiss this matter, according to its Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Kimberly Anne Chadwick of Doherty, Sheridan & Persian, 8408 Arlington Boulevard, Fairfax, VA 22031, Phone: (703) 698-7700, Fax: (703) 641-9645, E-mail: kchadwick@dsp-law.com; (2) Donald J. Enright and Karen Jennifer Marcus both of Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th Street, NW Washington, DC 20007, Phone: (202) 337-8000, Fax: (202) 337-8090, E-mail: dje@ftllaw.com or kjm@ftllaw.com; (3) Burton John Fishman of Fortney & Scott, 1750 K Street, NW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20006, Phone: (202) 689- 1200, Fax: (202) 776-7801, E-mail: fishman@fortneyscott.com; (4) Nancy M. Juda of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 730, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: (202) 822-2024, E-mail: nancyj@lerachlaw.com; (5) Gary Edward Mason of The Mason Law Firm, 1225 19th Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: (202) 429-2290, Fax: (202) 429-2294, E-mail: gmason@masonlawdc.com; (6) Arthur L. Shingler, III of Scott & Scott LLC, 600 B Street, Suite 1500, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 233-4565, Fax: (619) 233-0508, E-mail: ashingler@scott-scott.com; and (7) Daniel S. Sommers and Steven J. Toll both of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, 1100 New York Avenue, NW, West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 408-4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail: dsommers@cmht.com or stoll@cmht.com. Representing the defendants are Charles Edward Davidow and Michael A Mugmon both of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006, Phone: (202) 663-6241 or (202) 663-6101, Fax: (202) 663-6363, E-mail: charles.davidow@wilmerhale.com or michael.mugmon@wilmerhale.com; and Christopher J. Herrling of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, 2445 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20037-1420, (202) 663-6000, Fax: (202) 663-6363, E-mail: cherrling@wilmer.com. * Corporate Library Issues Report on Firms Facing Possible SCAs --------------------------------------------------------------- The Corporate Library released a report, identifying the 75 most likely -- and 50 least likely -- public companies to face securities class actions (SCAs) within the next 18 months. Using, a series of newly-developed screens that draw upon governance and performance data, the new analysis identifies six key factors which, in combination with performance fundamentals such as share price volatility and leverage, provide a reliable tool for assessing the probability of SCAs. The key factors are: -- Excessive CEO compensation, -- Director age, tenure, over-commitment, and lack of independence, -- Institutional owners, -- Industry-specific risk, -- company size, and -- Share trading volume, This latest study, a follow up to The Corporate Library's previous class action studies published in April 2005 and July 2006, examines more closely the probability of occurrence of SCAs. The full report can be purchased from The Corporate Library's online store: http://www.thecorporatelibrary.com. Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren, Utility Cos. Face 71 Suits at 3Q06 --------------------------------------------------------------- Ameren Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2006, recorded 71 pending asbestos-related multi-defendant lawsuits against it and its utility companies: Union Electric Co., Central Illinois Public Service Co., Ameren Energy Generating Co., Central Illinois Light Co., and Illinois Power Co. As of June 30, 2006, the Company had 72 pending asbestos-related multi-defendant suits filed against it and its utility companies: Ameren, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO, and IP. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 1, 2006) As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded 316 suits against the Ameren Companies. Of these, 145 were dismissed and 100 suits were settled. Most of the suits against the Ameren Companies have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill., with 185 named defendants in some cases, and six in others. However, in the cases that were pending as of Sept. 30, 2006, the average number of parties was 67. The claims filed against the Ameren Companies alleged 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 AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Co. now owns most former CILCO plants. Most of IP's plants were transferred to a Dynegy Inc. subsidiary before Ameren's acquisition of IP. Each suit seeks unspecified damages in excess of US$50,000, which, if proved, typically would be shared among the named defendants. From July 1, 2006 through Sept. 30, 2006, six more asbestos suits were filed against Ameren, UE, CIPS, CILCO and IP, mostly in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill. Two suits were dismissed and five were settled. As of Sept. 30, 2006, five asbestos-related suits were pending against Electric Energy Inc. Headquartered in St. Louis, Mo., 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: Constellation Energy Has 522 Claims v. BGE --------------------------------------------------------------- Constellation Energy Group Inc. recorded about 522 non-employee individuals who have pending asbestos-related claims against its subsidiary, Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., according to the Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company recorded about 517 non-employee individuals who have pending asbestos-related claims against BGE. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 25, 2006) Since 1993, BGE has been co-defending in several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard. Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other defendants may also be filed against BGE in these actions. To date, most asbestos 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 state courts in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Headquartered in Baltimore, Md., Constellation Energy Group Inc., through Baltimore Gas, delivers electricity and natural gas in central Maryland. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Has $7.5M Liability in 3Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- Columbus McKinnon Corp. recorded US$7,500,000 asbestos-related liability in its consolidated financial statements, according to the Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ended Oct. 1, 2006 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Of this amount, the Company expects to incur asbestos liability payments of about US$300,000 over the next 12 months. The Company reported a US$6.3 million asbestos-related liability in its consolidated financial statements. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 15, 2006) The Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation. The Company reviews the incidence of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, and the mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs. The Company also reviews its recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement discussions, and the number of years activity might continue. Through March 31, 2032 and March 31, 2083, the Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability to range between US$4,600,000 and US$22,800,000. The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, is through March 31, 2032 and ranges from US$7,000,000 to US$8,000,000 as of Oct. 1, 2006. Headquartered in Amherst, N.Y., Columbus McKinnon Corp., through its two business units, manufactures equipment for handling, lifting, and positioning materials. Company products are sold to construction, general manufacturing, and transportation markets, which include hoists, chains, cranes, forged products, and industrial components. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell, Units Still Face Injury Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Rockwell Automation Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to co- defend in lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos used in certain Company products. However, most of the complaints do not identify any Company products or specify which of these claimants were exposed to asbestos linked to the Company's products. Past experience has shown that most of the claimants will never identify any Company product. Moreover, when Company products seem to be identified, they are from divested businesses, and the Company is indemnified for most of the costs. Historically, the Company has been dismissed from most of these claims with no payment to claimants. On Feb. 12, 2004, the Company initiated litigation in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court to enforce the insurance policies against National Indemnity Co. and Kemper Insurance. The two carriers provided liability insurance coverage to the Company's former Allen-Bradley subsidiary. The insurance carriers have paid some past defense and indemnity costs and have agreed to pay most of future defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. Headquartered in Milwaukee, Wis., Rockwell Automation Inc. operates through two segments: the control systems, which makes industrial automation products, and the power systems, which offers power transmission products, bushings, clutches, motor brakes, conveyor pulleys, couplings, bearings, and mechanical drives. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Inc. Still Faces Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Tenneco Inc. continues to be subject to lawsuits filed by a significant number of claimants, alleging health problems from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Several claims have been asserted by railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars made by The Pullman Co., a Company subsidiary. Nearly all of the claims are related to alleged exposure to asbestos in the Company's automotive emission control products. A small percentage of these claimants alleged that they were automobile mechanics and a number appeared to involve workers in other industries or otherwise do not include enough information to determine whether there is any basis for a claim against the Company. The Company said it is unlikely that mechanics were exposed to asbestos by its former muffler products and that they would not be at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work with these products. Many of these cases involved numerous defendants, with the number of each in some cases exceeding 200 defendants from a various industries. To date, the Company said that it has regularly achieved favorable resolution. Headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois, Tenneco Inc. makes Walker exhaust systems and Monroe ride-control equipment for vehicle manufacturers and the replacement market. The Company's product line also includes vibration-control systems, catalytic converters, and various exhaust system accessories. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Faces 1,934 Pending Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V., as of Sept. 30, 2006, has been named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos with about 4,541 plaintiffs. Of those claims, about 1,934 claims were pending and 2,607 have been dismissed or settled. As of June 30, 2006, the Company has been named a defendant in suits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 2,972 plaintiffs. Of those claims, about 387 claims were pending and 2,585 have been dismissed or settled. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 1, 2006) The Company defends itself against suits in which plaintiffs alleged exposure to asbestos due to work the Company may have performed at various sites. The Company has never made, distributed, or supplied asbestos products. As of Sept. 30, 2006, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount per claim of about US$1,000. With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, the Company cannot identify a population of potential claimants with enough certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of liability. At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had accrued US$900,000 for liability and related expenses. Headquartered in Hoofddorp, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. is a global specialty engineering and construction firm. The Company serves the hydrocarbon, energy, power generation, and water storage and treatment industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Water Faces Workplace Injury Claim -------------------------------------------------------------- California Water Service Group, on Oct. 26, 2006, has been served with a complaint for personal injury due to exposure to asbestos. The unnamed plaintiff claimed to have worked for two of the Company's subcontractors on pipeline projects and Palos Verdes Water Co., a water utility acquired by the Company in 1970. The plaintiff alleged that he worked on various capital projects over a number of years, and the Company and other defendants are responsible for his asbestos related injuries. The plaintiff seeks damages of US$27,500,000. Headquartered in San Jose, Calif., California Water Service Group's main regulated utility, California Water Service Co., provides water in 26 systems for 456,000 customers throughout the state. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tarragon Incurs $846T for Cleanup Matters -------------------------------------------------------------- Tarragon Corp., through Sept. 30, 2006, incurred US$846,000 for legal and other professional fees and costs of relocation of residents of Pine Crest Village at Victoria Park in connection with asbestos-related cleanup matters. In April 2003, in connection with renovations at Pine Crest, the Company's contractor disturbed asbestos-containing materials. The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida investigated these actions for possible violations of federal criminal laws. On April 25, 2006, the U.S. Attorney charged the Company's subsidiary Tarragon Management Inc. with one felony count for not complying with Clean Air Act Work Practice Standards for Asbestos in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Under an agreement with the U.S. Attorney, on June 19, 2006, TMI pleaded guilty to that charge, and agreed to pay fines and community service payments totaling US$1 million, accrued in 2005, for the offense. TMI also agreed to institute an environmental compliance program and was placed on five years probation with the right to seek an early termination after three years of documented compliance with the program. The U.S. Attorney filed separate charges against the contractor, and one current and one former Company employee with oversight responsibility for the Pine Crest condominium conversion. Each also pleaded guilty to the charges against them. In March 2004, remediation was completed at a cost of about US$795,000. Headquartered in New York City, 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: Cleco Corp. Still Faces La. Workers' Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cleco Corp. continues to defend itself against claims filed by individuals who alleged injury due to exposure to asbestos while working at sites in central Louisiana. Most of the claimants were workers who participated in the construction of various generation facilities, and some of the claimants had worked at Company-owned locations. With two exceptions, all filed, asbestos-related lawsuits have been settled. The claimants have appealed the two remaining suits that were dismissed by the trial court. Headquartered in Pineville, Louisiana, Cleco Corp.'s utility unit, Cleco Power, generates, transmits, and distributes electricity to 267,000 residential and business customers in more than 100 communities in Louisiana. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: St. Paul Reserves $4.179B for Claims in 3Q --------------------------------------------------------------- The St. Paul Travelers Companies Inc., at and for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, reserved US$4.179 billion for asbestos-related claims, compared with US$3.669 billion for the same period in 2005. The increase was mainly due to a US$830 million charge to strengthen reserves in the 2005-4th quarter and a US$155 million charge in the 2006-3rd quarter, partially offset by loss payments made during the 12-month period ended Sept. 30, 2006. For the 2006-3rd quarter, the Company's net asbestos-related reserves were US$4.280 billion, compared with US$4.364 billion for the 2006-1st quarter. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2006) Net asbestos losses and expenses paid in the first nine months of 2006 were US$341 million, compared with US$264 million in the same period of 2005. About 54 percent in the first nine months of 2006 and 36 percent in the first nine months of 2005 of total net paid losses related to policyholders with whom the Company previously entered into settlement agreements limiting the Company's liability. The Company increased asbestos reserves by US$155 million in the 2006-3rd quarter. A portion of the Company's loss reserves are for asbestos and environmental claims and related litigation which aggregated US$4.65 billion at Sept. 30, 2006. Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., The St. Paul Travelers Companies Inc. offers personal and commercial liability and casualty, property, workers' compensation, auto, marine, and other coverage to companies in North America and the U.K. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Property Still Faces ACandS Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Travelers Property Casualty Corp., a subsidiary of The St. Paul Travelers Companies Inc., remains involved in asbestos lawsuits relating to ACandS Inc., formerly a distributor and installer of asbestos-containing products. In September 2002, ACandS filed for bankruptcy, which is pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. In its plan of reorganization, ACandS sought to establish a trust to pay asbestos bodily injury claims against it and sought to assign to the trust its rights under the insurance policies issued by TPC. On Jan. 26, 2004, the bankruptcy court rejected confirmation of ACandS' proposed plan of reorganization. ACandS has filed a notice of appeal of the bankruptcy court's decision and has objected to the bankruptcy court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in the U.S. District Court. TPC has moved to dismiss the appeal and objections and has also filed an opposition to ACandS' objections. In January 2001, arbitration was commenced to determine whether and to what extent ACandS' financial obligations for bodily injury asbestos claims are subject to insurance policy aggregate limits. On July 31, 2003, the arbitration panel ruled in favor of TPC that asbestos bodily injury claims against ACandS are subject to the aggregate limits of the policies issued to ACandS, which have been exhausted. In October 2003, ACandS commenced a suit seeking to vacate the arbitration award as beyond the panel's scope of authority. On Sept. 16, 2004, the district court denied ACandS' motion to vacate the arbitration award. On Jan. 19, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the district court's decision and declared the arbitration award void on procedural grounds. On May 22, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court denied TPC's petition for a writ of certiorari. The matter has been remanded to district court and TPC has asked the district court to remand the arbitration to the panel that initially ruled in favor of TPC for further proceedings consistent with the Third Circuit's decision. ACandS has opposed that request. In the other proceeding, a case pending before the same court and commenced in September 2000, ACandS sought a declaration of the extent to which the asbestos bodily injury claims against ACandS are subject to occurrence limits under insurance policies issued by TPC. TPC filed a motion to dismiss this action, which the district court dismissed. As a result of the Jan. 19, 2006 ruling by the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari, this case has been reinstated. In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits were filed against TPC and other insurers in state court in West Virginia. These cases were consolidated into a single proceeding in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, W.Va. Plaintiffs alleged that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade practices by inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims. The plaintiffs sought to reopen settled asbestos claims and to impose liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on insurers. In November 2001, plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state court moved to name TPC as a defendant, alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to certain users of asbestos products. In March 2002, the court granted the motion to amend. Plaintiffs sought damages, including punitive damages. In August 2002, the bankruptcy court held a hearing on TPC's motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting further prosecution of the suits pursuant to the reorganization plan and related orders. Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., The St. Paul Travelers Companies Inc. offers personal and commercial liability and casualty, property, workers' compensation, auto, marine, and other coverage to companies in North America and the U.K. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Worldwide Incurs $1M Unindemnified Cost ---------------------------------------------------------------- M&F Worldwide Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2006, incurred or expected to incur about US$1 million of unindemnified asbestos-related costs, as to which it either has received or expected to receive about US$700,000 in insurance reimbursements. In 1995, the Company, two subsidiaries, and a subsidiary of Mafco Consolidated Group Inc. entered into a transfer agreement. Under the Transfer Agreement, Pneumo Abex Corp., with its successor in interest Pneumo Abex LLC, then a Company unit, retained the assets and liabilities relating to the Company's former Abex NWL Aerospace Division. Pneumo Abex transferred substantially all of its other assets and liabilities to a MCG subsidiary. The Transfer Agreement required the MCG subsidiary to undertake certain administrative and funding obligations with respect to certain categories of asbestos-related claims and other liabilities retained by Pneumo Abex. Before 1988, a former Company subsidiary made certain asbestos- containing friction products. Pneumo Abex has been named, along with 10 to as many as 100 or more other firms, as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits claiming asbestos exposure-related damages. Under indemnification agreements, PepsiAmericas Inc., formerly known as Whitman Corp., has ultimate responsibility for all the remaining asbestos claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through August 1998 and for certain asbestos-related claims asserted. In connection with the sale by Abex in December 1994 of its Friction Products Division, a subsidiary of Cooper Industries, Inc. assumed responsibility for substantially all asbestos- related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after August 1998 and not indemnified by Whitman. In October 1998, Federal-Mogul Corporation bought the Cooper subsidiary. In October 2001, the Cooper subsidiary filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and stopped performing its indemnity obligations to the Company. Cooper guarantees performance of its subsidiary's indemnity obligation. Since the bankruptcy filing of its subsidiary, Cooper has been fulfilling its subsidiary's indemnity obligations to the extent that they are no longer being performed by the subsidiary. In July 2006, the Company entered into a non-binding term sheet with the Cooper subsidiary, Cooper and others that outlined a settlement of claims against the Cooper subsidiary relating to its indemnity as part of the bankruptcy reorganization of the subsidiary. In September 2006, the Company executed an agreement with the Cooper subsidiary, Cooper and others implementing a settlement. Headquartered in New York City, M&F Worldwide Corp., operates as a flavorings maker. It makes licorice extract used for candy and as a tobacco additive. The Company has expanded into the security printing business through its acquisition of Clarke American Checks from Honeywell. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Records $2.254B Liability in 3Q06 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hartford Financial Services Inc. estimated its net asbestos- related liability, for the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, at US$2.254 billion. The Company recorded US$2.327 billion net asbestos-related claims liability for the three months ended June 30, 2006, compared with US$2.224 billion net for the three months ended March 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 11, 2006) For the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$78 million paid loss and loss adjustment expense. For the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$5 million incurred loss and LAE. For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$309 million paid loss and LAE. For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$272 million incurred loss and LAE. Headquartered in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. offers personal and commercial property- casualty insurance products, including homeowners, auto, and workers' compensation. Established in 1810, the Company sells its products through about 11,000 independent agencies and more than 100,000 registered broker-dealers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Financial Contends With BCT Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. is engaged in pending litigation in Connecticut Superior Court against certain of its upper-layer reinsurers under its Blanket Casualty Treaty. The BCT is a multi-layered reinsurance program providing excess- of-loss coverage in various amounts from the 1930s through the 1980s. The upper layers were first placed in 1950, with London Market reinsurers, including Lloyd's syndicates reinsured by Equitas. The action sought damages for the reinsurer defendants' failure to pay certain billings for asbestos and pollution claims. In December 2003, the Company entered into a global settlement with MacArthur Co., an asbestos insulation distributor and installer then in bankruptcy, for US$1.15 billion. The Company then billed the reinsurer defendants under the BCT for US$117 million of the settlement amount. After the reinsurers refused to pay the MacArthur billing, the Company amended its complaint to add claims related to that billing. Most of the reinsurer defendants counterclaimed, seeking a declaration that they did not owe reinsurance for the MacArthur settlement. In April 2005, the Superior Court phased the proceedings, providing for a trial of the MacArthur billing first, in April 2006, with other billings to follow in subsequent trial settings. In September 2005, the London Market reinsurer defendants moved for summary judgment on the MacArthur-related claims. On Dec. 13, 2005, the Superior Court granted the defendants' motion. The Company noticed an appeal, which has since been transferred to the Connecticut Supreme Court, to the Connecticut Appellate Court. On June 15, 2006, the Company announced an agreement with Equitas Ltd. and all Lloyd's syndicates reinsured by Equitas that resolved all of the Company's ceded and assumed domestic reinsurance exposures with Equitas, including the Company's reinsurance recoveries from Equitas under the BCT. Those recoveries consist mainly of asbestos and pollution losses, including the billing for the MacArthur settlement. The pending litigation and appeal continue with other upper-layer reinsurers under the BCT. Headquartered in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. offers personal and commercial property- casualty insurance products, including homeowners, auto, and workers' compensation. Established in 1810, the Company sells its products through about 11,000 independent agencies and more than 100,000 registered broker-dealers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Zapata Predecessor Units Still Face Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Two of Zapata Corp.'s predecessor subsidiaries continue to face 14 asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones and Smith Counties in Mississippi. Filed since 2004, these 14 suits included about 583 individual plaintiffs, who alleged they had suffered illnesses from exposure to asbestos and seeking damages. The suits asserted claims of unseaworthiness, negligence, and strict liability, based on the status of the Company's predecessors as Jones Act employers. These cases include numerous defendants, who are all alleged to be the Jones Act employers of these plaintiffs and to have made, distributed or used products with asbestos. Since these suits involved multiple plaintiffs suing multiple defendants, the plaintiffs were ordered to prepare data sheets specifying the firms they were employed by and the asbestos- containing products to which they were allegedly exposed. Through this process, about 31 plaintiffs have identified the Company and its predecessor subsidiaries as their employer. Once the data sheet process is complete, the Company expects that it and its predecessor subsidiaries will be dismissed from any case where they have not been identified as an employer. Moreover, minimal medical information regarding the alleged asbestos-related disease suffered by the plaintiffs has been provided. As to the remaining 31 plaintiffs, the Company is unable to estimate its potential exposure. Headquartered in Rochester, N.Y., Zapata Corp. sold its energy businesses in the 1990s and became a producer of marine protein through it majority holdings in Omega Protein. The Company was co-founded by former U.S. President George H. W. Bush as an oil and gas company in 1953. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Records $572.6M Loss Reserves in 3Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- Everest Re Group Ltd., at Sept. 30, 2006, had US$572.6 million gross asbestos loss reserves, of which US$312.5 million was for assumed business and US$260.1 million was for direct excess business. At June 30, 2006, the Company had US$542.5 million gross asbestos loss reserves, of which US$303.9 million was for assumed business and US$238.6 million was for direct business. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 1, 2006) The Company's asbestos and environmental liabilities stem from Mt. McKinley's direct insurance business and subsidiary Everest Reinsurance's Co.'s assumed reinsurance business. In connection with the acquisition of Mt. McKinley, LM Property and Casualty Insurance Co. provided reinsurance to Mt. McKinley. This reinsurance covered 80 percent, or US$160 million, of the first US$200 million of any adverse development of Mt. McKinley's reserves as of Sept. 19, 2000 and The Prudential Insurance Co. of America guaranteed LM's obligations to Mt. McKinley. In 2004 and 2005 and in 2006, the Company concluded settlements with 14 of its high profile policyholders. The Company has identified 9 policyholders based on their past claim activity and potential future liabilities as "High Profile Policyholders" and its settlement efforts are directed at those policyholders. At Sept. 30, 2006, the gross reserves for A&E losses were comprised of US$144.2 million representing case reserves reported by ceding companies, US$143.5 million representing additional case reserves established by the Company on assumed reinsurance claims, US$210.3 million representing case reserves established by the Company on direct excess insurance claims, including Mt. McKinley, and US$145.1 million representing incurred but not reported reserves. The gross incurred losses for A&E exposures increased by US$47 million for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006 and US$49.6 million for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2005. The gross incurred losses for A&E exposures increased by US$63.4 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006 and US$67.6 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005. For the period ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's net three- year survival ratio on its asbestos exposures was 3.9 years. Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Everest Re Group Ltd. is the holding company for Everest Reinsurance Co., an underwriter of property & casualty reinsurance and insurance. The Company offers specialized underwriting in several areas, including property & casualty, marine, aviation, surety, medical malpractice, directors and officers' liability, and professional errors and omissions liability. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Re Records $279.9M Losses, Expenses ---------------------------------------------------------------- Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.'s asbestos-related gross unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses, for the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, were US$279,969,000, compared with US$234,490,000 for the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005. For the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's net unpaid losses and LAE were US$168,003,000, compared with US$89,195,000 for the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005. The Company's asbestos-related gross unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses totaled US$283,506,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006, compared with US$232,756,000 for the same periods in 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 22, 2006) For the three and six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company's asbestos-related net unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses were US$137,386,000, compared with US$86,157,000 for the same periods in 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 22, 2006) As of Sept. 30, 2006, gross unpaid asbestos and environmental losses and loss adjustment expenses were US$318.7 million, representing 6.2 percent of total gross unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses, compared with US$315.1 million, or 6.2 percent of total gross unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses, as of Dec. 31, 2005. For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, net losses and loss adjustment expenses incurred for asbestos claims decreased US$8.5 million. Included in this reduction is a net reserve increase of US$5 million, a US$17.3 million benefit resulting from the amortization of the deferred gain related to the 1995 Stop Loss Agreement and a loss of US$3.8 million related to the commutation of this agreement. For the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, net losses and loss adjustment expenses incurred for asbestos claims increased US$3.8 million, related to the commutation of the 1995 Stop Loss Agreement. As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's survival ratio for asbestos and environmental related liabilities was 13 years. The Company's underlying survival ratio for asbestos related liabilities was 12 years. As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's current estimates of its asbestos losses and LAE reserves, net of reinsurance, were US$168 million. Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. writes treaty reinsurance through its London Market, EuroAsia, and Americas divisions. Its casualty lines include general and auto liability, professional liability, and accident and health. The Company offers marine, aerospace, and surety reinsurance. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Corp Faces Site Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corp. is faced with claims relating to damages for personal injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities done by Duke Energy Carolinas LLC on its electric generation plants in the 1960s and 1970s. The Company has third-party insurance to cover losses related to these asbestos injuries and damages above a certain aggregate deductible. The insurance policy, including the policy deductible and reserves, provided for coverage to the Company up to an aggregate of US$1.6 billion when purchased in 2000. Duke Energy Indiana Inc. and Duke Energy Ohio Inc. have been named as defendants or co-defendants in lawsuits related to asbestos at their electric generating stations. There are about 130 pending suits, most of which are Duke Energy Indiana cases. In these suits, plaintiffs claimed exposure to products with asbestos while working as outside contractors. The plaintiffs further claimed that as the property owner of the generating stations, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Ohio should be held liable for their injuries and illnesses based on an alleged duty to warn and protect them from any asbestos exposure. Of these suits, one case filed against Duke Energy Indiana has been tried to verdict, in which the jury ruled against Duke Energy Indiana on a negligence claim and a verdict for Duke Energy Indiana on punitive damages. Duke Energy Indiana appealed this decision up to the Indiana Supreme Court, which upheld the jury's verdict in October 2005. Duke Energy Indiana paid the judgment of about US$630,000 in the 2005-4th quarter. Moreover, Duke Energy Indiana has settled over 150 other claims for immaterial amounts. The Company estimates that the range of reasonably possible exposure in existing and future suits over the next 50 years could range from an immaterial amount to about US$60 million, exclusive of costs to defend these cases. Duke Energy Ohio has been named in fewer than 10 cases and as a result has virtually no settlement history for asbestos cases. Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy Corp.'s regulated U.S. utilities have a generating capacity of 20,000 MW and distributes power to 2.2 million customers in the Carolinas. The Company also distributes natural gas to 1.2 million Canadians and operates a 17,500-mile pipeline system. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Still Faces Suit by ACE, Insurers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Entrx Corp.'s subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation Corp., and several other liability insurers, since Feb. 23, 2005, have been facing an asbestos-related declaratory relief lawsuit filed by ACE Property & Casualty Co., Central National Insurance Co. of Omaha, and Industrial Underwriters Insurance Co. ACE, Central National and Industrial issued umbrella and excess policies to Metalclad, which has sought and obtained from the plaintiffs both defense and indemnity under these policies for the asbestos suits brought against Metalclad during the last four to five years. Filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, the ACE Lawsuit sought declarations regarding coverage issues, but is focused on issues involving whether historical and currently pending asbestos suits filed against Metalclad are subject to either an "aggregate" limits of liability or separate "per occurrence" limits of liability. The ACE Lawsuit also sought to determine the effect of the settlement agreement between the Company and Allstate Insurance Co. on the insurance obligations of other Metalclad insurers, and the effect of the "asbestos exclusion" in the Allstate policy. The ACE Lawsuit does not seek any monetary recovery from Metalclad. The ACE Lawsuit may result in the Company incurring costs in connection with obligations it may have to indemnify Allstate under a Settlement Agreement. Allstate, in a cross-complaint against Metalclad in October 2005, asked the court to determine the Company's obligation to assume and pay for the defense of Allstate in the ACE Lawsuit under the Company's indemnification obligations in the Settlement Agreement. Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minn., Entrx Corp. provides insulation and asbestos abatement services through subsidiary Metalclad Insulation. On the West Coast, the Company installs insulation on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other industrial equipment. It also maintains and removes insulation and sells specialty insulation products. In 1947, the Company was established as Metalclad Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Corp. Reserves $7M at 3Q06 for Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Entrx Corp.'s current reserve for asbestos liability claims, at Sept. 30, 2006 and June 30, 2005, was US$7 million, compared with US$8 million, as of Dec. 31, 2005. As of Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's non-current reserve for asbestos liability claims was US$32 million, compared with US$27 million as of Dec. 31, 2005. As of June 30, 2006, the Company's non-current reserve for asbestos liability claims was US$34 million. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 15, 2006) Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minn., Entrx Corp. provides insulation and asbestos abatement services through subsidiary Metalclad Insulation. On the West Coast, the Company installs insulation on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other industrial equipment. It also maintains and removes insulation and sells specialty insulation products. In 1947, the Company was established as Metalclad Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. Entrx Drop From 485 to 458 in 3Q06 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Entrx Corp., primarily its subsidiary Metalclad Insulation Corp., at Sept. 30, 2006, recorded 458 pending asbestos-related cases, down from 485 pending cases at June 30, 2006. Before 1975, the Company was engaged in the installation and sale of asbestos-related insulation materials, which has resulted in numerous claims of personal injury allegedly related to asbestos exposure. The children and close relatives of persons who have died, allegedly as a result of the direct or indirect exposure to asbestos are now bringing many of these claims. For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded 150 defense judgments and dismissals, 78 settled cases, and 228 resolved cases. For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded US$3,945,750 as total indemnity payments and US$50,587 as the average indemnity paid on settled cases. For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the average payment on claims was US$17,306. The Company noted 179 new claims made in the first nine months of 2006, compared with 154 for the same period in 2005. While defense costs are included in the Company's insurance coverage, the Company expended US$28,000, in the three months ended Sept. 30, 2006, and US$170,000 in the nine monhts ended Sept. 30, 2006, relative to the asbestos claims, which is not covered by any insurance. Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minn., Entrx Corp. provides insulation and asbestos abatement services through subsidiary Metalclad Insulation. On the West Coast, the Company installs insulation on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other industrial equipment. It also maintains and removes insulation and sells specialty insulation products. In 1947, the Company was established as Metalclad Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Corp. Faces 75T Active Claims in 3Q06 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Corp., at Sept. 30, 2006, had about 75,000 active pending asbestos-related product liability claims, compared with 77,000 claims at Dec. 31, 2005. The claims at Sept. 30, 2006 included 9,000 claims that were settled but awaiting final documentation and payment, compared with the Dec. 31, 2005 claims that included 10,000 claims. At June 30, 2006, the Company's pending asbestos-related product liability claims were at about 76,000, including 9,000 that were settled but awaiting final documentation and payment. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 11, 2006) At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had accrued US$94 million for indemnity and defense costs for pending asbestos-related product liability claims, compared with US$98 million at Dec. 31, 2005. The Company estimated its potential asbestos-related liability through 2021 to be within a range of US$70 million to US$120 million. At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had recorded US$78 million as an asset for probable recovery from its insurers for the pending and projected claims, the same balance as was recorded at Dec. 31, 2005. At Dec. 31, 2005, the Company had recorded a receivable of US$8 million in connection with an October 2005 settlement agreement with one of its insurers. The Company received payments of US$2 million in the 2006-1st quarter and US$6 in the 2006-2nd quarter. Moreover, the Company had a net amount recoverable from its insurers and others of US$14 million at Sept. 30, 2006, compared with US$15 million at Dec. 31, 2005. Until 2001, most of the Company's asbestos-related claims were administered, defended and settled by the Center for Claims Resolution. Through Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had paid US$47 million to claimants and collected US$29 million from its insurance carriers with respect to these claims. At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had a net receivable of US$13 million that it expects to recover from available insurance and surety bonds relating to these claims. Under the Bankruptcy Code, the Company's pending asbestos- related product liability lawsuits, as well as any new asbestos- related lawsuits, have been stayed during its reorganization process. Headquartered in Toledo, Ohio, Dana Corp. makes car parts, in which its core products include axles, brakes, and driveshafts, as well as engine, filtration, fluid-system, sealing, and structural products. The Company filed for bankruptcy in 2006. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flowserve Corp. Still Faces Injury Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Flowserve Corp. continues to defend in pending asbestos-related lawsuits, which include multiple claimants and multiple defendants, according to the Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-Q, for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The suits sought to recover damages for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products made and distributed by the Company in the past. The asbestos-containing parts that the Company used were encapsulated and used as components of process equipment. The Company said it does not believe that any emission of respirable asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment. The Company said it believed that a high percentage of the applicable claims are covered by available insurance or indemnities from other companies. Headquartered in Irving, Tex., Flowserve Corp. makes pumps, valves, and mechanical seals. The Company's flow solutions division offers mechanical seals, sealing systems, and repair services to OEMs. Its flow control division makes valves, actuators, and related equipment. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Tire Records 124,300 Claims in 3Q --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, recorded 124,300 pending asbestos-related claims, compared with 125,500 claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005. At June 30, 2006, the Company recorded about 124,400 pending asbestos-related claims against it at June 30, 2006, compared with 125,700 claims at March 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18, 2006) The Company has suits alleging asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from exposure to certain asbestos products made by the Company or present in certain of its facilities. These suits have been brought against multiple defendants in State and Federal courts. For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded 2,900 new claims filed and 4,100 claims settled or dismissed. For the period, the Company paid US$14 million for claims. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded 6,200 new claims filed and 8,000 claims settled or dismissed. For the period, the Company paid US$22 million for claims. To date, the Company has disposed of about 38,800 claims by defending and obtaining dismissals or by entering into a settlement. To date, the sum of the Company's accrued asbestos- related liability and gross payments, including legal costs, totaled about $244 million through Sept. 30, 2006 and US$233 million through Dec. 31, 2005. At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had recorded liabilities for both asserted and unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$101 million, compared with US$104 million at Dec. 31, 2005. The portion of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims was US$33 million at Sept. 30, 2006 and US$31 million at Dec. 31, 2005. The Company's liability with respect to asserted claims and related defense costs was US$68 million at Sept. 30, 2006 and US$73 million at Dec. 31, 2005. As of Sept. 30, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2005, the Company had recorded US$53 million receivable related to asbestos claims. At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had at least US$176 million in aggregate limits of excess level policies potentially applicable to indemnity payments for asbestos products claims, in addition to limits of available primary insurance policies. The Company also had about US$20 million in aggregate limits for products claims, as well as coverage for premise claims on a per occurrence basis and defense costs available with its primary insurance carriers through coverage-in-place agreements at Sept. 30, 2006. Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. makes tires. Other products include automotive hoses, belts, and industrial chemicals. The Company operates about 90 plants worldwide, and runs nearly 1,700 retail tire and auto centers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $4.039B for Losses ---------------------------------------------------------------- American International Group Inc., for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, had US$4.039 billion gross, US$1.696 billion net, reserve for asbestos-related losses and loss expenses, compared with US$2.440 billion gross, US$1.002 billion net, for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005. For the six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company's asbestos- related reserve for losses and loss expenses was US$4.163 billion gross, US$1.748 billion net, compared with US$2.504 billion gross, US$1.036 billion net, for the same period in 2005. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006) For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had US$4.882 billion gross, US$2.063 billion net, reserve for asbestos and environmental losses and loss expenses, compared with US$3.324 billion gross, US$1.399 billion net, for the same period in 2005. Asbestos loss payments increased significantly in the first nine months of 2006 compared with the same period in the prior years, primarily as a result of payments pertaining to settlements that had been negotiated in earlier periods. There was negligible development of A&E reserves in the first nine months of 2006. At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had US$2.863 billion gross, US$1.312 billion net, asbestos reserve for incurred but not reported claims, compared with US$1.550 billion gross, US$684 million net, at Sept. 30, 2005. At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company had US$3.430 billion gross, US$1.554 billion net, A&E reserve for IBNR claims, compared with US$2.108 billion gross, US$937 billion net, at Sept. 30, 2005. For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded 7,027 asbestos claims, of which 538 were opened, 126 were settled, and 678 were dismissed or otherwise resolved. For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005, the Company recorded 7,341 asbestos claims, of which 646 were opened, 49 were settled, and 831 were dismissed or otherwise resolved. For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company recorded 16,517 A&E claims, of which 1,570 were opened, 246 were settled, and 1,973 were dismissed or otherwise resolved. For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2005, the Company recorded 17,028 A&E claims, of which 5,229 were opened, 227 were settled, and 3,765 were dismissed or otherwise resolved. The Company's survival ratios for A&E claims were based upon a three-year average payment. At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's asbestos survival ratio was 11.9 years gross and 13.6 years net, compared with 9 years gross and 11 years net at Sept. 30, 2005. At Sept. 30, 2006, the Company's A&E survival ratio was 10.4 years gross and 10.7 years net, compared with 8.1 years gross and 8.9 years net at Sept. 30, 2005. Headquartered in New York City, American International Group Inc.'s U.S. services include the provision of property-casualty, life, and specialty insurance to commercial, institutional, and individual customers. The Company provides reinsurance, life insurance and retirement services, asset management and financial services in more than 130 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Int'l. Has 305 Pending Suits at 3Q --------------------------------------------------------------- Bucyrus International Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2006, has been named a co-defendant in about 305 personal injury liability cases alleging damages due to exposure to asbestos and other substances. These 305 liability cases involved about 585 plaintiffs. The cases are pending in courts in various states. In all of these cases, insurance carriers have accepted or are expected to accept defense. These cases are in various pre-trial stages. As of June 30, 2006, the Company has been named a co-defendant in about 300 personal injury liability cases, involving about 580 plaintiffs, alleging damages due to exposure to asbestos and other substances. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006) Headquartered in South Milwaukee, Wis., Bucyrus International Inc. provides replacement parts and services, which accounts for more than 70 percent of sales, to the surface mining industry. The Company also makes large excavation machinery used for surface mining. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. Park-Ohio Holdings Decrease to 370 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., at Sept. 30, 2006, was a co-defendant in about 370 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 9,900 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These asbestos cases related to production and sale of asbestos- containing products and alleged theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and punitive damages. At June 30, 2006 and March 31, 2006, the Company co-defended in about 380 asbestos-related injury cases asserting claims on behalf of about 10,000 plaintiffs. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006) In every asbestos case the Company faces, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claimed damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed, or do not specify the monetary damages sought. Jurisdictional minimums range from US$25,000 to US$75,000. There are four asbestos cases, involving 21 plaintiffs, which plead specified damages. In each of the four cases, the plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. 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. Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., through Park-Ohio Industries and its subsidiaries, provides logistics services and makes engineered products for the aerospace, auto, semiconductor, and other industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. Parker Drilling Unit in Discovery -------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Parker Drilling Co., since Jan. 13, 2006, has been facing an asbestos-related lawsuit filed in the District Court for the Parish of Jefferson in Louisiana. Filed against more than 200 defendants, the suit was filed by 88 plaintiffs alleging exposure to asbestos, chemicals, noise, and metals while working as Jones Act seamen. This case is in the early stages of discovery to determine whether or not the Company employed any of the plaintiffs or otherwise have any connection with its operations during the relevant period. A certain plaintiff's social security earnings statement indicated that he worked for the Company's subsidiary in 1971-72. In August 2004, the Company was notified that certain of its subsidiaries have been named, along with other defendants, in several complaints that have been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi by several hundred persons that alleged that they were employed by some of the named defendants from about 1965 to 1986. The complaints named as defendants other unaffiliated companies, including companies that allegedly made drilling related products with asbestos that are the subject of the complaints. The complaints alleged that the Company's subsidiaries and other drilling contractors used asbestos products in offshore drilling operations, land-based drilling operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment and asserted 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. The Company has joined with other co-defendants in filing motions to compel discovery to determine what plaintiffs have an employment relationship with which defendant, including whether or not any plaintiffs have an employment relationship with Company subsidiaries. Out of 528 amended single-plaintiff complaints filed to date, 11 plaintiffs have identified the Company or one of its affiliates as a defendant. Headquartered in Houston, Tex., 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: Calif. Court Drops Charges Filed v. SDG&E -------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw has dismissed federal charges against San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and three workers accused of conspiracy and violation of safety standards while removing asbestos at a Lemon Grove site six years ago, City Wire reports. Judge Sabraw dismissed the five-count indictment, ruling that prosecutors failed to perform proper tests to determine the amount of asbestos at the site, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported. The indictment named SDG&E, along with employees Jacquelyn McHugh and David Williamson. Kyle Rhuebottom, the project superintendent for contractor IT Corp., also was charged. If convicted, each worker would have faced a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a US$250,000 fine for each charge. SDG&E faced up to US$2.5 million in fines. The 16-acre site at the border of Lemon Grove and San Diego's Encanto neighborhood housed SDG&E's Encanto Gas Holder Facility. In 2000, SDG&E began clearing the land, including 9.3 miles of asbestos pipe, to sell it to a developer. Federal prosecutors alleged that to save time and money, SDG&E and its workers told government inspectors that the pipes did not pose a hazard. In his ruling, Judge Sabraw said that prosecutors should not have used a testing method that deemed the pipes hazardous as long as one of the six layers of material wrapped around them was found to contain asbestos. The Union-Tribune reported that because prosecutors failed to use the proper test, Judge Sabraw said the indictment must be dismissed. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Jury Awards $850T in Damages to Widow --------------------------------------------------------------- A McLean County jury in Illinois has awarded US$850,000 to Judith Blessing whose husband, Robert, died from mesothelioma, Associated Press reports. Mrs. Blessing's award is the third McLean County lawsuit in 14 months won by plaintiffs accusing a company of conspiring to hide asbestos dangers. Mrs. Blessing's attorney Lisa Corwin said Mr. Blessing first experienced symptoms in June 2005 and died in December 2005. From 1953 to 1960, Mr. Blessing worked as a builder and inspector at Union Asbestos and Rubber Co.'s Bloomington, Ill. plant. The jury ordered Honeywell International Inc. to pay US$150,000 in damages and US$700,000 in wrongful death damages. Jury awards in three lawsuits against Honeywell have totaled more than US$11 million. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Less Suits Filed in Madison Court, ICJ Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- The business group, Illinois Civil Justice, said that lesser asbestos-related lawsuits have been filed in Madison County, Ill., Associated Press reports. Illinois Civil Justice League said that there have been 287 asbestos suits filed in the county so far in 2006, down from 375 filed in 2005, and 477 filed in 2004. In 2003, 953 cases were filed. League president Ed Murnane said Madison County judges have been making it harder for plaintiffs to file asbestos cases in the County. Plaintiff attorney Bob Ramsey said the decline might be because of decreased asbestos mining. In the late 1980s, when local attorneys began contacting labor unions about asbestos exposure, Madison County began seeing a significant number of suits. The practice gave the county a reputation for being a lawsuit magnet. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Corp. Faces Hicks Lawsuit in Pa. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In December 2002, Louis Hicks filed a lawsuit in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against 46 defendants, including Dana Corporation, alleging physical injury from exposure to asbestos. Mr. Hicks died in 2003 at the age of 76. Since then, the Philadelphia Lawsuit has proceeded on behalf of Mr. Hicks's estate via his daughter, Denyse Hicks. The Philadelphia Lawsuit proceeded to a jury trial against only two defendants, John Crane, Inc., and Dana. In June 2004, the jury returned a verdict of US$5,000,000 in favor of the Hicks Estate. Based on Dana's proportionate share of the Verdict, along with an award of "delay damages," the Trial Court entered judgment of US$464,606 against Dana. In May 2005, Crane and Dana appealed the Trial Court order to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Appeal addresses certain issues raised solely by Crane, certain issues raised solely by Dana and certain issues raised by both parties. In September 2006, the Supreme Court upheld the Trial Court's ruling on the constitutionality of the Fair Share Act and remanded the Appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court for resolution of the remaining issues on appeal. The Appeal is stayed with respect to Dana because of its bankruptcy filing, but is not stayed with respect to Crane. Dana anticipates that the Supreme Court will shortly issue a remand mandate to the Superior Court and transfer the appellate record to the Superior Court for further proceedings on the Appeal. Dana also anticipates that the Superior Court will promptly issue a briefing schedule for the Appeal and proceed with the Appeal, with respect to Crane only, if the automatic stay remains in place as to Dana. If so, Dana notes that Crane would be responsible for all briefing and oral argument in the Appeal that necessarily relate address only the Crane Issues and Common Issues. Such an outcome is likely to prejudice materially Dana's interests. Dana believes that it could become bound by the Superior Court's decisions on the Common Issues without having had a voice in the Appeal, if it remains stayed from participating in the proceeding. Dana also believes that the Dana Issues, when considered in conjunction with the Common Issues, may enhance its prospects of obtaining reversal of the Trial Court order. Accordingly, Dana desires to participate in the Appeal. Dana asserts that the Appeal will only require its briefing and argument as opposed to discovery and trial and therefore, should not burden the estate with excessive costs. Thus, the Debtors, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders stipulate to seek modification of the automatic stay to permit Dana to participate in the Appeal. (Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 27; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000) New Securities Fraud Cases BODISEN TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Announces Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, announces that a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all common stock purchasers of Bodisen Biotech, Inc. from Aug. 26, 2005 through Nov. 10, 2006. The complaint charges Bodisen and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: -- that Benjamin Wey a/k/a Benjamin Wei (Wey or Wei), a person with a history of regulatory problems, had a significant undisclosed relationship with the company; -- that defendants failed to disclose the true owners of the company; -- that Bodisen failed to adequately disclose its relationship with, and payments to, Wey and New York Global Group, Inc., a company that was an analyst of Bodisen and of which Wey was President; -- that the company engaged in related-party transactions which had the effect of manipulating its financial results; -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls; and -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the company's financial statements were materially misleading at all relevant times and the company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. Beginning on Sept. 20, 2006, the New York Post and CBSMarketwatch.com published a series of articles, which revealed that Wey had a history of questionable securities transactions. The articles also exposed Wey's previously undisclosed role as investor advisor for Bodisen while he served as President of New York Global Group, Inc., an analyst of Bodisen. On Sept. 29, 2006, Bodisen announced that the company had terminated its relationship with New York Global Group, Inc. On Nov. 12, 2006, Bodisen stunned investors when the company announced that it had received a letter of noncompliance from AMEX. The company reported that AMEX believed that Bodisen made insufficient or inadequate disclosures in its public filings regarding the company's relationship with, and payments to, a "consultancy firm and its affiliates." AMEX was also concerned that Bodisen had "internal control issues related to its accounting and financial reporting obligations in the context of its relationship with the company." On this news, shares of the company's stock plunged $2.23, or 20.8 percent, to close, on Nov. 13, 2006, at $8.51 per share, on unusually heavy volume. On Nov. 14, 2006, the New York Post published an article regarding Bodisen, which further questioned the ownership of the company and its relationship with Wey and New York Global Group, Inc. On this news, shares of the company's stock sank an additional $2.61, or 30.7 percent, to close, on Nov. 14, 2006, at $5.90 per share, on unusually heavy volume. Interested parties may no later than Jan. 16, 2007, move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class. For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com. TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Tier Technologies, Inc. (PINK SHEETS: TIER.PK) between Nov. 29, 2001 and Oct. 25, 2006, inclusive. The complaint, filed against Tier and certain officers and directors, alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Tier issued a series of false and misleading financial statements by overstating company earnings and underreporting company losses. On Dec. 14, 2005, Tier announced that its financial statements for the fiscal years ended Sept. 30, 2002 through Sept. 30, 2004 and quarterly periods through June 30, 2005 should no longer be relied upon as a restatement of these financial results would be necessary. On Oct. 25, 2006, the company finally restated its financial statements indicating that the company had over reported its net income and underreported losses for approximately five years. Interested parties may move the court, not later than Jan. 9, 2007, to serve as lead plaintiff in the case. For more details, contact Mark S. Goldman of the Law Firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. Esq., Phone: 888-668-4130. TVIA INC: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., filed a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of TVIA, Inc. shares during the period from Feb. 7, 2006 through Nov. 16, 2006. The complaint charges TVIA and certain of its officers with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. During the class period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements concerning the company's revenues and financial performance for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006 and for quarters ended Dec. 31, 2005 and June 30, 2006. In particular, the company improperly recognized revenues that were either uncollectible or not bona fide, in violation of the Exchange Act and GAAP. Additionally, the company issued materially false and misleading statements concerning the company's revenue projections for the second quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006 for fiscal 2007 in violation of the federal securities laws. In particular, on Aug. 7, 2006, a month into Q2 2007, the Defendants issued materially false and misleading revenue guidance that Q2 2007 revenues would be "higher" than the $5,071,000 in revenues the company reported for the first quarter ended June 20, 2006 ("Q1 2007"). In reality, the complaint alleges that the company expected to achieve less than 10% of the revenues it had reported for Q1 2007 (between $300,000 and $400,000) in Q2 2007. As a direct result of the false and misleading revenue guidance issued by defendants, the company's stock lost more than half of its value during the class period. Interested parties may no later than Dec. 5, 2006, move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class. For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. Scott Evans of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com and sevans2@cmht.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 * * *