/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070119.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, January 19, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 14 Headlines AMERICAN INT'L: N.Y. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit ARCHON CORP: Ninth Circuit Mulls Appeal on Dismissal of "Poulos" AVAYA INC: N.J. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit BREAKAWAY COURIER: NY Messengers FLSA Violations Suit Certified BURLINGTON COAT: Court OKs Settlement in Suit Over Bain Purchase C&O MOTORS: Settles Lawsuit with Daewoo Auto Buyer for $350T CAMBREX CORP: Certification Hearing in N.J. Stock Suit Set Feb. CELL THERAPEUTICS: Wash. Court Formally Dismisses Stock Suit DURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Face Calif. Securities Suit ECKERD HEALTH: Faces Calif. Suit Over Pharmacy Services Contract FLIGHT SAFETY: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Conn. FLOWSERVE CORP: Discovery in Tex. Securities Suit Still Ongoing ILLINOIS: Union Treasurer Faces Suit for Disclosing Member Data INTRAWARE INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Settlement KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Tenn. Court Approves $38M Stock Suit Deal LONG ISLAND: Dismissal of Suit Over Rate Increases Appealed MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: March Status Conference Set for N.J. Suit MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Court Certifies Class in Md. Securities Suit MASSACHUSETTS: County Settles Strip Search Lawsuit for $205T MEADE INSTRUMENTS: Faces Suit Calif. Over Product Falsification MEADE INSTRUMENTS: Lead Plaintiff Sought in Calif. Stock Suit NEW YORK: $11M Settlement in Suit Over MOPII Program Approved OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL: Faces Suit in Ala. Over "Harmful" Releases OMNICOM GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Consolidated Stock Suit OSB ANTITRUST: Class Certification Motion Briefing Set January MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Calif. Court Considers DRAM Suit Settlement SCHERING-PLOUGH: Faces RICO Violations Lawsuit in E.D. Penn. SHAW GROUP: Fifth Circuit Hears Appeal on La. Securities Suit SPEAR & JACKSON: Fla. Court Considers Securities Suit Settlement STAR GAS: Conn. Stock Suit Dismissed; Plaintiffs Seek to Re-file STEWART ENTERPRISES: Continues to Face Tex. Antitrust Suits STEWART ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of SCI Affiliate STILLWATER MINING: Parties Enter Into N.Y. Suit Settlement Talks SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Discovery Continues in N.J. Securities Suit TASER INT'L: $20M Securities Suit Settlement Gets Initial Okay TYSON FOODS: Jan. 29 Case Management Forum Set for "Trollinger" Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Son Wins GBP60T Payout for Factory Exposure ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Electrician's Death to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Firm Settles With Zurich, Excess in Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio EPA Investigates Asbestos in Basement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Makes $1.4B Payment to Trust ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coroner Links Carpenter's Death to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Upholds Judgment v. Tenneco ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Splits Ruling in Staley Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Splits Ruling in Stahlheber Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WorkSafeBC Raises Fine v. School to CDN75T ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Council Closes Cottage for Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: British Rail Pays 3 Ex-Workers for Exposure ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Govt. Sets Shipwreck's Cleanup in Feb. 2007 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms Stay of PepsiAmericas Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Intermountain Still Recognizes $11T Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. School Ex-Supervisor Drops Payout Claim ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Guild Hits LoC for Risky Working Conditions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEQ Penalizes School District for Breaches ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Macquarie to Gauge Risks from Natural State ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Council to Investigate Fly-tipping in Road ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Davis Widow Seeks Manor Joinery Ex-workers ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ala. Victim Sues 91 Cos. in Madison County ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Ex-Worker's Death to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Council Shuts Down School for Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kin of Canadian Workers Exposed to Hazards New Securities Fraud Cases CELESTICA INC: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing SUNRISE SENIOR: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing ********* AMERICAN INT'L: N.Y. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss the American International Group Inc. (AIG) ERISA Litigation filed on behalf of plaintiffs and a class of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of: * the American International Group Inc. (AIG) Incentive Savings Plan, * the American General Employees' Thrift and Incentive Plan, * the American General Agents' and Managers' Thrift Plan, and * the CommoLoCo Thrift Plan: (a) from Sept. 30, 2000 through May 31, 2005 for participants of the AIG Incentive Savings Plan; (b) from Aug. 29, 2001 through Jan. 1, 2003 for participants of the American General Employees' Thrift and Incentive Plan; (c) from Aug. 29, 2001 through May 31, 2005 for participants in the American General Agents' and Managers' Thrift Plan; and (d) from Aug. 29, 2001 through May 31, 2005 for participants in the CommoLoCo Thrift Plan. The consolidated complaint alleges that during the class period, the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and the class members by: -- failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plans and the Plans' assets; -- failing to provide participants with complete and accurate information regarding AIG stock sufficient to advise participants of the true risks of investing their retirement savings; -- failing to properly monitor the performance of their fiduciary appointees, and remove and replace those whose performance was inadequate; -- breaching the duty to avoid conflicts of interest; -- violating the co-fiduciary liability; and -- knowingly participating in a breach of duty. Not all claims were brought against every defendant. On Dec. 12, 2006, Judge John E. Sprizzo issued an order in which he denied defendants' motions to dismiss. A pre-trial conference is set on July 10, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 21C, 500 Pearl St. The suit is "In Re AIG ERISA Litigation," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo. Representing the plaintiffs is Keller Rohrback LLP, Web site: http://www.erisafraud.com/. ARCHON CORP: Ninth Circuit Mulls Appeal on Dismissal of "Poulos" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to make a decision on appeal made by plaintiffs in regards to the dismissal of a class action against the Archon Corp., according to the company's Jan. 16, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2006. The company is a defendant in class action cases that were originally filed in the U.S. District Court of Florida, Orlando Division in 1994, namely: -- "William Poulos v. Caesar's World, Inc. et al., Case No. 94-478-Civ-Orl-22;" -- "William H Ahern v. Caesars World, Inc. et al., Case No. 94-478-Civ-Orl-22;" and -- "Larry Schrier v. Caesars World Inc., et al., Case No. 95-923-LDG (RJJ)." Along with a fourth action against cruise ship gaming operators, the aforementioned case have been consolidated in a single action now pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. Also named as defendants in these actions are many of the largest gaming companies in the U.S. and certain gaming equipment manufacturers. Each complaint is identical in its material allegations. Generally, the actions allege that the defendants have engaged in fraudulent and misleading conduct by inducing people to play video poker machines and electronic slot machines based on false beliefs concerning how the machines operate and the extent to which there is actually an opportunity to win on a given play. The complaints also allege that the defendants' acts constitute violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and also give rise to claims for common law fraud and unjust enrichment, and seek compensatory, special consequential, incidental and punitive damages of several billion dollars. In response to the complaints, all of the defendants, including the company, filed motions attacking the pleadings for failure to state a claim. They war seeking to dismiss the complaints for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue. As a result of those motions, the court has required the plaintiffs in the four consolidated cases to file a single consolidated amended complaint. Subsequent to plaintiffs' filing of their consolidated amended complaint, the defendants filed numerous motions attacking the amended complaint upon many of the bases as the prior motions. The court heard the arguments on those motions and ultimately denied the motions. Plaintiffs then filed their motion to certify a class. Defendants have vigorously opposed the motion. In June 2002, the court denied the motion to certify the class. Plaintiffs then sought discretionary review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the order denying class certification. In August 2002, the Ninth Circuit granted review. The briefing is complete and an oral hearing took place in January 2004. In September 2005, the federal district court granted the defendants motion for dismissal. On Oct. 19, 2005, the plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit. AVAYA INC: N.J. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet to rule on Avaya, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action against the company and certain of its officers. In April and May of 2005, purported class actions were filed, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The actions purport to be filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock from Oct. 5, 2004 to Apr. 19, 2005. On Oct. 5, 2004, Avaya signed an agreement to acquire Tenovis Germany GmbH. The complaints, which are substantially similar to one another, allege, among other things, that the plaintiffs were injured by reason of certain allegedly false and misleading statements made by the company relating to the cost of the Tenovis integration, the disruption caused by changes in the delivery of the company's products to the market and reductions in the demand for the company products in the U.S., and that based on the foregoing the company had no basis to project the company's stated revenue goals for fiscal 2005. The company has been served with a number of these complaints. No class has been certified in the actions. The complaints seek compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. In August 2005, the court entered an order identifying a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs' counsel. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in October 2005. Pursuant to a scheduling order issue by the district court, defendants filed their motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in December 2005. On Feb. 14, 2006, Plaintiff submitted its opposition. Oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss took place on August 14, 2006 before Judge Mary L. Cooper. On Sept. 28, 2006, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. At the end of October 2006, plaintiff appealed the court's decision on the motion to dismiss. The suit is "Charatz v. Avaya, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv- 02319-MLC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Mary L. Cooper with referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Peter S. Pearlman of Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, LLP, Park 80 Plaza West One, Saddle Brook, NJ 07663, Phone: (201) 845-9600, E-mail: PSP@njlawfirm.com; (2) Andrew Robert Jacobs of Epstein Fitzsimmons Brown Gioia Jacobs & Sprouls, 245 Green Village Road, P.O. Box 901, Chatham Township, NJ 07928-0901, Phone: (973) 593-4900, E-mail: ajacobs@epsteinfitz.com; and (3) James C. Shah of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, 475 White Horse Pike, Collingswood, NJ 08107-1909, Phone: (856) 858-1770, Fax: (856) 858-7012, E-mail: jshah@classactioncounsel.com. Representing the defendants are Robert T. Egan and Joseph A. Martin of Archer & Greiner, PC, One Centennial Square, Haddonffield, NJ 08033, Phone: (856) 795-2121, E-mail: regan@archerlaw.com and jmartin@archerlaw.com. BREAKAWAY COURIER: NY Messengers FLSA Violations Suit Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert W. Sweet of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted class certification to a lawsuit filed against Breakaway Courier Systems, Tom Cromwell and Robert Kotch, The Courthouse News Service Reports. In 2005, New York City bicycle messengers filed the suit claiming they were -- paid less than minimum wage, -- stiffed for overtime, and -- had improper deductions taken from their paychecks for more than seven years. The bike messengers say that because they were paid strictly on commission, on slow days they could not earn minimum wage. The improper deductions include the cost of bicycle repairs, use of company radios, and "other unexplained reasons which were labeled 'expenses' or 'reimburse.'" Judge Sweet found that "Since April 1999 to the present, at any particular time, there were around 50 to 100 messengers working for Breakaway and the turnover was very high. Thus, during the class period, at least 1,600 messengers have worked for the Defendants." The class includes all persons who are or were messengers who worked for the defendants at any given time since April 26, 2002, and are similarly situated for FLSA purposes. There are questions of law and fact common to all class members which includes: -- the terms of employment regarding compensation (including overtime pay, minimum wages, commissions and deductions) due to class members; -- payment of commissions due; -- compensation below the minimum wage; -- the denial of overtime; -- deductions from the pay of class members for radio use, bicycle repairs and other unexplained reasons; and -- the existence of appropriate records and evidence of work performed. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?18ae The suit is "Trinidad et al v. Breakaway Courier Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04116-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Robert W. Sweet. Representing plaintiffs is Michael Shen of Michael Shen & Associates, P.C., 225 Broadway, Suite 2515, New York, NY 10007, Phone: (212) 227-0300, Fax: (212)-227-2714, E-mail: mshen@employmentlawny-nj.com. BURLINGTON COAT: Court OKs Settlement in Suit Over Bain Purchase ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of New Jersey in and for Burlington County has approved a settlement of the purported class action, "Lemon Bay Partners v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation et al. (CA No. Bur. C-000014-06)." The suit was filed against Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. in relation to a Jan. 18, 2006 sale agreement with Burlington Coat Factory Holdings, Inc. and BCFWC Mergersub, a wholly owned subsidiary of the holding company (Merger Sub). The purported class action complaint was filed on Jan. 27, 2006 by putative stockholders of the company in the Superior Court of New Jersey in and for Burlington County against the company and its directors (individual defendants) challenging the proposed acquisition of the company by newly formed affiliates of Bain Capital Partners, LLC -- the holding company and Merger Sub. On Mar. 7, 2006, plaintiff served the company and the individual defendants with a first amended shareholder class action complaint. The complaint asserts on behalf of a purported class of company stockholders a claim against the Individual defendants for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the consideration to be paid to holders of company common stock in the merger is inadequate. It further alleges that the company and the individual defendants have breached a disclosure duty to the company's stockholders by failing to provide them with material information and/or providing them with misleading information concerning the proposed merger in the company's proxy statement. In addition, the complaint also asserts a claim against Bain Capital Partners, LLC for aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual defendants. The complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the consummation of the merger, that the transaction be rescinded if it is not enjoined, and an award of compensatory and rescissory damages as well as attorneys' fees. On March 30, 2006, the company and its directors entered into a memorandum of understanding for a settlement, subject to court approval, pursuant to which the lawsuit would be dismissed against all parties to the lawsuit in consideration of additional disclosures made in the proxy statement supplement related to the merger and the proposed payment of plaintiff's legal fees. After the court approved the memorandum of understanding, confirming discovery was completed. In July 2006, a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed with the court. The settlement agreement was approved on Oct. 18, 2006, according to the company's Jan. 16, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 12, 2006. C&O MOTORS: Settles Lawsuit with Daewoo Auto Buyer for $350T ------------------------------------------------------------ C&O Motors of St. Albans, West Virginia agreed to settle for more than $350,000 a class action filed against it in Kanawha County Circuit Court by a Daewoo automobile buyer, The West Virginia Record reports. In his suit, which was granted class-action status by Judge Paul Zakaib in Oct. 5, 2005, Darryl Smith accuses the car dealer of unfair and deceptive business practices. Mr. Smith alleges that C&O sold new Daewoo vehicles between Feb. 1, 2002 and Aug. 1, 2002 without informing consumers of Daewoo Motor America's financial problems that could affect warranties. Aside from C&O, the lawsuit also names Love Daewoo and St. Albans Imports as defendants (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 3, 2005). Daewoo Motor filed for bankruptcy protection in May 2002 after its South Korean parent Daewoo Motor Co. went bankrupt in 2001. General Motors then signed a deal with Daewoo and the Korean Development Bank to invest $251 million for a 42 percent stake in a new company. Under the settlement, C&O Motors will pay $600 each to Mr. Smith and 87 other customers who bought Daewoo autos in 2002. It will also pay an undisclosed additional payment to Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith's lawyer from Bell & Bands of Charleston will get $266,421 plus $36,329 for legal expenses. In the settlement, C&O Motors denied all allegations in Mr. Smith's complaint and disputed any liability to him or the class. Judge Zakaib set a fairness hearing on Jan. 29, according to the report. For more details, contact Harry F. Bell, Jr. of Bell & Bands, P.L.L.C., 30 Capitol Street, P.O. Box 1723, Charleston, West Virginia 25301, (Kanawha Co.), Phone: 304-345-1700, Fax: 304- 345-1715, Web site: http://www.belllaw.com. CAMBREX CORP: Certification Hearing in N.J. Stock Suit Set Feb. --------------------------------------------------------------- A Feb. 7 hearing was scheduled for a plaintiff's motion seeking class certification in the consolidated securities fraud suit pending against Cambrex Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey is set for. In October 2003, the company was notified of a securities class action filed against it and five former and current officers. Five class actions were later filed. In January 2004, the court consolidated the cases, designated the lead plaintiff and selected counsel to represent the class. An amended complaint was filed in March 2004. The suit has been brought as a class action on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock from Oct. 21, 1998 through Jul. 25, 2003. The complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose in timely fashion the January 2003 accounting restatement and subsequent U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation, as well as the loss of a significant contract at the Baltimore facility. Due to further investigation by plaintiff's counsel, an amended consolidated complaint was filed on March 29, 2004. In September 2004, defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action and plaintiff submitted its opposition. The court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed plaintiff's claims against the individual defendants on Oct. 27, 2005, but allowed the case to proceed against the corporation. Following this Order, defendants filed a motion for reconsideration and plaintiff opposed this motion. The court denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration in January 2006. On Nov. 30, 2005, plaintiff moved to certify the class. On April 10, 2006, the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund filed a motion to intervene in this matter and the Court granted the motion. The court lifted the stay in this matter and the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund has filed its motion for class certification. In July, the defendants filed their opposition to plaintiff's motion for class certification. In August 2006, Judge Ronald J. Hedges stayed all pending motions, briefing and discovery action until the status conference. On Nov. 6, 2006, a status conference was held and the stay was lifted. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be on Feb. 7, 2007, according to the law firm of Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah. The suit is "Dodge v. Cambrex Corp., et al., Case No. 2:03-cv- 04896-WJM-RJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge William J. Martini with referral to Judge Ronald J. Hedges. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Joseph J. Depalma of Lite, Depalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102- 5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com; (2) Barry A. Knopf and Peter s. Pearlman of Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, Park 80 Plaza, West One, Saddle Brook, NJ 07662, Phone: (201) 845 9600, E-mail: PSP@njlawfirm.com; (3) Mark C. Rifkin of Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 545-4600, E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com; and (4) Patrick Louis Rocco of Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, 163 Madison Avenue, P.O. BOX 1277, Morristown, NJ 07962- 1277, Phone: (973) 775-8997, E-mail: procco@lawssb.com. Representing the defendants is Alan E. Kraus of Latham & Watkins, LLP, One Newark Center, 16th Floor, Newark, NJ 07101- 3174, Phone: (973) 639-7293 and 973-639-1234, E-mail: alan.kraus@lw.com. CELL THERAPEUTICS: Wash. Court Formally Dismisses Stock Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted Cell Therapeutics, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action, but gave plaintiffs leave to amend its complaint. Beginning in March 2005, a number of purported shareholder class actions, alleging violations of federal securities laws, were filed against the company, James Bianco and Max Link. These actions were consolidated. On Nov. 7, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended class action complaint against the company, James Bianco and Jack Singer. The consolidated and amended complaint asserts claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on behalf of a class of purchasers of common stock during the period from Nov. 14, 2003 to March 7, 2005. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by, among other things, making false statements of material facts and/or omitting to state material facts to make the statements not misleading in connection with the results of the company's STELLAR clinical trials for its drug XYOTAX. On Jan. 6, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss this class action complaint. On May 4, 2006 the court granted the company's motion to dismiss this lawsuit with leave to the plaintiffs to amend. The court formally dismissed this action in June 2006, according to the law firm of Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah. The suit is "Heywood v. Cell Therapeutics Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00396-RSM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Michelle M. Backes of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King Of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, E- mail: mbackes@sbclasslaw.com; (2) Tamara J. Driscoll of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, 1700 Seventh Avenue, Ste. 2260, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-749-5544, Fax: 206-749- 9978, E-mail: tdriscoll@lerachlaw.com; (3) Douglas C. McDermott of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, 1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-7292, E-mail: doug@hbsslaw.com; and (4) Jay H. Zulauf of Hall Zanzig Zulauf Claflin Mceachern, 1200 5th Ave., Ste. 1414, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-292-5900, Fax: 206-292-5901, E-mail: jzulauf@hallzan.com. Representing the defendant are Daniel J Dunne, Jr. and Robin Wechkin of Heller Ehrman, LLP, 701 5th Ave., Ste. 6100, Seattle, WA 98104-7098, Phone: 206-447-0900, Fax: 206-447-0375, E-mail: daniel.dunne@hellerehrman.com & robin.wechkin@hellerehrman.com. DURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Face Calif. Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. remains a defendant in a complaint of securities fraud filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Dura Pharmaceuticals securities between April 15, 1997 and February 24, 1998. On February 24, 1998, Dura revealed that it expected much lower than forecast 1998 revenues and 1998 earnings per shares due to much lower sales of certain products. Subsequently, the company also revealed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would not approve its Spiros drug system for problems Dura knew existed during the class period, but kept from investors. On June 18, 1999, the court appointed BLB&G as Co-Lead Counsel for the class. On Sept. 25, 2000, the duly appointed Lead Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint against Dura and certain of its officers. On Nov. 2, 2001, the court dismissed the case. Lead Plaintiffs appealed that court's decision to the U.s. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On Aug. 5, 2003, the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the lower court and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. Defendants petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing, which was denied. Defendants subsequently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's standard for pleading loss causation. On June 28, 2004, the Supreme Court granted defendants' petition for certiorari and agreed to hear the case. On April 19, 2005, after briefing and oral argument, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. In so doing, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that to plead loss causation investors need only provide defendants with a short, plain statement to provide " 'fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.' " On remand, in accordance with the Supreme's Court decision, plaintiffs' filed their third consolidated amended complaint for violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on August 26, 2005. On June 2, 2006, after briefing and oral argument, the district court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The court found that Plaintiffs had adequately alleged loss causation. However, the court also found that several allegations required additional source information. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend. On July 21, 2006, plaintiffs filed their fourth consolidated amended complaint for violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On Sept. 5, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint. The suit is "In re Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 99 cv 0151L (NLS)," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP partner David Stickney and associate Russell F.A. Riviere represents the plaintiffs. ECKERD HEALTH: Faces Calif. Suit Over Pharmacy Services Contract ---------------------------------------------------------------- Galloway Pharmacy lodged a class-action complaint in Superior Court in California alleging five corporations, including Eckerd Health Services, are using misrepresentations to sell a pharmacy services agreement, The Courthouse News Service reports. Named defendants in the suit: -- Eckerd -- Health Benefit Services, dba Plan Plus -- Stonebridge Life Insurance Co., an alter ego of Health Benefit Services, and -- TDI Managed Care Services, which does business as Eckerd. Galloway claims that defendants acknowledge that their pharmacy services agreement does not cover cash discount card programs. But it says they continue to advertise that it does, on the Internet, through the mails and by telephone. Galloway says the defendants also list pharmacies as "participants" in the program though they know the businesses refuse to accept the cash discount cards, and never did accept them. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, an accounting of unjust profits, and an injunction. Plaintiffs counsel is Gordon & Rees, LLP, 101 W. Broadway, Suite 2000, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 696-6700, Fax: (619) 696-7124, Website: http://www.gordonrees.com/offices/index.cfm. FLIGHT SAFETY: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Conn. --------------------------------------------------------------- Flight Safety Technologies, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors remain defendants in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The suit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased company securities during the period between Jan. 14, 2003 and July 16, 2004. The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and state common laws by making a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the SOCRATES Wake Vortex Detector. On Oct. 19, 2005, the court entered the order signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On December 23, 2005, a consolidated amended complaint was filed. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on Feb. 28, 2006. The reference complaint is "In Re: Flight Safety Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-01175," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Christopher F. Droney. Plaintiff firms named in complaint: (1) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr., New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682- 1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com; (2) The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508, New York, NY, 10118, Phone: 212-686-1060, Fax: 212-202- 3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com; and (3) Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212-545-4600, Fax: 212-686-0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com. FLOWSERVE CORP: Discovery in Tex. Securities Suit Still Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Fact discovery in a consolidated securities fraud suit pending against Flowserve Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas is extended through June 22, 2007. The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws. The action was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Flowserve securities between Oct. 23, 2001 and Sept. 27, 2002. The complaint specifically alleges that defendants, among other things: -- misrepresented that the company's aftermarket sales (the company's "quick turnaround" business) were steady, stable and consistent streams of revenue; -- misrepresented that the company's growth made it less dependent upon the chemical and industrial segments, which had historically been very sensitive to economic downturn; -- failed to disclose that the company had instructed one or more of its plants to stop building inventory as a result of the projected (albeit undisclosed) continuing decline in sales; and -- without any reasonable basis, projected full year 2002 earnings at ranges that were unattainable due to the declines the company was experiencing in critical business segments. On Oct. 29, 2003, the court appointed lead plaintiff The Alaska Electrical Pension Fund and lead counsel. Due to further investigation by plaintiff's counsel, an amended consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 5, 2004. Plaintiffs then filed a second consolidated amended complaint in May 2004. The class period was modified to March 29, 2001 through Sept. 27, 2002. In July 2004, the case was reassigned from Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn to Judge Jane J. Boyle. Also, in July 2004, a third consolidated amended complaint was filed. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint in August 2004. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss. The court denied all defendants' motions to dismiss. Initial discovery disclosures were exchanged on Feb. 6, 2006. A hearing was held on plaintiffs' motion for class certification on Sept. 7, 2006. The court has allowed plaintiffs to file written rebuttal to defendants' confidential witnesses' testimony contained in defendants' opposition to class certification. On Oct. 20, 2006, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion to modify the scheduling order, which extended fact discovery through June 22, 2007. The parties are continuing to engage in discovery in this matter, the law firm Shepherd Finkelman said. ILLINOIS: Union Treasurer Faces Suit for Disclosing Member Data --------------------------------------------------------------- The treasurer of Local 150 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Joe Ward, is facing a class action filed by eight members of the union he seeks to lead, The Chicago Tribune reports. Attorney Thomas Pleines filed the suit in Cook County Circuit Court. The suit accuses Mr. Ward of illegally giving the members' personal information to a telemarketing company. Also named in the suit is Team 150, a group backing Mr. Ward for president of the local in an August election, and 17 members of Mr. Ward's campaign slate, the report said. The membership information given to a third-party telemarketing company was reportedly used to conduct a survey for Mr. Ward's campaign. Mr. Ward acknowledged giving the names and phone numbers of about 300 members of the local to a pollster, but he said that data was readily available to many local members via frequently used lists, according to the report. He said no secure information like Social Security numbers was given out. INTRAWARE INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of 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 in the consolidated securities class action filed against Intraware, Inc., according to the company's Jan. 16, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 30, 2006. In October 2001, the company was served with a summons and complaint in a purported securities class action. On or about April 19, 2002, the company was served with an amended complaint in this action, which is now titled, "In re Intraware, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9349 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)." The amended complaint is brought purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock from Feb. 25, 1999 -- the date of the company's initial public offering -- through Dec. 6, 2000. It names as defendants Intraware, three of the company's present and former officers and directors, and several investment banking firms that served as underwriters of the company's initial public offering. The complaint alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that: -- the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and -- the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices. The amended complaint also alleges that the underwriters misused their securities analysts to manipulate the price of the company's stock. No specific damages are claimed. Lawsuits containing similar allegations have been filed in the Southern District of New York challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and secondary offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000. All of these lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial purposes before U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York. On July 15, 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was filed in the coordinated litigation on behalf of the issuer defendants, of which Intraware and its three named current and former officers and directors are a part, on common pleadings issues. On or about Oct. 9, 2002, the court entered and ordered a stipulation of dismissal, which dismissed the three named current and former officers and directors from the litigation without prejudice. On Feb. 19, 2003, the court entered an order denying in part the issuer-defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss, including those portions of the motion to dismiss relating to Intraware. In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement for the claims against the issuer-defendants, including the company, was submitted to the court. The underwriter-defendants in the "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation", including the underwriters of the company's initial public offering, are not parties to the stipulation of settlement. The settlement provides that, in exchange for a release of claims against the settling issuer-defendants, the insurers of all of the settling issuer-defendants will provide a surety undertaking to guarantee plaintiffs a $1 billion recovery from the non-settling defendants, including the underwriter- defendants. On Aug. 31, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. A fairness hearing for the settlement took place in April 2006. After the hearing, the court took the matter under submission and has not yet issued a final ruling. On Dec. 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the class certification order of the district court judge, and concluded that none of the six focus cases presented to the appellate court for consideration can be certified as a class action. For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/. KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Tenn. Court Approves $38M Stock Suit Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted final approval to a proposed $38.25 million settlement in the matter, "In Re: King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-00077," according to the law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP. Proof of claim filing deadline is Feb. 8, 2007. The settlement covers all persons or entities that purchased King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., common stock between Feb. 16, 1999 and March 10, 2003. Beginning in March 2003, 22 purported class action complaints were filed by securities holders against the company, certain of its directors, former directors, its executive officers, former executive officers, a subsidiary, and a former director of the subsidiary in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The suits alleged violations of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and/or the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the underpayment of rebates owed to Medicaid and other governmental pricing programs, and certain transactions between the company and the Benevolent Fund. The 22 complaints were later consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. On August 15, 2003, the court appointed Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP clients: -- the Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, -- the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, and, -- the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana as Lead plaintiffs representing the class and also appointed Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as lead counsel for the class. On June 13, 2005, the court entered an order certifying the class on stipulation of all parties. On Aug. 28, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a $38.25 million cash settlement between the class and all defendants. On Sept. 27, 2006, the court entered an Order preliminarily approving the settlement. On Jan. 9, 2007, a settlement fairness hearing was held, during which time the Court granted final approval of the settlement and plan of allocation and issued a final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice, ending this litigation and relinquishing all claims against Defendants. Claims filing deadline is on Feb. 8, 2007. The suit is "In Re: King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-00077," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge Thomas W. Phillips with referral to Judge Dennis H. Inman. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) K. Kidwell King, Jr. of King & King, 125 South Main Street, Greeneville, TN 37743, Phone: 423-639-6881, E- mail: kking2@aol.com; and (2) John C. Browne of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10019-6028, Phone: 212-554-1400, Fax: 212- 554-1441, E-mail: johnb@blbglaw.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Andrew L. Colocotronis of Baker, Donelson, Bearman & Caldwell, P.O. Box 1792, Knoxville, TN 37901-1792, Phone: 865-549-7000, E-mail: acolocotronis@bakerdonelson.com; and (ii) Scott Dodson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, 1050 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036-5303, Phone: 202-887-3772, Fax: 202-530-9654, E-mail: sdodson@gibsondunn.com. To contact Claims Administrator: In re: King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 170500 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Phone: (800) 949-0192 LONG ISLAND: Dismissal of Suit Over Rate Increases Appealed ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the suit, "Patti, et al. v. Long Island Power Authority," filed a notice of appeal on the dismissal of their complaints by the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County in September, according co-lead counsel Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP. On Feb. 22, 2006, Co-Lead Counsel Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann and Jaspan Schlesinger Hoffman, LLP, filed a class action complaint against the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) on behalf of all residential and business customers of LIPA since 2001 seeking to recover monies paid to LIPA as a result of LIPA's improper rate increases. Lead plaintiff Carol Patti, a resident of Suffolk County, has seen her electric bills steadily increase as LIPA improperly imposed a series of "fuel surcharges" ostensibly tied to LIPA's costs to purchase fuel. However, according to a report issued by State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi, "LIPA has avoided [Public Service Commission] scrutiny of its actions that increased prices by terming them surcharges, while expanding the list of items it included in a fuel and purchased power surcharge." The suit alleges that LIPA used these fuel surcharges to increase the effective rate paid for power by Long Island residents and businesses in order to avoid the conditions placed on it by the Public Authority Control Board. These conditions bar LIPA from implementing a rate increase of more than 2.5% without the approval of the Public Service Commission. By stretching its definition of fuel costs, LIPA included a number of vague and extraneous costs as fuel costs, and then passed those costs on to its consumers as a fuel surcharge. The complaint alleges that LIPA implemented new fuel surcharges even at times when fuel costs had decreased. As a result, the effective electric rates paid by LIPA customers increased even when other public and private electric utilities were able to decrease the rates charged to their respective customers. BLB&G partner Jerry Silk stated, "Long Island residents already pay some of the highest power rates in the country. The fact that LIPA would breach its promises to lower electric rates by hiking rates in the form of surcharges is disturbing, to say the least. These broad ranging surcharges walk and talk like rate hikes, and our suit seeks to recover the hundreds of millions of dollars wrongfully taken from LIPA customers." On Feb. 23, 2006, plaintiffs held a press conference regarding the complaint and ran news segments that evening. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and deceptive trade practices in violation of New York General Business Law section 349, and seeks compensatory damages and injunctive relief. On June 16, 2006, plaintiffs filed their opposition to LIPA's motion to dismiss the complaint. On Sept. 27, 2006, Judge Bucaria dismissed the claims against LIPA on two procedural grounds. -- First, the court held that the claims against LIPA challenged LIPA's ratemaking authority and, therefore, were prohibited by the "filed rate doctrine;" -- Second, the court held that the claims against LIPA fall within Article 78 (which governs claims against instrumentalities and political subdivisions of New York State) and, therefore, that the claims needed to be filed within six months after each of the fuel surcharges was implemented. On Oct. 27, 2006, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in regards to Judge Bucaria's decision. In addition to Mr. Silk, associate Avi Josefson is responsible for prosecuting this action. The suit is, "Carol Patti v. Long Island Power Authority, Index No. 06-3149," filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Max W. Berger, Gerald H. Silk and Avi Josefson of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019, Phone: 212- 554-1400; and (2) Michael E. White of Jaspan Schlesinger Hoffman, LLP, 300 Garden City Plaza, Garden City, New York 11530, Phone: 516-746-8000, (212) 554-1282. MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: March Status Conference Set for N.J. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A status conference for the certification of a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Majesco Entertainment Co. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey is set March 31, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. In July 2005, four purported class action complaints were filed against the company and several of its current and former directors and officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On Sept. 12, 2005, a fifth purported class action complaint was filed in the same court on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased shares of the company's common stock on Jan. 26, 2005 offering of six million shares of common stock. The complaint named as defendants the company, current and former officers of the company, and certain financial institutions who served as underwriters with respect to the offering. On Oct. 11, 2005, the court consolidated the five cases and appointed a lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff is Diker M&S Cap Master Ltd. On Dec. 14, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint, which is now the operative complaint. The complaint names as defendants: -- the company, -- Carl Yankowski, -- Jan E. Chason, -- Jesse Sutton, -- Joseph Sutton, -- Morris Sutton, -- Laurence Aronson, -- F. Peter Cuneo, -- James Halpin, -- Louis Lipschitz, -- Marc Weisman, -- RBC Capital Markets Corp., -- JMP Securities LLC, -- Harris Nesbitt & Corp., -- Wedbush Morgan Securities Inc., and -- Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the company's offering and certain of the company's press releases and other public filings contained material misstatements and omissions about the company's financial condition and prospects as well as its products. The lead plaintiff asserts a claim under Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act against all the defendants on behalf of investors who purchased in the offering. It asserts a Section 12(a)(2) claim against the company and the financial institutions who served as underwriters in connection with the offering, and a Section 15 control person claim against defendants Carl Yankowski, Jan Chason, Jesse Sutton, Joseph Sutton, and Morris Sutton. The lead plaintiff also asserts a claim under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under against the company and the defendants and a claim under Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act against the defendants. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The proposed class period for the Exchange Act claims is Dec. 8, 2004 through Sept. 12, 2005. In February 2006, defendants filed various motions to dismiss this action. Plaintiff filed a response to defendants' motions and on Sept. 29, 2006, the court denied the motions to dismiss. Defendants filed their answer to plaintiff's amended consolidated complaint on Nov. 29, 2006 and plaintiff's class certification was filed on Nov. 30, 2006. The court has set a status conference for March 21, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. The suit is "Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Majesco Entertainment Co., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03557-FSH-PS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral to Judge Patty Shwartz. Representing the plaintiff is Patrick Louis Rocco of Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, 163 Madison Ave., P.O. BOX 1277, Morristown, NJ 07962-1277, Phone: (973) 775-8997, E-mail: procco@lawssb.com. Representing the defendants is Joseph Domenick Giacoia of Capuder Fazio Giacoia, 90 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004, US, Phone: 212-509-9595, E-mail: jgiacoia@cfgny.com. MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Court Certifies Class in Md. Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has certified a class in the consolidated securities fraud class action against Martek Biosciences Corp., according to the company's Jan. 16, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2006. Since May 4, 2005, several other putative class actions making similar allegations were filed against the company and certain of its officers. The court entered orders consolidating these cases, appointing lead plaintiffs and approving lead plaintiffs' counsel and liaison counsel. On Nov. 18, 2005, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in "In re Martek Biosciences Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. MJG 05-1224." While the court has not made a determination of whether a putative class can be certified, the consolidated complaint claims to be filed on behalf of the purchasers of the company's common stock during a purported class period beginning Dec. 9, 2004 and ending April 28, 2005. At this time, plaintiffs have not specified the amount of damages they are seeking in the actions. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b- 5, promulgated thereunder, and violations of Section 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the company and the individual defendants made false or misleading public statements and failed to disclose material facts regarding its business and prospects in public statements the company made or failed to make during the period and, in the case of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 claims, in the company's January 2005 prospectus. The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Feb. 3, 2006, and a hearing before the court on this motion was held on May 22, 2006. On June 14, 2006, the court denied our motion to dismiss and on July 25, 2006, the court entered a scheduling order for further proceedings in the case. Subsequently, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933, leaving only the alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the action. On Sept. 20, 2006, the court approved the dismissal of the 1933 Act claims. Additionally, on Sept. 21, 2006, the court approved the parties' stipulation certifying a class to prosecute claims under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Subject to certain exceptions, the stipulated class generally consists of all persons who either purchased Martek common stock during the class period of Dec. 9, 2004 through April 28, 2005, inclusive or otherwise acquired, without purchasing, Martek common stock during the class period from a person or entity who purchased those particular shares of Martek stock during the class period. The suit is "Black v. Martek Biosciences Corp. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01224-MJG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland under Judge Marvin J. Garbis. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Christopher L. Nelson of Schiffrin and Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 16108220262, Fax: 16106677056, E-mail: cnelson@sbclasslaw.com; (2) Charles J. Piven of Charles J. Piven, PA, The World Trade Center, 401 E. Pratt St., Ste. 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 14103320030, Fax: 14106851300, E-mail: piven@pivenlaw.com; and (3) Lawrence Joseph Quinn of Tydings and Rosenberg, LLP, 100 E. Pratt St., 26th Fl., Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 14107529700, Fax: 14107275460, E-mail: lquinn@tydingslaw.com. Representing the defendants is Steven F. Barley of Hogan and Hartson, LLP, 111 S. Calvert St., Ste. 1600, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 14106592700, Fax: 14105396981, E-mail: sfbarley@hhlaw.com. MASSACHUSETTS: County Settles Strip Search Lawsuit for $205T ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Michael A. Ponsor of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts initially approved a $205,000 settlement of a suit brought on behalf of people were illegally strip-searched on arrival at the Hampshire County jail, The Associated Press reports. Charles V. Ryan IV, a Worthington lawyer, brought the lawsuit in January 2005. He complained of unconstitutional strip searches at the Hampshire Jail and House of Corrections. The lawsuit was filed against the Hampshire Sheriff Robert Garvey and Patrick J. Callihane, the Deputy Superintendent responsible for operation of the facility. The county though has since changed its jail policy. Under the settlement, claimants could receive at least $1,500 each. Mr. Ryan will receive at least $10,000. Eligible for payments are people strip-searched at the jail after being arrested between Jan. 18, 2002 and Nov. 7, 2002, for crimes that did not involve drugs, weapons or violent felonies, the report said, citing the Daily Hampshire Gazette. The settlement could benefit nearly 100 people. Claims filing deadline is June 22, 2007. Final approval is expected to occur in June. The suit is "Ryan v. Garvey et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-30017-MAP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Michael A. Ponsor. Representing the plaintiff is Jennifer L. Bills at Law Offices of Howard Friedman, PC, 5th Floor, 90 Canal Street, Boston, MA 02114-2022, Phone: 617-742-4100, Fax: 617-742-5858, E-mail: jbills@civil-rights-law.com. Representing defendant is Rosemary Tarantino, Office of Attorney General, 1350 Main Street, Springfield, MA 01103, Phone: 413- 784-1240, Fax: 413-784-1244, E-mail: rosemary.tarantino@ago.state.ma.us. MEADE INSTRUMENTS: Faces Suit Calif. Over Product Falsification --------------------------------------------------------------- Meade Instruments Corp. is a defendant in a purported class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the company along with several dealers falsely advertised certain of its products. On Sept. 28, 2006, Daniel Azari and Paul T. Jones, dba Star Instruments and RC Optical Systems, Inc. filed an action against company and certain Meade dealers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging the following claims: -- violation of the Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organization Act (RICO); -- violation of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350; -- violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200; -- unfair competition; and -- product disparagement. The complaint alleges that Meade and other defendants falsely advertise Meade's Advanced Ritchey-Chretien products as being Ritchey-Chretien products. On Oct. 31, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding claims for violation of the Lanham Act. On Jan. 3, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion filed by Meade and ordered the case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, compensatory and treble damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Meade has not yet been required to file a response to the complaint. MEADE INSTRUMENTS: Lead Plaintiff Sought in Calif. Stock Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Certain plaintiffs in the class action "Grecian v. Meade Instruments Corp., et al.," filed a motion to be appointed lead plaintiff in the federal securities fraud suit, which is challenging the conduct by the company and its current and former board members and officers in connection with various stock option grants. The suit "Grecian v. Meade Instruments Corp., et al., SA CV 06- 908 AG (JTLx)," was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 27, 2006. The complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act in connection with the Company's option granting practices. Plaintiffs' counsel has advised the company that they intend to file an amended complaint that will also allege violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act. On Nov. 27, 2006, the plaintiffs in "Grecian" filed a motion to be appointed lead plaintiffs. No other lead plaintiff motions have been filed, according to its Jan. 16, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 30, 2006. The suit is "Bill Grecian et al v. Meade Instruments Corp et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00908-AG-JTL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Andrew J. Guilford with referral to Judge Jennifer T. Lum. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Timothy J. Burke of Stull Stull and Brody, 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA 90024, Phone: 310-209-2468, E-mail: service@ssbla.com; and (2) Donald J. Enright of Finkelstein Thompson and Loughran, 1050 Thirtieth Street Northwest, The Duvall Foundry, Washington, DC 20007, Phone: 202-337-8000. NEW YORK: $11M Settlement in Suit Over MOPII Program Approved ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John Curtin of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York approved a settlement reached on Dec. 28 in the class action, "Conrad v. Perales," that was filed in 1992 on behalf of thousands of New York nursing home residents, The Buffalo Business First reports. Under the settlement, an $11 million fund will be created to reimburse residents who were defrauded by having to pay Medicaid co-pays even though they were eligible for Medicare. The suit challenges the state's Medicare Optimization Program, created by the New York State Health Department in 1989, that plaintiffs say result to double billing of nursing home residents. "Under this scheme, nursing homes were allowed to bill both Medicaid and Medicare on behalf of nursing home patients, keep the proceeds from which ever program paid higher benefits (usually Medicaid), and send the remaining benefits (usually Medicare) to the [New York State Department of Social Services]," according to an article by Peter Dellinger, Esq., lawyer for the plaintiff. The scheme allegedly violates federal law, which requires nursing homes "to accept Medicare reimbursement in full satisfaction of a patient's covered services". The suit was filed by Anthony Szczygiel, an attorney at Legal Services for the Elderly, Disabled or Disadvantaged of Western New York Inc. against the New York State Health Department in 1992, contending that the state did not abide by federal requirements to refund the victims of the "double billing." Lead litigation counsel for the plaintiffs is lawyer Henry Killeen III of Killeen & Killeen, Web site: http://www.nursinghomesettlement.com/nursinghome/default.htm. OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL: Faces Suit in Ala. Over "Harmful" Releases --------------------------------------------------------------- A group of residents living near Occidental Chemical Corp.'s Florence-Muscle Shoals plant in Alabama filed a class action against the company for alleged property damage caused by the release of harmful substances, according to Russ Corey of The Times Daily. The suit is currently pending in Colbert County Circuit Court. Riverside Texaco, Gladys Pullen, Willie Jones, Carlos G. McMullins, Hazel I. Cox, James R. Harris, Walter J. Jackson and other unnamed plaintiffs filed it on Jan. 10. Most of the plaintiffs live in the River Road, Wilson Dam Road and Second Street areas, Birmingham attorney Lee Lesley told the Times. There are hundreds of them, he said. Occidental Chemical Corp. on the Net: http://www.oxychem.com/. OMNICOM GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Consolidated Stock Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is underway in the consolidated securities class action against Omnicom Group, Inc., entitled, "In re Omnicom Group Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV4483 (RCC)." Beginning June 13, 2002, several putative class actions were filed against the company and certain senior executives in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The actions were later consolidated under the caption, "In re Omnicom Group Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV4483 (RCC)," on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of the company's common stock between Feb. 20, 2001 and Jun. 11, 2002. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's public filings and other public statements during that period contained false and misleading statements or omitted to state material information relating to: -- the company's calculation of the organic growth component of period-to-period revenue growth; -- the company's valuation of and accounting for certain internet investments made by the company's Communicade Group, which it contributed to Seneca Investments LLC in 2001; and -- the existence and amount of certain contingent future obligations in respect of acquisitions. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages plus costs and attorneys' fees. On Feb. 2, 2003, the court appointed the New Orleans Employees' Retirement System (NORS) as Lead Plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, NORS' counsel, as Lead Counsel. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and on Mar. 28, 2005, the court dismissed the first and third portions of the complaint detailed above. The court's decision denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the remainder of the complaint did not address the ultimate merits of the case, but only the sufficiency of the pleading. Since that time, the parties have been engaged in fact discovery and have raised several discovery disputes with the court. On Aug. 4, 2005, Hon. Michael H. Dolinger, United States Magistrate Judge, ordered the defendants to produce documents concerning other internet-related assets Omnicom held, but did not transfer to Seneca. On Sept. 9, 2005, NORS made a motion before Magistrate Judge Dolinger challenging the defendants' assertion of the attorney- client privilege based on numerous grounds, including the crime- fraud exception. On July 15, 2005, NORS made a motion for class certification before Judge Casey. That motion was fully briefed. On Jan. 10, 2006, the court ordered that the defendants submit certain of the purportedly privileged documents for in camera review. On that same date, Magistrate Judge Dolinger modified the terms of the Confidentiality Order and ordered that numerous documents the defendants claimed were confidential be made publicly available. Additionally, the court issued an order rejecting the defendants' argument to have expert discovery commence before the completion of fact discovery. Between May and October 2006, NORS made numerous discovery motions concerning Omnicom's waiver of the attorney-client privilege and various "related-party" transactions that appear to have been utilized by Omnicom to manipulate its financial results throughout the class period. By order dated Oct. 20, 2006, Magistrate Judge Dolinger ordered that these motions be filed. On Nov. 9, 2006, NORS publicly filed redacted versions of letters pursuant to Magistrate Judge Dolinger's order. Firm partners Max Berger and Erik Sandstedt and associates David Hassel, Mark Lebovitch and Jared Danziger are responsible for prosecuting this action. The suit is "In Re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Securities Litigation," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard C. Casey with referral to Michael H. Dolinger. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Max W. Berger and Douglas M. McKeige of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, L.L.P., Phone: (212) 554- 1400 and (212) 554-1481; and (2) David Avi Rosenfeld and Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100 and 631-367-1173, E-mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com and srudman@lerachlaw.com. Representing the defendants are David Harold Braff and Stacey Rubin Friedman of Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, 125 Broad Street, NY, NY 10007, Phone: 212-558-4705 and 212-558-4000, Fax: 212- 558-3333 and 212-558-3588, E-mail: braffd@sullcrom.com and friedmans@sullcrom.com. OSB ANTITRUST: Class Certification Motion Briefing Set January -------------------------------------------------------------- The briefing on the class certification motion in the OSB Antitrust Litigation is to commence in January 2007, according to the law firm of Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC. Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah filed one of the cases consolidated in the suit. Its suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, was against: -- Louisiana-Pacific Corp.; -- Georgia-Pacific Corp.; -- Weyerhaeuser Co.; -- Potlatch Corp.; -- Ainsworth Lumber Co., Ltd.; -- Norbord, Inc.; and -- J.M. Huber Corp. The suit alleges violations of the antitrust laws by defendants' actions in reducing the available supply of Oriented Strand Board (OSB) and fixing the price at which it was sold. The cases are consolidated and a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on March 31, 2006. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss as well as a premature motion for summary judgment. Depositions of the parties will begin in early 2007, and the briefing on the class certification motion will commence in January 2007, according to Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Calif. Court Considers DRAM Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to approve the settlement with a class action with regards to direct purchasers of certain Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) products, according to the company's Jan. 16, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 30, 2006. The settlement dismisses Micron Technology, Inc. from a class action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the DRAM industry, asserting claims on behalf of a class of individuals and entities that purchased DRAM directly from DRAM suppliers during the period from April 1, 1999, through June 30, 2002. The litigation arose following a 2002 U.S. Department of Justice inquiry into the DRAM industry. Filed in 2002 by 11 technology companies, the suit named as defendants: -- Micron Technology, Inc., -- Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., -- Crucial Technology, Inc., -- Infineon Technologies AG, -- Infineon Technologies North America Corp., -- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., -- Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., -- Mosel Vitelic Corp., -- Mosel Vitelic Corp. (USA), -- Nanya Technology Corp., -- Nanya Technology Corp. USA, -- Winbond Electronics Corp., -- Winbond Electronics Corp. America, -- Elpida Memory, Inc., -- Elpida Memory (USA), Inc., -- NEC Electronics America, Inc. The defendants in the case controlled a vast majority of DRAM production at the time of filing, an industry with revenue estimated at $20 billion. According to the complaint, beginning in 1999 the price for DRAM began falling dramatically, dipping below the cost of production. Then, in September 2001, DRAM prices spiked and by February 2002 reached as high as $4.50, the complaint states. In mid-2002, media reports cited statements by DRAM manufacturer Mosel Vitelic's vice president, Thomas Chang, that the company held price-fixing meetings with other manufacturers where they agreed to reduce production to boost prices. The complaints allege price-fixing in violation of federal antitrust laws and seek treble monetary damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and an injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct. In June 2006, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California certified a class action filed against manufacturers of DRAM. The suit claims that several computer memory manufacturers illegally conspired to fix the price of computer memory. On Jan. 9, 2007, the company entered into a settlement agreement with the class of direct purchasers. Under the terms of the settlement, the company will pay $91 million and will be dismissed with prejudice from the direct purchaser consolidated class action. The settlement is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It does not resolve the very similar indirect purchaser suits. The suit is "In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. M:02-cv-01486-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 the plaintiffs are: (1) Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax: 206-623-0594, E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com; (2) Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. of Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, East 1250 First National Bank Building 322 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101, Phone: 651- 287-2100, Fax: 651-287-2103, E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com; (3) Francis A. Bottini, Jr. of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Symphony Towers, 750 B Street Suite 2770, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619/239-4599, Fax: 619-234-4599, E-mail: bottini@whafh.com; (4) Jeffrey J. Corrigan of Spector Roseman & Kodroff PC 1818 Market Street, 25th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-496-0300, E-mail: jcorrigan@srk-law.com; (5) Laurence D. King of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1501, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415/772-4700, Fax: (415) 772-4707, E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com; and (6) Anthony D. Shapiro of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax: 206-623-0594, E-mail: tony@hbsslaw.com. Representing the defendants are: (1) Kevin Arquit of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, 425 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017-3954, Phone: 212- 455-2000; (2) G. Michael Barnhill of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice PLLC, One Wachovia Center, Suite 3500, 301 College Street, Charlotte, NC 28202-6025, Phone: 704-331-4900, Fax: 704-331-4955; (3) Daniel Lee Alexander of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, 400 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213- 430-6000, Fax: 213-430-6407, E-mail: dalexander@omm.com; (4) Debra L. Bouffard of Sheehey Furlong & Behm PC, P.O. Box 66, Burlington, VT 05402-0066, Phone: 802-864-9891, E-mail: dbouffard@sheeheyvt.com; and (5) Aton Arbisser of Kaye Scholer LLP, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90067, L.A., Phone: 310-788-1000, Fax: 310-788-1205, E-mail: aarbisser@kayescholer.com. SCHERING-PLOUGH: Faces RICO Violations Lawsuit in E.D. Penn. ------------------------------------------------------------ Schering-Plough Corp. is defendant in a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act (RICO) class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, accusing it of promoting off-label uses for drugs in unsafe doses and marketing the drugs to doctors through bribes and kickbacks, The Courthouse News Service reports. The suit, filed on behalf of Angela Montgomery, claims the drug company used these unethical tactics to reap hundreds of millions of dollars from its drugs Intron A (interferon), Temodar, PEG-Intron and Rebetol, among others. All the drugs received FDA approval to treat various types of cancer. This complaint, filed by The Haviland Law Firm, claims Schering- Plough suggested doctors prescribe the drugs for other types of cancer. It cites an Aug. 29, 2006 agreement in Boston Federal Court in which Schering-Plough pleaded guilty in a criminal information to conspiring to defraud the federal government and agreed to pay $435 million in fines for its sales and marketing practices. The suit covers all individuals and entities in the U.S. and its territories who, for purposes other than resale, purchased, reimbursed and/or paid for Intron A, Rebetrol/Intron A Combination Therapy, Temodar, PEG-intron and Rebetol/PEG-Intron Combination Therapy from Jan. 1, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2003. Questions of law and fact common to plaintiff and the class abound this case include, but are not limited to, the following: -- whether Intron A, Temodar and Rebetron Combination Therapy are medically necessary for uses not approved by the FDA; -- whether defendants engaged in a fraudulent and/or deceptive scheme of improperly marketing and selling Intron A, Temodar and/or Rebetron Combination Therapy to treat conditions for which these Subject Drugs were not approved by the FDA; -- whether defendants engaged in a fraudulent and/or deceptive scheme of improperly marketing and selling Intron A, Temodar and/or Rebetron Combination Therapy for conditions for which these Subject Drugs were not medically safe, efficacious, effective or useful; -- whether defendants engaged in a fraudulent and/or deceptive scheme of improperly marketing and selling Intron A, Temodar and/or Rebetron Combination Therapy for durations of use or in dosages that exceeded or were otherwise outside the scope of FDA approval or that were not medically safe, efficacious, effective or useful; -- whether defendants coached or instructed physicians or others on how to conceal the off-label nature of Intron A, Temodar and/or Rebetron Combination Therapy on claim forms submitted by or to patients and members of the class; -- whether defendants prepared, funded and published studies and other materials which contained false information and misrepresentations regarding off-label uses, or the validity of or propriety of or scientific and other support for, off-label uses of these Intron A, Temodar and/or Rebetron Combination Therapy; -- whether, and on how many occasions, defendants provided false information and made false statement to the federal government regarding their off-label promotional practices pertaining to Intron A, Temodar and/or Rebetron Combination Therapy; -- whether defendants utilized others and/or engaged in conspiracies to assist in the publication and dissemination of false statements, or fraudulent studies, to physicians concerning off-label uses of Intron A, Temodar and/or Rebetron Combination Therapy; -- whether defendants used kickbacks, bribes and/or other payments or provision of illegal remuneration or inducements to induce physicians to prescribe, administer, or otherwise treat patients with Intron A, Temodar, Rebetron Combination Therapy, PEG-Intron, and/or PEG-Intron Combination Therapy, whether or not such prescribing, administration or treatment was for medical conditions that were FDA-approved; -- whether defendants engaged in a pattern and practice with the intent of deceiving and defrauding plaintiff and the class and with the intent of suppressing the unlawful conduct and conspiracy; -- whether defendants violated state consumer protection statutes; -- whether defendants violated the RICO statute; -- whether defendants' conduct is actionable as common law fraud; -- whether defendants are liable under sttate conspiracy and/or state concert of action laws; -- whether defendants unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of plaintiff and members of the class; -- whether defendants engaged in a pattern or practice that directly and proximately caused plaintiff and members of the class to pay for Intron A, Temodar, Rebetron Combination Therapy, PEG-Intron, and/or PEG- Intron Combination Therapy for non-medically necessary uses, or in doses or for durations of use that were not approved by the FDA or that were not medically necessary; -- whether defendants engaged in a pattern or practice that directly and proximately caused plaintiff and members of the class to pay for Intron A, Temodar and/or Rebetron for non-FDA approved uses; -- whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to compensatory damages, and if so, the nature of such damages; -- whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled to punitive damages, treble damages or exemplary damages and, if so, the nature of such damages; -- whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled equitable relief pursuant to their claim for unjust enrichment or otherwise; and -- whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest and costs of suit. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the members of the class, seeks for relief as follows: -- on the RICO claims and RICO conspiracy claim, three times the damages plaintiff and the class have sustained as a result of defendants' conduct, such amount to be determined at trial, plus plaintiff's costs in this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees; -- on the claim under the consumer protection law of the State of Washington and on the claim under the consumer protection statutes of the 49 remaining states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, compensatory damages, treble damages, and any other damages permitted under such statutes, such amount to be determined at trial, plus plaintiff's costs in this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees; -- on the common law fraud claim, compensatory damages and punitive damages, such amount to be determined at trial, plus plaintiff's costs in this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees; -- on the conspiracy/concert of action claim, compensatory damages, treble damages and punitive damages, such amount to be determined at trial, plus plaintiff's costs in this suit and all reasonable attorneys' fees; -- on the claim for unjust enrichment, recovery in the amount of plaintiff's and the class's (i) payments for these Subjecty Drugs to treat conditions for which these drugs were not approved by the FDA; (ii) over-payments for these Subject Drugs resulting from defendant-promoted treatment with excessive dosages or over excessive durations that were not FDA-approved, even if the underlying medical conditions for use were FDA- approved; and (iii) payments or over-payments for these Subject Drugs where plaintiff's and the class's purchases arose from bribes, kickbacks, illegal remuneration or other illegal inducements paid or provided to their physicians by the defendants, such amount to be determined at trial, plus plaintiff's costs in this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees; -- awarding plaintiff and the class other appropriate equitable relief, including, but not limited to, disgorgement of all profits obtained from their wrongful conduct and injunctive relief; -- awarding plaintiff and the class pre-judgment and post- judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; -- awarding plaintiff and the class pre-judgment and post judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; -- awarding plaintiff and the class their costs and expenses in this litigation, including expert fees, and reasonable attorneys' fees; and -- awarding plaintiff and the class such other and further relief as may be just and proper under the circumstances. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?18b4 The suit is "Montgomery v. Schering-Plough Corporation et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00194-MK," filed in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Marvin Katz. Representing plaintiffs is Donald E. Haviland, Jr., The Haviland Law Firm, LLC, 740 South Third St., 3rd Flr., Philadelphia, PA 19147, Phone: 215-609-4661, Fax: 215-392-4400. SHAW GROUP: Fifth Circuit Hears Appeal on La. Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has yet to issue an opinion regarding an appeal in the consolidated securities fraud suit, "Thompson et al. v. Shaw Group, Inc.," according to the company's Jan. 16, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 30, 2006. On July 23, 2004 an investor filed a complaint against The Shaw Group, Inc. claiming the company and three top officers misled the investing public about its finances. The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought Shaw Group common stock from Oct. 19, 2000, through and including June 10, 2004. The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint names as defendants: -- Shaw Group; -- J.M. Bernhard Jr., chairman and chief executive officer; -- Tim Barfield, Jr., president, chief operating officer, and director since 2003; and -- Robert L. Belk, chief financial officer and executive vice president. The complaint alleges that, during the class period, Shaw Group issued materially false and misleading information about its financial performance to the investing public. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Shaw Group established excessive or "general" contract reserves in conjunction with two acquisitions and then tapped those "cookie jar" reserves to artificially boost its earnings when needed. Defendants also prematurely recognized revenue in connection with its long-term construction contracts, violating its own reported revenue recognition policy. These actions violated Generally Accepted Accounting Practices and resulted in significantly overstated revenues and net income throughout the class period, which in turn inflated Shaw Group's stock price. The company took advantage of the artificially inflated stock price by offering $479 million in shares of Shaw Group common stock to the public, as well as millions of dollars of debt securities. Company insiders also took advantage of the inflated price by selling approximately 1.94 million shares of Shaw Group common stock during the class period, for proceeds of roughly $80 million. After the close of trading on June 10, 2004, the company shocked the investing public by announcing that Shaw Group was the subject of an informal investigation by the SEC into the company's method of accounting for acquisitions. In response to these revelations, the price of Shaw Group's common stock plummeted, falling 18% to $10.05 when trading resumed on June 14, 2004 (following a long weekend). On Aug. 16, 2004, competing motions for the consolidation of all related cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with the court. On Aug. 31, 2004, all related cases were consolidated into one class action lawsuit, "Thompson v. The Shaw Group Inc., No. 04-1685." On Oct. 20, 2004, a hearing on the motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel was held and, after argument, Judge Helen G. Berrigan took the motions under submission and ordered any supplemental briefing be filed by Nov. 3, 2004. Further briefing was filed and on Dec. 13, 2004, Judge Berrigan signed an Order appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint on Feb. 11, 2005 and names as an additional defendant, Richard F. Gill, who was until 2003, the company's executive vice president and chief operating officer. On June 16, 2005, defendants filed their motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On Nov. 3, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. On Jan. 13, 2006, defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were held on May 24, 2006 and the motion was denied. On July 18, 2006, the judge granted defendant's motion for an immediate appeal of the motion to dismiss to the fifth circuit court of appeals and that the case be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. On Sept. 7, 2006 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed to hear the appeal of the motion to dismiss, according to an update posted by at the Web site of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo. The matter is now on appeal to the Fifth Circuit. The suit is "Thompson et al. v. Shaw Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-CV-1685," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Helen G. Berrigan. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Peter E. Seidman, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone: (212) 594-5300; (2) Lewis Stephen Kahn, Kahn Gauthier Law Group, LLC, 650 Poydras St., Suite 2150, New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone: 504-455-1400; (3) Joel R. Waltzer, Waltzer & Associates, 14349 Chef Menteur Hwy., P. O. Box 29423, Suite D, New Orleans, LA 70189, Phone: 504-254-4400; (4) Darren J. Robbins, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058; (5) John Donellan Fitzmorris, Jr., John D. Fitzmorris, Jr., Attorney at Law, 210 Baronne St., Suite 1122, New Orleans, LA 70112, 504-586-9395; and (6) David A. Rosenfeld, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Rd., Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100. Representing the defendants are: (i) Steven W. Copley, Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan LLP, 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 4000, New Orleans, LA 70170-4000, Phone: (504) 582-1111; (ii) J. J. (Jerry) McKernan, McKernan Law Firm, 8710 Jefferson Hwy., Baton Rouge, LA 70809, Phone: 225-926- 1234; and (iii) Clifford Thau, Steven R. Paradise of Vinson & Elkins, LLP, 666 Fifth Ave., 26th Floor, New York, NY 10103, Phone: 212-237-0007. SPEAR & JACKSON: Fla. Court Considers Securities Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has yet to give approval to a $650,000 settlement for the consolidated securities fraud class action pending against Spear & Jackson, Inc., according to the company's Jan. 16, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2006. Initially, a number of class actions were initiated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by company stockholders against: -- the company; -- Sherb & Co. LLP; -- the company's former independent auditor; and -- certain of the the the company's directors and officers, * including Mr. Crowley, the company's former chief executive officer/chairman, and * Mr. Fletcher, the company's former chief financial officer and current acting CEO. They charge the company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These various class actions were subsequently consolidated. Thereafter, the defendants filed certain Motions to Dismiss with regard to the complaint and on Oct. 19, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the action, "In Re Spear & Jackson Securities Litigation," entered its order regarding these motions. The order denied the company's motion as well as that of Mr. Crowley, the former CEO of Spear & Jackson. The company is in the process of preparing its answer and defenses to the complaint. The court granted the Motion to Dismiss on behalf of Mr. Fletcher, the company's interim chief executive officer, and also granted the Motion to Dismiss on behalf of the company's former independent auditor, Sherb & Co., LLP. The class plaintiff has since filed an appeal regarding the trial court's decision to dismiss the case against Sherb & Co., LLP, which appeal is presently pending. No appeal was filed with respect to the decision to dismiss the case against Mr. Fletcher. The court denied the motion of Spear & Jackson's Monitor to abate the litigation for a six-month period pending the administration of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's restitution fund. The court also denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification and established a new cut-off for discovery until Dec. 19, 2005. The case was initially set on the court's two-week calendar beginning March 6, 2006 but the trial date has since been reset for October 2006. On July 7, 2006 the company, Dennis Crowley and the class plaintiff reached a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which confirmed that the plaintiffs, the company and Crowley in the class action had reached an agreement in principle for the settlement of this litigation, subject to court approval. According to the terms of the MOU, the company deposited the sum of $650,000 into a qualified settlement fund, disbursement pending approval of the court. Subsequent to this, Sherb & Co. also agreed to the terms of the Settlement agreeing to contribute an additional $125,000. On Nov. 9, 2006, the stipulation of settlement was filed with the court for preliminary approval. Assuming that the preliminary approval is granted, the next step will be to notice the class of the settlement and to set the approval process for final hearing and final approval before the court. The matter will not be finally settled until the court issues a final judgment approving the settlement. Following the execution of the MOU, the lead plaintiffs will commence discovery procedures to confirm the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement. Plaintiffs retain the right to terminate the settlement if such discovery reveals that it is not fair, reasonable and adequate. The suit is "In re: Spear & Jackson, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-80375," filed in the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida under Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks. Plaintiffs firm involved in the and similar cases: (1) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (FL), 515 North Flagler Drive - Suite 1701, West Palm Beach, FL, 33401, Phone: 561.835.9400; (2) Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton, FL), One Boca Place, 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A, Boca Raton, FL, 33431, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax: 561.750.3364; (3) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East, Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, Fax: pivenlaw@erols.com; (4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (D.C.), 1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 730, Washington, DC, 20036, Phone: 202.822.6762, Fax: 202.828.8528, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com; (5) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (Boca Raton, FL), 5355 Town Center Road - Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax: 561.367.8400; (6) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com; (7) Scott & Scott, LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Ave., Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax: 860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com; (8) Vianale & Vianale, LLP, The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town Center Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone: 561.391.4900, Fax: 561.368.9274, E-mail: info@vianalelaw.com; (9) Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, Fax: 212.753.3630, E-mail: info@whesq.com; and (10) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Ave., New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com. Representing the defendants is Allan Michael Lerner, 2888 E Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306, Phone: 954- 563-8111. STAR GAS: Conn. Stock Suit Dismissed; Plaintiffs Seek to Re-file ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action against Star Gas Partners, L.P. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut are seeking to amend their complaint. The suit names as defendants certain of the company's subsidiaries and officers and directors. Lawsuits filed against the company includes: -- "Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et al, No 3:04-cv- 01766-IBA, et al.," -- "Feit v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1832," (filed on 10/29/2004), -- "Lila Gold v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04- 1791,"(filed on 10/22/2004), -- "Jagerman v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04- 1855,"(filed on 11/3/2004), -- "McCole, et al. v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1859,"(filed on 11/3/2004), -- "Prokop v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1785," (filed on 10/22/2004), -- "Seigle v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1803," (filed on 10/25/3004), -- "Strunk v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1815," (filed on 10/27/2004), -- "Harriette S. & Charles L. Tabas Foundation v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1857,"(filed on 11/3/2004), -- "Weiss v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1807," (filed on 10/26/2004), -- "White v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1837," (filed on 10/9/2004), -- "Wood v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1856," (filed on 11/3/2004), -- "Yopp v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1865," (filed on 11/3/2004), -- "Kiser v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1884," (filed on 11/9/2004), -- "Lederman v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04- 1873,"(filed on 11/5/2004), -- "Dinkes v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No.04-1979," (filed 11/22/04), -- "Gould v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-2133," (filed on 12/17/2004) The action plaintiffs generally allege that the Partnership violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by purportedly failing to disclose, among other things: -- problems with the restructuring of the company's dispatch system and customer attrition related thereto; -- that the company's heating oil division's business process improvement program was not generating the benefits allegedly claimed; -- that Star Gas was struggling to maintain its profit margins in its heating oil division; -- that Star Gas' second quarter 2004 profit margins were not representative of its ability to pass on heating oil price increases; and -- that Star Gas was facing an inability to pay its debts and that, as a result, its credit rating and ability to obtain future financing was in jeopardy. The class action plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages including interest against the defendants jointly and severally and an award of reasonable costs and expenses. On Feb. 23, 2005, the court consolidated the class action complaints and heard argument on motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff. On Apr. 8, 2005, the court appointed the lead plaintiff. Pursuant to the court's order, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on Jun. 20, 2005. The consolidated amended complaint named as defendant: -- Star Gas Partners, L.P.; -- Star Gas LLC; -- Irik Sevin; -- Audrey L. Sevin; -- Hanseatic Americas, Inc.; -- Paul Biddelman; -- Ami Trauber; -- A.G. Edwards & Sons Inc.; -- UBS Investment Bank; and -- RBC Dain Rauscher Inc. The consolidated amended complaint added claims arising out of two registration statements, the same transactions under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The defendants had until Aug. 19, 2005 to file an answer. On Sept. 23, 2005, defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the federal securities laws and failure to satisfy the applicable pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs filed their response to defendants' motions to dismiss on or about Nov. 23, 2005 and defendants filed their reply briefs on Dec. 20, 2005. A hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss was held before the Judge Janet Bond Arterton on July 27, 2006. On Aug. 21, 2006, the judge granted defendants' motions to dismiss. Currently plaintiffs are seeking to alter the judgment to grant leave to amend the complaint. The court has granted plaintiffs' motion and set a briefing schedule. On Oct. 20, 2006, defendants opposed Plaintiffs' motion to alter the judgment to grant leave to amend the complaint, according to the law firm Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC. The suit is "In re Star Gas Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-01766-JBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Janet Bond Arterton. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Jonathan F. Andres of Green Schaaf & Jacobson, P.C., 7733 Forsyth, Suite 700, St. Louis, MO 63105, Phone: 314-862-6800, Fax: 314-862-1606, E-mail: andres@stlouislaw.com; (2) David L. Belt of Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz, P.C., 350 Orange St., P.O. Box 606, New Haven, CT 06503-0606, Phone: 203-772-3100, Fax: 203-772-1691, E- mail: dbelt@jacobslaw.com; (3) Stuart L. Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail: sberman@sbclasslaw.com; and (4) Joel H. Bernstein of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, 100 Park Ave., 12th Fl., New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-907-0869, Fax: 212-818-0477, E-mail: jbernstein@labaton.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Terence J. Gallagher, III of Day, Berry & Howard, One Canterbury Green, Stamford, CT 06901-2047, Phone: 203- 977-7300, Fax: 203-977-7301, E-mail: tjgallagher@dbh.com; and (ii) Elizabeth K. Andrews of Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn - NH, 205 Church St., P.O. Box 1936, New Haven, CT 06509- 1910, Phone: 203-784-8200, Fax: 203-777-1181, E-mail: eandrews@tylercooper.com. STEWART ENTERPRISES: Continues to Face Tex. Antitrust Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Stewart Enterprises, Inc. remains a one of the defendants in multiple antitrust class actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, according to the company's Jan. 16, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal ended Oct. 31, 2006. Consolidated Consumer Cases One of these class actions is "Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc., et al. v. Service Corporation International, Alderwoods Group, Inc., Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., and Batesville Casket Co., Case No. H-05-3394," and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. This purported class action was originally filed on May 2, 2005, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of a nationwide class defined to include all consumers who purchased a Batesville casket from the funeral home defendants at any time. The court consolidated it with five subsequently filed, substantially similar cases (Consolidated Consumer Cases). The Consolidated Consumer Cases allege that the defendants acted jointly to reduce competition from independent casket discounters and fix and maintain prices on caskets in violation of the federal antitrust laws and California's Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. At the defendants' request, in late September 2005, the court transferred the Consolidated Consumer Cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The transferred Consolidated Consumer Cases have been consolidated before a single judge in the Southern District of Texas. On Nov. 10, 2006, after the court denied defendants' motions to dismiss, the company answered the first amended consolidated class action complaint, denying liability and asserting various affirmative defenses. Discovery is underway. The court conducted a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification on Dec. 4-7, 2006. Fancher Litigation A similar action captioned, "Ralph Lee Fancher, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Service Corporation International, Alderwoods Group, Inc., Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., Aurora Casket Co., York Group, Inc., and Batesville Casket Co.," was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of consumers in twenty-three states and the District of Columbia who purchased caskets. The allegations of fact were essentially the same as those made in the Consolidated Consumer Cases, but the plaintiffs in this suit (Fancher plaintiffs) alleged that the defendants violated state antitrust, consumer protection and/or unjust enrichment laws. The Fancher plaintiffs withdrew their complaint on Aug. 2, 2005, and re-filed a nearly identical complaint under Tennessee law and on behalf of only Tennessee consumers in the Northern District of California on Sept. 23, 2005, the same day that the Consolidated Consumer Cases were transferred to the Southern District of Texas. This matter was transferred to the Southern District of Texas and consolidated with the Consolidated Consumer Cases for purposes of discovery. The Fancher plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint expanding the purported class to include all individuals and entities in the U.S. who purchased Batesville caskets and dropping claims made under the Tennessee consumer protection law. However, the Fancher plaintiffs filed a voluntary notice of dismissal seeking to dismiss their claims without prejudice. On June 13, 2006, the court entered an order granting the voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Pioneer Valley Litigation Another class action was, "Pioneer Valley Casket Co., Inc., et al. v. Service Corporation International, Alderwoods Group, Inc., Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., and Batesville Casket Co., number H-05-3399." This purported class action was filed on July 8, 2005, in the Northern District of California on behalf of a nationwide class of independent casket retailers. The casket retailers make allegations similar to those involved made in the Consolidated Consumer Cases reported above and seek treble damages, injunctive relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. Like the Consolidated Consumer Cases, in late September 2005, this matter was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Pioneer Valley Case has been consolidated with the Consolidated Consumer Cases for purposes of discovery only. On Nov. 14, 2006, after the court denied defendants' motions to dismiss, the company answered the first amended complaint, denying liability and asserting various defenses. Discovery is underway. The court conducted a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification on Dec. 8, 2006. Stewart Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.stewartenterprises.com/. STEWART ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of SCI Affiliate -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a class action against Stewart Enterprises, Inc. over its funeral goods and services operations are appealing the dismissal by the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles of an affiliate of Service Corp. International (SCI) from the case. The suit, "Henrietta Torres and Teresa Fiore, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and the General Public v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. BC328961," was filed on Feb. 17, 2005 against the company and several other defendants. The purported class action was brought on behalf of a nationwide class defined to include all persons, entities and organizations who purchased funeral goods and/or services in the U.S. from defendants at any time on or after Feb. 17, 2001. The suit named the company and several of its Southern California affiliates as defendants. It sought to assert claims against a class of all entities located anywhere in the U.S. whose ultimate parent corporation has been the company at any time on or after Feb. 17, 2001. In May 2005, the court ruled that this case was related to similar actions against SCI and Alderwoods Group, Inc., and designated SCI case as the lead case. In response, on August 29, 2005, the plaintiffs in each of the three cases filed amended complaints. SCI has filed a demurrer in its case, and the company joined in that demurrer on October 6, 2005. The case against the company effectively has been held in abeyance while the court tests plaintiff's legal theories in the lead case. Rulings on legal issues in the lead case will apply equally in the case against the company, and the court has allowed the company to participate in hearings and briefings in the lead case. As a result of demurrers, the plaintiff in the lead case has amended her complaint twice. On Jan. 31, 2006, however, the court overruled SCI demurrer to the third amended complaint and established a schedule leading to hearing on a motion for summary judgment in early July to test the viability of the named plaintiff's claim against SCI On Aug. 14, 2006, the court heard oral argument on cross-motions for summary judgment. The cross-motions are pending. The third amended complaint in the lead case alleges that the SCI defendants violated the "Funeral Rule" promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission by failing to disclose that the prices of certain goods and services they obtained from third parties specifically on the plaintiff's behalf exceeded what the defendants paid for them. Plaintiff alleges that by failing to comply with the Funeral Rule, defendants: -- breached contracts with the plaintiffs; -- were unjustly enriched; and -- engaged in unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices in violation of a provision of California's Business and Professions Code. The plaintiff seeks restitution damages, disgorgement, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. In September and October 2006, the court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the SCI affiliate with whom the plaintiff had contracted and entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of that SCI affiliate. On Dec. 8, 2006, the plaintiff noticed an appeal of this judgment, according to the company's Jan. 16, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal ended Oct. 31, 2006. Stewart Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.stewartenterprises.com/. STILLWATER MINING: Parties Enter Into N.Y. Suit Settlement Talks ---------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the consolidated securities class action filed against Stillwater Mining Co. and certain of its senior officers are negotiating a settlement for the case, according to the company's Jan. 16, 2007 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In 2002, nine lawsuits were filed against the company and certain senior officers in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the company from April 20, 2001 through and including April 1, 2002. They assert claims against the company and certain of its officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs challenge the accuracy of certain public disclosures made by the company regarding its financial performance and, in particular, it's accounting for probable ore reserves. In July 2002, the court consolidated these actions, and in May 2003, the case was transferred to federal district court in Montana. In May 2004, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint, and in June 2004, plaintiffs filed their opposition and defendants filed their reply. Defendants have reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs to settle the federal class action subject to documentation and court approval. Under the proposed agreement, any settlement amount will be paid by the company's insurance carrier and will not involve any out- of-pocket payment by the Company or the individual defendants. In light of the proposed settlement, the hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss has been taken off calendar, without prejudice to their right to reinstate the motion in the event the parties are not successful in negotiating the terms of the final settlement papers. The suit is "In re Stillwater Mining Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-00093-RFC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana under Judge Richard F. Cebull. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Susan M. Greenwood of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300, Fax: 868-1229; and (2) Lawrence P. Kolker of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-545-4600. Representing the defendants are: (i) Harriet S. Posner of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-687-5600; and (ii) Stephen H. Foster of Holland & Hart, P.O. Box 639, Billings, MT 59103-0639, Phone: 406-252-2166, Fax: 252- 1669. SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Discovery Continues in N.J. Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Document discovery process is ongoing in a securities fraud class action filed against various parties associated with the now-bankrupt Suprema Specialties, Inc., including certain of its former officers, directors, auditors, and underwriters, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On June 28, 2002, the court appointed firm client the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana as the lead plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, LLP, as lead counsel in the litigation. The case arises out of a massive scheme perpetrated by Suprema's senior management, in which they caused the company to engage in millions of dollars of fictitious sales. Five people, including four of Suprema's customers and one of its senior officers, have already pled guilty to charges of securities fraud, and the two senior officers of Suprema, defendants Mark Cocchiola (its chief executive officer) and Steven Venechanos (its chief financial officer), are currently under criminal indictment. The second amended class action complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act arising from a secondary stock offering undertaken by the company a mere six weeks before Mr. Venechanos and the company's controller resigned and trading in the company's stock was halted by the NASDAQ. The complaint also alleges fraud claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against Cocchiola and Venechanos, who allegedly orchestrated the fraud, and Suprema's auditor, BDO Seidman, LLP, which allegedly turned a blind eye to the fraud despite the existence of more than 30 "red flags" of potential wrongdoing. Judge William H. Walls of U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey originally dismissed the case. On Feb. 23, 2006, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed that decision in its entirety, upholding all of the class's claims, including its Securities Act claims against all of the defendants and its fraud claims against Suprema's officers and auditors. The Third Circuit's decision is notable in several respects, including its discussion of the "sounds in fraud" doctrine, auditor liability, control person liability, tracing, and insider trading. The case is currently in the document discovery process. Depositions will take place following the criminal trial of Messrs. Cocchiola and Venechanos, which is schedule to begin in Jan. 29, 2007. The suit is "Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, et al. v. Suprema Specialties, Inc, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Representing the plaintiffs are Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP partner Erik Sandstedt and associates Mark Lebovitch and Matthew Moehlman. TASER INT'L: $20M Securities Suit Settlement Gets Initial Okay -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted preliminary approval to a proposed $20 million settlement of a consolidated securities fraud suit filed against Taser International, Inc. The court preliminarily approved the settlement and notice was sent out to class members by lead counsel, according to the law firm Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC. Beginning on or about Jan. 10, 2005, numerous securities class actions were filed against the company and certain of its officers and directors. These actions were filed on behalf of the purchasers of the company's stock in various class periods, beginning as early as May 29, 2003 and ending as late as Jan. 14, 2005. The majority of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Four actions were filed in New York and one Michigan, which were transferred to the District of Arizona. Judge Susan Bolton consolidated the class actions and lead plaintiff (Eli Wilamowsky) and lead counsel were selected. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, which became the operative complaint for all of the class actions, on Aug. 29, 2005. The operative class period is May 29, 2003 to Jan. 11, 2005. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which has been fully briefed for the court but has not yet been decided. It alleged, among other things, violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief against all defendants. The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that the company and the individual defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding, among other things, the safety of the company's products and the company's ability to meet its sales goals, including the validity of a $1.5 million sales order with the company's distributor, Davidson's, in the fourth quarter of 2004. The consolidated complaint also alleges that product defects were leading to excessive product returns by customers. On July 25, 2006, lead plaintiff, lead counsel, defendants and defendants' counsel engaged in a mediation conference, and in subsequent discussions, in an attempt to settle the consolidated securities class actions. On Aug. 9, 2006, the parties filed a joint notice of settlement stating, among other things, that the parties had reached an agreement in principal setting all consolidated actions, subject to documentation, notice and court approval. On Aug. 11, 2006, the court issued an order staying the class action for 60 days to allow the parties to complete and submit settlement documents, and further denying as moot the defendants' pending motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On Oct. 11, 2006, the parties filed a joint stipulation of settlement and related documents, and plaintiff filed a motion in support of the proposed order preliminarily approving the settlement, to which motion the defendants consented. On Oct. 13, 2006, the court, upon the joint stipulation of the parties to the action, entered an order continuing the stay of the action through Nov. 6, 2006 to complete and submit settlement documents. The stipulation of settlement and related documents filed on Oct. 11, 2006 set forth terms of settlement including, among other things, full releases of any and all related known or unknown claims among the plaintiff, plaintiff class and the defendants, and payment of $20 million from TASER for the benefit of the plaintiff class to be comprised of: -- $12 million in cash (approximately $4.1 million to be provided from the Directors' and Officers' Liability Insurance policy), and -- $8 million in Company common stock valued as of the date at which the stock is transferred (1,103,448 shares based on a closing market price of $7.25 at Sept. 29, 2006). The court preliminarily approved the settlement and notice was sent out to class members by lead counsel, according to the law firm Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC. The suit is "In re Taser International Securities Litigation, Master File No. CV 05-115-PHX-SRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Susan R. Bolton. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Robert Mitchell, 2210 East Camelback Road, Suite 122B, Phoenix, AZ 85106; (2) Mel E. Lifshitz, Keith M. Fleischman, Timothy J. MacFall, Joseph R. Seidman, Jr., Stephanie Beige, Russell M. Iger and Jeffrey Lerner all of Berstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016; (3) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 200 Broadhollow Rd., Ste 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: (631) 367-7100; (4) Patricia I. Avery of Wolf Popper Ross Wolf & Jones LLP, 845 3rd Ave., 12th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 759-4600; and (5) Jeffrey Craig Block of Berman DeValerio & Pease, 1 Liberty Sq., Ste 8, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: (617) 542- 8300. Representing the defendants are: (i) David B. Rosenbaum and Maureen Beyers both of Osborn Maledon, P.A., 2929 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2794, Phone: (602) 640-9000, Fax: (602) 664-2053, E-mail: drosenbaum@omlaw.com or mbeyers@omlaw.com; and (ii) Keith E. Eggleton and David A. McCarthy both of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: (650) 849-3011, Fax: (650) 493- 6811, E-mail: KEggleton@wsgr.com or DMcCarthy@wsgr.com. TYSON FOODS: Jan. 29 Case Management Forum Set for "Trollinger" --------------------------------------------------------------- Attorney Howard W. Foster of the Chicago law firm of Johnson & Bell, Ltd. announced that an upcoming case management conference will be held on Jan. 29, 2007, 10 a.m., at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee for the class action "Trollinger v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. 4:02-cv-23." On April 2, 2002, four former employees of the company's Shelbyville, Tennessee, chicken processing plant filed the case "Trollinger et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc." in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The case was filed as a putative class action against the company, raising allegations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act (RICO), and specifically alleged the company, in conjunction with employment agencies and recruiters, engaged in a scheme to hire illegal immigrant workers in 15 of its processing plants to depress wages paid to hourly wage employees at those plants. On July 16, 2002, the court dismissed the case. Following appeal, on June 3, 2004 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Discovery has been ongoing since September 2004. In June 2005, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint included different plaintiffs, narrowed the list of plants at issue to eight and added the allegation the company conspired with certain Hispanic civil rights groups to hire illegal immigrant workers. In addition, the second amended complaint added the following, all of whom are current or former officers or managers of the company, as defendants in the case: -- John Tyson, -- Richard Bond, -- Greg Lee, -- Archibald Schaffer III, -- Kenneth Kimbro, -- Karen Percival, and -- Tim McCoy, and Ahrazue Wilt. On Aug. 5, 2005, plaintiffs sought certification of a putative class of all hourly wage employees at the eight company plants since 1998 who were legally authorized to be employed in the U.S., which the defendants opposed. On Oct. 10, 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On Oct. 24, 2006, defendants filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit a petition for interlocutory review of the court's class certification decision (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 18, 2006). That petition is pending. The suit is "Trollinger, et al v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. 4:02-cv-00023," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge Curtis L. Collier with referral to Judge William B. Carter. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Howard W Foster of Johnson & Bell, Ltd., 33 East Monroe Street, Suite 2700, Chicago, IL 60603-5404, Phone: 312- 372-0770, Fax: 312-372-9818, E-mail: fosterh@jbltd.com; and (2) William G. Colvin of Shumacker, Witt, Gaither & Whitaker, P.C., 736 Market Street, Suite 1100, Chattanooga, TN 37402, Phone: 423-425-7000, E-mail: bcolvin@swgwlaw.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Roger W. Dickson of Miller & Martin, 832 Georgia Avenue, Suite 1000, Volunteer Building, Chattanooga, TN 37402-2289, Phone: 423-756-6600, E-mail: rdickson@millermartin.com; and (ii) Thomas C. Green of Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, LLP, 1501 K. Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202- 736-8000. Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Son Wins GBP60T Payout for Factory Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Jones, of Neath, Wales, has won GBP60,000 in damages after his mother died from exposure to asbestos at Neath's Metal Box, Western Mail reports. Mr. Jones, who represented his mother Beryl's estate in the action, was granted the damages at the Cardiff Civil Justice Center on Jan. 11, 2007. Judge Hickinbottom ruled that Metal Box Ltd. and Crown Cork and Seal Ltd., who both ran the factory, were in breach of their duties to Mrs. Jones under the Factories Act. The Companies contested the action. Mrs. Jones worked as a packer and latterly a cleaner at the factory from 1954 to 1968. Judge Hickinbottom said he was satisfied asbestos "transfer belts" were used to take cans into ovens there and that asbestos dust got in to the air. In August 2001, Mrs. Jones was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma and died four months later. The case heard evidence about processes at the factory from several people who had worked there. Judge Hickinbottom said, "I find that after October 1965 the defendants were in breach of duty to Mrs. Jones, both under common law and under Section 63 of the Factories Act 1961, and that those breaches increased the risk of Mrs. Jones contracting the mesothelioma which, in 2001, she did contract. I therefore find them liable in this claim." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Electrician's Death to Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Hertfordshire, U.K. inquest heard that electrician Peter Betts died due to asbestos dust exposure when he was an apprentice, The Herts Advertiser reports. Herts Coroner Edward Thomas ruled that Mr. Betts, aged 59, of Marconi Way, St. Albans, died from an industrial illness. Mr. Thomas said that, early in his career, Mr. Betts had been exposed to asbestos dust when working on older buildings where the material had been used for lagging. Mr. Betts had been healthy until 2005 when he began to suffer from chest problems and, after X-rays, he had been diagnosed as suffering from a form of cancer. On Aug. 24, 2006, Mr. Betts died from the cancer that had completely stopped one lung from functioning. After a limited post-mortem examination, Mr. Thomas said that lung specialist Dr. Alan Gibbs had found asbestos crystals in lung samples. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Firm Settles With Zurich, Excess in Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corries Solicitors, a Navigation Way, York, U.K.-based law firm has reached an out-of-court settlement with insurers Zurich and Excess, in a legal challenge to determine how insurance firms should treat claims relating to asbestos deaths, The Press reports. The action was due to be heard at Birmingham High Court last Jan. 10, 2007. The Press reported that the case involved a compensation claim being made by 69-year-old Silvia Gilligan whose husband, Fred, a joiner, died four years ago from mesothelioma. The amount of the settlement against Zurich and Excess, which provided liability cover at different times for Mr. Gilligan's former employers Holland, Hannen & Cubitt (Midlands) Ltd., has not been disclosed. Corries Solicitors filed the action to seek a ruling against Holland, Hannen & Cubitt (Midlands) Ltd. The case was also to allow proceedings under third party rights against the Company's insurers, Excess, which provided cover in the 1970s, when Mr. Gilligan was allegedly exposed to asbestos, and Zurich, which provided cover in the 1990s when the tumor is thought to have started to grow. Corries lawyer Dominic Collingwood had continued proceedings in Mrs. Gilligan's compensation claim because both Excess and Zurich denied liability. Mr. Collingwood said, "While I am pleased that a settlement has been reached for Mrs. Gilligan, the liability of insurance companies in these circumstances, where different insurers are in force at a time of exposure and the development of a tumor, still requires clarification by the courts." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio EPA Investigates Asbestos in Basement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, on Jan. 11, 2007, investigated an incident that had left a West Ninth Street basement with asbestos, Morning Journal reports. Ed Drotleff of Eagle Drive owns the property. The OEPA notified police that people at 233 1/2 W. Ninth had obtained asbestos-covered pipe and were in the process of cleaning off the asbestos so the pipes could be scraped. Capt. Norm Curtis arrived on the scene and asked two men he saw in the basement to come out. According to Capt. Curtis, residents George Webber and Steve Jones came out of the house covered with white powder, and Mr. Webber said they were cleaning pipe that Mr. Jones had been given at work in A&L Salvage in Lisbon, Ohio. The pipes were wrapped in plastic marked "dangerous," and Capt. Curtis said they had been left at the salvage yard for proper disposal when Mr. Jones "somehow got it." Capt. Curtis said there was a pile of asbestos four feet deep in the basement of the house, and every time the men walked outside, they tracked it onto the sidewalk. At the recommendation of the EPA, the city fire department hosed down the sidewalk, according to Capt. Curtis, who said officials said that was less of a hazard than having it tracked around. Capt. Curtis said the EPA was contacted by A&L Salvage after the resident of the other side of the duplex contacted the Company about Mr. Webber's actions. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Makes $1.4B Payment to Trust ---------------------------------------------------------------- Owens Corning, on Jan. 4, 2007, made a final payment of US$1,407,568,055.56 to the Owens Corning/Fibreboard Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, according to a Company report, on Form 8- K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Under the Company's Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization, on Jan. 4, 2007: -- The Company issued 28.2 million shares of its common stock to the Asbestos Trust; -- The pledge of Owens Corning Sales Inc. equity interests to the Asbestos Trust was cancelled, as the obligation to pledge equity interests in connection with a Contingent Note terminated upon payment of the Contingent Note. According to the terms of the Plan, the Asbestos Trust, which was created in order to pay qualifying holders of present and future asbestos personal injury and wrongful death claims, had a contingent right to receive: -- 28.2 million shares of Owens Corning common stock (the "Contingent Shares") and -- US$1.390 billion in cash, plus 7 percent interest from the effective date of the Plan to the payment date (the "Contingent Note"). Due to the fact that the 109th Congress was adjourned on about Dec. 9, 2006, and the FAIR Act was not enacted into law by Dec. 19, 2006, the Asbestos Trust's contingent rights vested and the Asbestos Trust became entitled to receive the Contingent Shares and the payment on the Contingent Note between Jan. 1, 2007 and Jan. 8, 2007. Under the Plan and the Contingent Note, the equity interests of Owens Corning Sales, Inc. were pledged to the Asbestos Trust to secure Owens Corning's obligations under the Contingent Note. Based in Toledo, Ohio, Owens Corning makes fiberglass and composite materials. Its building materials unit makes thermal, acoustic and foam insulation, and exterior products like roofing shingles, vinyl windows and siding, stone veneer building products, housewrap, patio doors, and rain gutters. The Company's composite materials unit makes glass fiber materials that industrial customers combine with plastic resins to make composite products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coroner Links Carpenter's Death to Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Crickmore, the Gloucestershire, U.K. coroner, ruled that carpenter Alfred James who may have swept up asbestos at his workplace died from exposure to the material, the Gloucestershire Echo reports. Mr. James, 86 years old, died on March 17, 2006 from malignant mesothelioma, a Gloucester inquest heard. He died from pneumonia brought on by the cancer. Mr. James' widow Joan said her husband had told her of one instance where he was required to clean up asbestos at work. She said, "He said that one of his duties was to sweep up asbestos on the factory floor during the 1960s." Paul Boak of the Coroner's officer said he found no written records of Mr. James working alongside asbestos, but said it did not rule out the possibility. Mr. Crickmore recorded the cause of death as industrial disease. He said, "On balance of probabilities I am satisfied that he was exposed during the course of his employment and that he inhaled the fibers." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Upholds Judgment v. Tenneco -------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Oregon upheld a Court of Appeals decision, which denied Tenneco Automotive Operating Company Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Lawrence and Patricia Keller. The Panel, comprised of Justices Paul J. De Muniz, Wallace P. Carson, Jr., W. Michael Gillette, Robert D. Durham, Thomas A. Balmer, and Rives Kistler, handed down the decision of Case No. 0010-10816; CA A117518; SC S52801 on Nov. 24, 2006. From 1960 until the 1970s, Mr. Keller worked as an automobile mechanic. From the mid-1970s until 1987, he managed his own muffler business. Tenneco made or supplied some of the mufflers, some of which were wrapped in asbestos, on which Mr. Keller worked. As a result, he was exposed to asbestos. In October 2000, Mr. Keller filed a product liability action in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, alleging that working with Tenneco's asbestos products had damaged his lungs. Tenneco moved for summary judgment. Tenneco contended that Mr. Keller had known of the possibility that asbestos was the cause of his pulmonary problems since the mid-1980s and that he had referred to his "asbestos lungs" when seeking social security disability and workers' compensation benefits in 1994 and 1995. The Circuit Court granted Tenneco's motion, ruling that Mr. Keller either had discovered or should have discovered that asbestos had caused his pulmonary problems more than two years before he filed this action. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court allowed review and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision. It ruled that the Court of Appeals correctly held that a reasonable juror could find that Mr. Keller neither actually discovered nor, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have discovered that he had an asbestos-related disease until April 2000. The case is remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. Thomas W. Sondag of Lane Powell PC in Portland, Ore. represented Tenneco Automotive Operating Company Inc. James Coon of Swanson, Thomas & Coon in Portland, Ore., Scott Niebling and Elaine J. Brown of Brayton Purcell LLP in Portland, Ore. represented Lawrence and Patricia Keller. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Splits Ruling in Staley Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Butler County, in part, upheld a Butler County Court of Common Pleas ruling, issued on June 1, 2006, which dismissed an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by George A. Staley. The Appeals Court reversed in part, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for issuance of a new order consistent with the Appeals Court's opinion and in accordance with Ohio law. The Panel, comprised of Judges Stephen W. Powell, H.J. Bressler, and William W. Young, handed down the decision of Case No. CA2006-06-133 on Dec. 28, 2006. From 1946 to 1984, Mr. Staley worked as a laborer at A.K. Steel Corp. in Butler County, Ohio. On Nov. 16, 1999, he was diagnosed with asbestos-related disease. On Dec. 14, 2001, Mr. Staley sued several companies (appellants), alleging that he had been exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing products or machinery in his occupation, and that appellants were liable for his asbestos-related lung disease. The defendants-appellants in the case are: 3M Co., Oglebay Norton Co., CertainTeed Corp., Union Carbide Corp., CBS Corp., Uniroyal Inc., Georgia-Pacific Corp., Cleaver-Brooks Inc., Maremont Corp., Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., and Rapid American Corp. On Sept. 2, 2004, Amended Substitute House Bill 292 went into effect. The key provisions require a plaintiff to make a prima facie showing that the exposed person has a physical impairment resulting from a medical condition, and that the person's exposure to asbestos was a factor to the illness. In December 2005, Mr. Staley sought to establish the prima facie showing. In March 2006, appellants opposed, asserting that Mr. Staley's evidence failed to establish a sufficient prima facie showing to allow his case to proceed, and requesting that his case be administratively dismissed. In April 2006, the trial court held a hearing on the parties' assertions on Mr. Staley's claim. He admitted that his evidence was insufficient to make the prima facie showing. He argued that H.B. 292 should not apply to his claim. On June 1, 2006, the trial court administratively dismissed Mr. Staley's case, ruling that his prima facie evidence failed "to meet the criteria for maintaining an asbestos-related bodily injury claim that existed before Sept. 2, 2004." Appellants appealed from the trial court's June 1, 2006 order. They argued that the trial court erred in determining that it could not apply the procedural requirements without violating the ban on retroactive legislation contained in the Ohio Constitution. The Appeals Court agreed with this argument. However, the trial court's decision to administratively dismiss Mr. Staley's case was correct. Appellants' assignment of error is sustained. William N. Riley and Christopher Moeller of Price Waicukauski & Riley LLC of Indianapolis, Ind., John J. McConnell and Vincent L. Greene IV of Motley, Rice LLC in Providence, R.I. represented George A. Staley. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Splits Ruling in Stahlheber Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Butler County, in part, upheld a Butler County Court of Common Pleas ruling, issued on June 1, 2006, which dismissed an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Deborah Stahlheber over the death of her father, Cecil Sizemore. The Appeals Court reversed in part, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for issuance of a new order consistent with the Appeals Court's opinion and in accordance with Ohio law. The Panel, comprised of Judges Stephen W. Powell, H.J. Bressler, and William W. Young, handed down the decision of Case No. CA2006-06-134 on Dec. 28, 2006. From 1952 to 1979, Mr. Sizemore was a truck driver and forklift operator at the Nicolet Industry Plant in Hamilton, Ohio, where he was exposed to asbestos. He died on May 14, 2001. On May 13, 2003, Mrs. Stahlheber sued several companies (appellants), alleging Mr. Sizemore had been exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing products or machinery in his occupation, and that appellants were liable for his illness. The defendants-appellants in the case are: American Standard Inc., 3M Co., Oglebay Norton Co., CertainTeed Corp., Union Carbide Corp., Uniroyal Inc., Georgia-Pacific Corp., Maremont Corp., Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., Ohio Valley Insulating Company Inc., and Rapid American Corp. On Sept. 2, 2004, Amended Substitute House Bill 292 went into effect. The key provisions require a plaintiff to make a prima facie showing that the exposed person has a physical impairment resulting from a medical condition, and that the person's exposure to asbestos was a factor to the illness. In March 2006, Mrs. Stahlheber sought to establish the required prima facie showing. Appellants opposed, asserting that her evidence failed to establish a sufficient prima facie showing to allow her case to proceed, and requesting that her case be administratively dismissed. On April 24, 2005, the trial court held a hearing on the parties' arguments regarding Mrs. Stahlheber's asbestos-related claims. She conceded that based on Mr. Sizemore's death certificate, "there is no evidence, at the moment, that [decedent's] death was caused as a result of an [asbestos- related] disease." Mrs. Stahlheber requested the trial court to administratively dismiss both her asbestosis and wrongful death claims until she had an opportunity to gather additional evidence in support of them. She also asked the trial court to find that the application of H.B. 292 to her case would be unconstitutional. On June 1, 2006, the trial court issued an "Amended Order of Administrative Dismissal" with respect to Mrs. Stahlheber's asbestos claim. Appellants now appeal from the order. Appellants argued that the trial court erred in determining that it could not apply certain provisions of H.B. 292 without violating the ban on retroactive legislation in the Ohio Constitution. The Appeals Court agreed with this argument. The Appeals Court ruled that the trial court's decision to administratively dismiss Mrs. Stahlheber's case was correct. Since she did not make the prima facie showing, the trial court was obligated to dismiss her asbestos claims. Richard E. Reverman of Young, Reverman & Mazzei Co. LPA in Cincinnati, Ohio and Vincent L. Greene IV of Motley Rice LLC in Providence, R.I. represented Deborah Stahlheber for her father, Cecil Sizemore. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WorkSafeBC Raises Fine v. School to CDN75T --------------------------------------------------------------- WorkSafeBC raised to CDN75,000 its penalty against the New Westminster School Board in British Columbia, Canada from CDN52,000, for exposing the students of New Westminster Secondary to asbestos, cbc.ca reports. In April 2005, asbestos dust was released during pre-demolition site work at the school, which had been built in the 1950s. Workers broke through floorboards in one classroom and released a cloud of dust laced with asbestos. Officials confirmed the dust was dangerous and sealed off the area. The school board appealed the decision and the CDN52,000 fine. Following a review, however, the original ruling has been upheld and the fine increased to CDN75,000. Ruth Minto, the president of the New Westminster Teachers' Union, said members who work at the school were concerned by the incident. The demolition work was halted, and the new school project is now on hold for financial reasons. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Council Closes Cottage for Asbestos --------------------------------------------------------------- After a Ballina Shire Council inspection found asbestos in the Williams Reserve Cottage used by the Lennox Head Playgroup, the council closed the building stating that it could put the children at risk, Northern Star reports. Lennox Head is a town in Ballina Shire, New South Wales, Australia. Council general manager John Christopherson said there would be more investigation into the problem, but estimated it would cost more than AUD100,000 to make the cottage safe. He said the money would be better used to help build the new community center for Lennox Head. Mr. Christopherson said there was sufficient risk for the council to close the building and engage professionals to take a closer look. He said it was the council's intention to provide the group with a space in the community center. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: British Rail Pays 3 Ex-Workers for Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- A terminally ill man and two widows of British Rail workers have been compensated for undisclosed amounts after the men were exposed to asbestos, Evening Telegraph reports. In 2005, 73-year-old David Ball was diagnosed with terminal lung disease and was warned he may have 12 months to live. Mr. Ball was exposed to asbestos when he worked at the British Rail Carriage and Wagon Works in Litchurch Lane, Derby. He worked from 1949 until he retired in 1992. Mr. Ball said he had watched several of his friends die from exposure to asbestos. Joan Blower was one of the widows who received compensation on behalf of her husband. In the 1950s, Colin Blower worked as a fitter and erector at the British Rail Locomotive Plant in Doncaster. The 70-year-old Mr. Blower died in September 2006 and an inquest concluded that he had died as a result of mesothelioma. Compensation from the British Railways Board, which is responsible for litigation involving British Rail, was also secured in the case of John Beadsworth who died from asbestos- related lung cancer in October 2005. Mr. Beadsworth had been exposed to asbestos dust during the 43 years he spent working as a coach fitter at the Locomotive Works in Derby. Linda Millband, of Thompsons solicitors in Nottingham, represented all three cases. She said, "Throughout their working lives, these three British Rail employees from Derbyshire were never provided with a mask or other protective equipment to stop the inhalation of the deadly asbestos dust, nor were they given any warnings about the dangers of working with asbestos." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Govt. Sets Shipwreck's Cleanup in Feb. 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Queensland State Government in Australia, on Jan. 16, 2007, said that it would remove asbestos from the Cherry Venture shipwreck, a Queensland tourist attraction, in February 2007, The Advertiser reports. Environment Minister Lindy Nelson-Carr said the shipwreck on the Sunshine Coast's Teewah Beach would be dismantled from Feb. 5, 2007 by a team of demolition and asbestos removal experts. In 1973, the Singaporean cargo ship ran aground in a cyclone en route from Auckland, New Zealand to Brisbane, Australia. The ship has been popular with tourists who have over the years ignored safety warnings to explore the wreck, sparking concerns the deteriorating hulk could lead to an accident. Ms. Nelson-Carr said a monitoring station would be set up to test air, metal, and sand to ensure all asbestos particles were completely removed. Ms. Nelson-Carr said the work would take about six weeks, after which a sign would be erected at the site detailing its historical significance. An attempt to refloat the Cherry Venture was made in 1977. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms Stay of PepsiAmericas Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York, affirmed a July 29, 2005 Supreme Court ruling, which granted PepsiAmericas Inc.'s motion to stay in an asbestos- related insurance lawsuit filed by various insurers. The Panel, comprised of Judges Joseph P. Sullivan, Milton L. Williams, John W. Sweeny, Jr., James M. Catterson, and Bernard J. Malone, Jr., handed down the decision of the case on Jan. 9, 2007. On July 29, 2005, Judge Herman Cahn of the Supreme Court, New York County, granted the motion of PepsiAmericas Inc. to stay this action in favor of litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In view of the 24-year pendency of the litigation involving the obligations of primary insurers to provide coverage and indemnity for underlying asbestos-related claims, the motion court stayed this action in favor of that litigation, and companion litigation concerning the obligations of excess insurers. Plaintiffs, who remained inactive for 20 years, as well as the appealing defendants, have not demonstrated that they will be prejudiced by a stay. David A. Luttinger, Jr. of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP in New York represented PepsiAmericas Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Intermountain Still Recognizes $11T Cleanup ---------------------------------------------------------------- Intermountain Refining Co. Inc. recognized US$11,000 from the salvage of metals from asbestos-containing equipment being dismantled in the Company's facility in Fredonia, Ariz. during the nine months ended Nov. 30, 2006. In April 2005, the Company began dismantling portions of its Fredonia refining equipment that were no longer used for ongoing operations and were not expected to be used in the future. As part of the process, the presence of asbestos containing materials was identified in portions of the equipment. The abatement of ACMs at the facility was completed during the year ended Feb. 28, 2006. Except for a small additional amount of debris removal, the Company said that the dismantling process is substantially complete, according to the Company's quarterly report, on Form 10-QSB, for the period ended Nov. 30, 2006 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In the nine months ended Nov. 30, 2005, the Company incurred about US$277,000 of consulting and asbestos abatement costs associated with removing asbestos from the equipment being dismantled and recognized US$27,500 from the salvage of metals. Based in Farmington, N.M., Intermountain Refining Co. Inc. produces natural gas, manufactures and stores asphalt-paving products. The Company also provides management and consulting services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. School Ex-Supervisor Drops Payout Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Fisher, former public works supervisor of the old Second Street School in Northumberland, Pa., withdrew from a workers' compensation claim after being informed he did not suffer ill effects of asbestos exposure in the school, The Daily Item reports. At a Jan. 16, 2007 Northumberland Borough Council meeting, Judith Groninger said appointments have been made for four other current and former employees - Steven Carr, Steven Haas, Todd Snyder, and Don Keeley - to undergo physical examinations to determine if they are suffering from asbestos exposure. The employees alleged the exposure happened in 2003, about three years after the borough bought the school from the Shikellamy School District. They employees claimed borough secretary Janice Bowman told them to remove tiles from the gymnasium floor that had been damaged by a leaking roof and dispose of them in two borough-owned Dumpsters. The employees also said that borough officials ignored their concerns of asbestos exposure and ordered them to work anyway. The Borough Council has secured the services of Volz Environmental Inc., of Pittsburgh, Pa. to inspect the building for asbestos before renovations. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Guild Hits LoC for Risky Working Conditions ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Library of Congress Professional Guild criticized the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. for denying that employees were exposed to unsafe working conditions as detailed in Office of Compliance citations, The Hill reports. Nan Thompson Ernst, the guild's representative on the LoC's health and safety committee, said, "The damage is obvious and undeniable and yet the Library's General Counsel now asserts that employees were not exposed to hazardous conditions." In December 2006, the OoC cited that the LoC initially failed to monitor employees' exposure to airborne asbestos and keep work surfaces free from material containing asbestos, and violated lead-safety laws. Responding to the citations the LoC said, "The Library has concluded that its employees have not been exposed to unsafe working conditions, as alleged in the citations." Mr. Ernst continued, "They can only make such a claim because no testing was done before the damaged flooring was covered by the Architect [of the Capitol] under the orders of the Office of Compliance." Saul Schniderman, the president of the Library of Congress Professional Guild, said that the LoC response was without authentication, lacking a date, the LoC header and the signature of a safety chief. The guild has been calling for a new asbestos management plan that would specifically outline responsibilities for the LoC and the AoC, Mr. Ernst wrote. One of the OoC's citations stated, the LoC must train its supervisors to recognize safety hazards, protect its employees from hazards and teach its employees how to recognize potential safety threats. Moreover, the LoC must adopt an asbestos floor-monitoring program, which must be taken before Feb. 9, 2007, to ensure that the material does not become airborne. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEQ Penalizes School District for Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, in December 2006, has penalized the Salem-Keizer School District, together with three contractors, for a June 2006 asbestos removal project, Salem-News.com reports. The project was located at Grant Elementary School, located at 725 Market St. NE. The DEQ issued a US$4,500 penalty to the District for allowing an unlicensed contractor to perform an asbestos abatement project during kitchen remodel at the school, and allowing open accumulation of asbestos-containing waste materials. The DEQ also issued a US$1,800 penalty to A Plus Drywall Inc. for conducting an asbestos project (demolition work at the school) on June 19, 2006, creating the potential for asbestos fiber release. The DEQ issued a US$1,800 penalty to Penetrations Inc. for conducting an asbestos abatement project (cutting vinyl asbestos floor at the school) on June 20, 2006 without being licensed. The DEQ also issued a US$1,800 penalty to Woodburn Construction Co. for allowing a person other than an asbestos abatement contractor to perform an asbestos abatement project (demolishing a wall at the school, and creating the potential for asbestos fiber release) on June 19, 2006. According to the DEQ, Woodburn did not respond to a Jan. 8, 2007 appeal deadline. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Macquarie to Gauge Risks from Natural State ---------------------------------------------------------------- A study, to be commenced by Macquarie University researcher Mark Hendrickx on February 2007, will attempt to detail the health risks posed to people whose homes or jobs are near deposits of naturally occurring asbestos (NOA), The Age reports. Over the next three years, the study will produce detailed maps of NOA around Australia and involve comprehensive checks of medical records around the deposits. The study would also check air quality to determine the level of fibers people are being exposed to. Mr. Hendrickx said the risk of contracting asbestos-related disease from exposure to asbestos-bearing rock was low. The biggest risks were for people involved in work like farming, forestry or road construction over long periods. However, a 2005 California study found that residential proximity to NOA was associated with an increased risk of mesothelioma, Mr. Hendrickx added. He said about 10 percent of those cases occurred in people with no known exposure to asbestos, and at least some of these cases may have been caused by NOA. Rock with asbestos occurs throughout Australia, often in very remote areas, but some of it runs through or around populated rural areas. In New South Wales, asbestos-bearing serpentinite rock is found around the towns of Tamworth, Nundle and Barraba, in a belt west of Grafton and in a large tract, which runs from Young to Tumut. Orange, Gundagai and Port Macquarie also have asbestos-bearing rock in and around the towns. The rock is also found in rural areas of western Victoria, in South Australia as close as 50 kilometers from Adelaide and in northern and western Tasmania. Blue asbestos deposits remain in Western Australia's Pilbara region, where the substance was mined around Wittenoom until the 1960s. However, the settlement is now virtually a ghost town. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Council to Investigate Fly-tipping in Road --------------------------------------------------------------- The Erewash Borough Council plans to check on illegal fly- tipping on allotments at Heanor Road in Ilkeston, U.K., the Ilkeston Advertiser reports. The rubbish includes asbestos, conifer cuttings, and electrical cables, all of which has been dumped on the allotments near the entrance adjacent to the bridge up from the police station. Neighbors have also reported that rubbish has been "delivered" by trucks. Councilor Michelle Booth said, "Trucks are seen to deliver the stuff early evening time. The theft of large iron gates seems to have occurred, leaving easier access for more tipping to happen. I believe that Archer Holdings, as owners, must have a duty to either keep the site secure or safe from public harm." Trevor Holden, the Council's director of neighborhood services, said, "Fly tipping is an offence that Erewash Borough Council takes very seriously. "Fly tipping is an offense that can carry fines of an average GBP5,000 and if we can trace those responsible, we will ensure they are prosecuted for their crime." ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Davis Widow Seeks Manor Joinery Ex-workers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Davis, the widow of Alan Irwin Davis, is searching for her husband's former workmates in the United Kingdom in a bid to resolve the matter of how he died from mesothelioma, according to the Barking & Dagenham Recorder. Mr. Davis died months after being diagnosed at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital. The 74-year-old is alleged to have developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos when he was a bench worker at Manor Joinery Works Ltd., Ripple Road, Barking, between 1961 and 1973, making fire doors. The job involved cutting up asbestos that was used for door lining. Howard Bonnett, a Corries Solicitors lawyer, is working with Mrs. Davis on a compensation claim. They are trying to gain evidence against Manor Joinery Works Ltd. and Demar Joinery, which used to be near Dagenham, where her husband worked from 1973 to 1975. Mrs. Davis said she is seeking compensation as she feels the couple was robbed of a long and happy retirement and her husband suffered for simply doing his job. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ala. Victim Sues 91 Cos. in Madison County ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Sturgeon of Alabama, on Jan. 12, 2007, sued 91 defendants in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill. alleging he was exposed to airborne asbestos from his father's clothing, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Mr. Sturgeon seeks damages in excess of US$200,000,plus punitive damages. Mr. Sturgeon claims his father Elmo Sturgeon was employed as a truck driver at various locations across the country. The complaint states, "Dust created by working with and around asbestos and asbestos-containing products would permeate the person and clothing of the plaintiff's father. This dust contained asbestos fiber." Mr. Sturgeon claims his father would carry the asbestos dust on his clothing home with him where it would again become airborne. Mr. Sturgeon was employed from 1977 through 2006 as a communication lineman, railroad worker and communication maintainer-technician at various locations, including Illinois. He also claims he was exposed to asbestos during non- occupational work projects including home and automotive repairs, maintenance and remodeling. In May 2006, Mr. Sturgeon was diagnosed with mesothelioma and subsequently became aware that his illness was wrongfully caused, the suit claims. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to require and advise their employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home. As a result of the alleged negligence, Mr. Sturgeon claims he was exposed to fibers with asbestos, and developed a disease caused by asbestos which has disabled and disfigured him. Mr. Sturgeon also claims that he has sought, but has been unable to obtain relevant documents and information from the defendants leading him to believe the defendants destroyed documents related to asbestos. The suit claims that as a result of each defendant breaching its duty to preserve material evidence by destroying documents and information, Mr. Sturgeon has been prejudiced and impaired in proving claims against all potential parties. Nicholas Angelides, Perry Browder, and John Barnerd of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill. represent Mr. Sturgeon. The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Dan Stack. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Ex-Worker's Death to Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- An inquest at Workington Magistrates' Court heard, on Jan. 16, 2007, that former factory worker Allan McFarland died as a result of exposure to asbestos while he worked in Workington, U.K., News & Star reports. Mr. McFarland in October 2006 at the age of 70. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2004, and fibers of asbestos were found in his lung tissue during a post mortem. Mr. McFarland left school at 17, and started an apprenticeship at High Duty Alloys in Workington, on the site of what is now Alcan Pechiney. He worked at the site as an electrician until 1974, and during that time was exposed to asbestos. His friend and colleague, Peter Hall, said, "The two of us started our apprenticeships together, and worked at the aluminium extrusion site in Workington. We got the most exposure to asbestos in the early 1950s and would have to cut sheets of it to size using hand tools such as hacksaws." "We were never provided with masks or protective clothing, and were not given any warnings about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. The first indication we got was in 1969 when a leaflet came round." In February 2006, Mr. McFarland sued High Duty Alloys, who admitted liability and paid a settlement in full. At the inquest, coroner for west Cumbria, John Taylor, recorded that Mr. McFarland had died of mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos in the workplace. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Council Shuts Down School for Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Worchestershire County Council of Worcestershire, U.K. has closed the Westacre Middle School in Droitwich after contractors disturbed asbestos during the Christmas break, Worcester News reports. A county council spokesman said contractors had disturbed asbestos in the door seals and the school had been closed while an environmental cleansing of the air was organized to remove the particles and the rest of the school checked. In a letter, the Council said that the school would stay closed until Jan. 29, 2007. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kin of Canadian Workers Exposed to Hazards ---------------------------------------------------------------- Children and spouses of Canadian workers sickened by asbestos are discovering their own lung disorders and diseases, which doctors said were triggered by asbestos dust brought home by their fathers and husbands, CTV.ca reports. Like second-hand cigarette smoke, the dust penetrated car upholstery and clothes, and may have even been transmitted through hugs. Because the phenomenon was not discovered until recently, many people are learning about their condition too late for treatment. Across Canada, many children and spouses of former asbestos workers are also at risk of chronic lung problems and cancer, but may not realize it. Doctors are worried as the numbers of mesothelioma cases rise across the country. Dr. Abe Reinhartz said, "If anyone in your family worked with asbestos in the 1950s to early 1980s it would be worthwhile being checked out by a health care provider, especially if there are respiratory symptoms." A test is now in place, a CT scan that searches for early signs of the disease. Some physicians are trying to spread the word that the screening exists. Dr. Heidi Roberts of Toronto's Princess Margaret Hospital said, "The benefits for the bystanders to get early screening is because potentially we can find the lung cancer and the mesothelioma early, before it would cause symptoms, and the earlier you treat it the better your chances of survival." New Securities Fraud Cases CELESTICA INC: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Brualdi Law Firm announces that a securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Celestica Inc. securities during the period between July 27, 2006 and Dec. 12, 2006, inclusive. The complaint charges Celestica and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, throughout the class period, defendants issued numerous statements describing the company's financial performance and future prospects, which they attributed, in part, to success of the company's restructuring activities and improvements in their Mexican and European operations. The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading when made because defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (i) that the company was experiencing declining demand in its Mexican operations and the operations division was carrying significant amounts of unneeded inventory which would have to be written off; (ii) that the company was experiencing declining demand in its Information Technology (IT) and communications market segments as its larger customers scaled back purchases; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, there was no reasonable basis to project adjusted earnings per share ranging from $0.12 to $0.20. When this undisclosed information later became public, shares of Celestica common stock declined. Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from Jan. 12, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact Tali Leger, Director of Shareholder Relations of The Brualdi Law Firm, Phone: 212-952- 0602, E-mail: tleger@brualdilawfirm.com. SUNRISE SENIOR: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of shareholders who purchased the securities of Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. between Aug. 4, 2005 and June 15, 2006, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning the company's financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Sunrise securities. Interested parties may move the court no later than March 19, 2007, for lead plaintiff approval. For more information, contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 or Toll-Free (888) 638-4847, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.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 2007. 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 * * *