C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, February 16, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 34 Headlines ARKANSAS: School Board Nixes $400T Settlement for Teachers' Suit BAHRAIN: Lawyers Sue Gov't. for Letting in Foreign Law Firms BIOPURE CORP: Agrees to Settle Securities Fraud Suit in Mass. BRISTOL-MYERS: Feist-Weiller Gets $25T in Taxol Suit Settlement CANADA: Fired Halifax Board Members Plan Suit Against Province CANADA: Suit Seeks to Reinstate Home Heating Rebates Program DDI CORP: Feb. 26 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Settlement DELL INC: Workers File Lawsuit in Ore. for Unpaid Overtime Wages DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlement of Suit by Former Employees Okayed DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Non-Management Employees File Suit in Calif. DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Still Faces Canadian Payday Loans Litigation GENESIS MICROCHIP: Calif. Securities Suit Granted Final Approval H'S RESORT: Developers Offer $770T to Settle Suit Over Condos INDIAN HEALTH: Faces Suit by Tribal Health Organizations in N.M. MICHIGAN: Federal Judge Certifies Class in Foster Kids' Lawsuit NEW JERSEY: $2.5M Settlement Reached in Suit Over Dam Failures NX CARE: Makers of 'Fat Burner' Face Md. Consumer Fraud Suit PEOPLES ENERGY: Responds to Allegations in Ill. Consumer Suit PEOPLES GAS: Ill. Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Connection Fees PLAYERS INC: Ex-NFL Players File Calif. Suit Over Fees Sharing PREMCOR INC: Ill. Judge Refuses Insurers' Motion to Change Venue REAL ESTATE COS: Okla. Judge Dismisses RESPA Violations Lawsuit SENDTEC INC: Lead Plaintiffs, Counsel Named in Securities Suit SERVICE CORP: Summary Judgment Granted to "Baudino" Plaintiffs SERVICE CORP: Faces Suits for Anti-competitive Practices in Tex. TENNESSEE: County Faces Prisoner Civil Rights Violations Suit TIBCO SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Files Motion to Dismiss 401(k) Suit in Minn. VIRGINIA: VCU Settles Racial Bias Suit Over Journalism Program Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Ameron Int'l. Drop to 145 in 2006 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Todd Shipyards Corp. Drop to 568 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. United Technologies Rise to 2,830 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Has $627M Claims Reserve in 4Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Records 49,700 Active Suits in 4Q06 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $859M Recoverable in 4Q06 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. DEQ Settles With Environmental Mgmt. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DaimlerChrysler Bid in Hurst Suit Granted ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $8.4M Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Spends $300T for Various Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cabot Faces 58T Claims in Respirator Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Maintains $46M Liability in 4Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Maremont Drop to 44,049 in 4Q06 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Records $7M Rockwell Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Society to Pay $5,390 for CAA Breach ASBESTOS LITIGATION: "Hampton v. Owens-Illinois Suit" Remanded ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling v. Olin in Graves Suit Upheld in La. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mid-States to Pay $6T for Removal Breaches ASBESTOS LITIGATION: School District to Pay $3.5T for Violations ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Checks Asbestos Levels in Helena, Mont. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Pays AUD184.3M to Compensation Fund ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Records 1,165 Cases in 4Q06 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exelon Generation Has $48M Reserves at 4Q06 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Inc. Faces 580 Pending Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zurn Records 4,900 Injury Lawsuits in 4Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lagger's Daughter to Get Payment from MoD ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio EPA Imposes $19T Fine on Bldg. Owner ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASIC Sues James Hardie Over Payout Funding New Securities Fraud Cases ALVARION LTD: Yourman Alexander Announces Securities Suit Filing GLOBALSTAR INC: Brodsky & Smith Announces N.Y. Securities Suit GLOBALSTAR INC: Goldman Scarlato Announces N.Y. Securities Suit GLOBALSTAR Inc: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing NEW CENTURY: Ademi & O'Reilly Announces Securities Suit Filing NEW CENTURY: Harwood Feffer Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit NEW CENTURY: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing NEW CENTURY: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif. NUVELO INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing NUVELO INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Suit Filing NUVELO INC: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing QUANTA CAPITAL: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ********* ARKANSAS: School Board Nixes $400T Settlement for Teachers' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Van Buren School board unanimously rejected a $400,000 offer to settle a 2003 class action against the district regarding teacher pay for non-instructional duty time, The Southwest Times Record reports. Former Coleman Junior High civics teacher Steve Jones filed the suit against the school district on Aug. 22, 2003, which was later certified as a class action. Mr. Jones claimed that teachers were not paid for non-instructional duty time that they were required to work. The case, which is set to go to trial on Feb. 22 at 9 a.m. in Crawford County Circuit Court in Van Buren, centers around passing periods and whether that is non-instructional time for teachers. It also involves before- and after-school duty and lunch duty. Superintendent Merle Dickerson added the lawsuit settlement proposal to the agenda at the beginning of recent meeting. When the time came for the board to consider whether it should accept the settlement, Mr. Dickerson said he would not give a recommendation to accept or reject the settlement. Thus in the end, the board voted 6-0 to reject the settlement offer. Mr. Jones' attorney, Brian Meadors said he couldn't understand why Mr. Dickerson didn't recommend to the board to settle the case, since school's attorney, Kevin Lemley of Allen Law Firm, was in agreement to it, the report stated. Mr. Jones originally filed the lawsuit along with another teacher, Allen Wolfe, asking for payment to teachers who had worked uncompensated duty time. Mr. Wolfe settled his claim and was dismissed from the lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 9, 2006). Mr. Meadors and Mark Burnette, another lawyer representing Mr. Jones, claim that Mr. Jones was unfairly dismissed from his position for making critical statements about the school district in violation of his civil rights. In April 2006 the two claims were added to the lawsuit: -- an appeal of Mr. Jones' termination under the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act; and -- an allegation of a violation of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. Judge Mike Medlock granted class-action status to that case back in 2005, allowing about 500 Van Buren teachers to join the lawsuit. The lawsuit covers any certified teacher working for the school district between August 1998 and present who has performed "uncompensated non-instructional duties." Mr. Jones is asking for compensation for the duty time, pre- and post-judgment interest and reasonable attorney's fees, costs and other relief to which he and the class are entitled. He is also asking for compensatory and punitive damages (Class Action Reporter, April 27, 2006). For more details, contact: (1) C. Brian Meadors of Pryor, Robertson & Barry, PLLC, 315 North 7th Street, P.O. Drawer 848, Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0848, Phone: 479-782-8813 and 479-782-7911, Fax: 479-785-0254, Web Site: http://www.prblaw.com;and (2) Mark T. Burnette of Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers & Sneddon, PLLC, 1010 West Third Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-1510, (Pulaski Co.), Phone: 501-378-7870, Fax: 501-375-1940, Web site: http://www.mbbwi.com. BAHRAIN: Lawyers Sue Gov't. for Letting in Foreign Law Firms ------------------------------------------------------------ The High Civil Administrative Court of Bahrain has adjourned a class action filed against the government for granting foreign law firms license to operate in Bahrain, the Gulf Daily News reports. The suit was filed by the Bahrain Bar Association and 99 lawyers against the Central Bank of Bahrain, the Industry and Commerce Ministry, and foreign law firms: * Norton Rose, * Trowers and Hamlins Solicitors, * Baker and Mackenzie, * Al Gharbi Legal Consultants, * Thomas Associates, and * Al Towajri for International Consultants The plaintiffs accused the Ministry and the Central Bank of breaking the law when they granted the licenses to foreign lawyers. They said that Bahraini lawyers have lost business because of that. The association is also seeking to revoke as unconstitutional the Royal Decree No. 77 of 2006, related to licensing foreign law firms. According to the report, the government reasoned that Prime Minister Shaikh Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa issued orders on Dec. 8, 1976, authorizing the Minister of State for Legal Affairs at that time to issue licenses to foreign law firms to open offices in Bahrain. The Bahraini lawyers claim that licenses should have been granted by the Justice Ministry and not by the Industry and Commerce Minister or the Central Bank. The court has given State Legal Affairs Directorate lawyer Ali Yousuf Janahi until March 20 to produce copies of the orders. It also asked the representatives of the six foreign law firms to produce copies of the licenses they have in the next court hearing. Representing Trowers and Hamlin, Norton and Rose and Thomas Associates is lawyer Ilham Ali Hassan. Representing Al Towajri International Consultants is lawyer Nabeela Al Majid. Resenting Baker and MacKenzie for Legal Consultants is lawyer Omar Al Mardhi. Representing the 99 lawyers is lawyer Ali Al Jabal. BIOPURE CORP: Agrees to Settle Securities Fraud Suit in Mass. ------------------------------------------------------------- Biopure Corp. signed an agreement in principle on Feb. 14 to settle a securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the company said in its 2007 first quarter financial results. Under the settlement, all claims against Biopure and the individual defendants would be dismissed with prejudice. The settlement is subject to agreeing upon a formal stipulation of settlement and court approval. The company did not disclose details of the settlement Case Background Following the announcement in December 2003 that Biopure was being investigated by the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission, the company, two directors (one a former director), its former chief executive officer, former chief technology officer and former chief financial officer were named as defendants in a number of similar, purported class action complaints, filed between Dec. 30, 2003 and Jan. 28, 2004 by alleged purchasers of the company's common stock. According to the complaint, Biopure artificially inflated its stock price by misrepresenting the prospects for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of the marketing of the company's main product, Hemopure (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 7, 2007). The lawsuit says that the company knew by virtue of its ongoing communications with the FDA that regulators had strong reservations about Hemopure's safety but continued to publicly hype the product throughout the class period. Hemopure is an investigational product for the treatment of acutely anemic surgical patients and for the elimination, delay or reduction of red blood cell transfusions in these patients. It is a human blood substitute derived from cow's blood, which acts like red blood cells to deliver oxygen to the body. Unlike donated blood, Hemopure does not have to be matched to a patient's blood type. The truth about Hemopure began to emerge on Dec. 24, 2003. After the close of the markets on Christmas Eve, Biopure announced a potential SEC inquiry for securities fraud and, for the first time, disclosed substantial problems with its Hemopure product and the FDA approval process. Those complaints have since been consolidated in a single action as, "Biopure Corp. Securities Litigation." On July 23, 2004, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who acquired the common stock of Biopure during the period of March 17, 2003 through Dec. 24, 2003 and names as additional defendants Ronald F. Richards, Howard P. Richman, Charles A. Sanders and J. Richard Crout. On Oct. 6, 2004, defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint and on Dec. 7, 2004 lead plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' motions. Defendants filed their replies in further support of their motions on Jan. 24, 2005. On Feb. 2, 2006 the Judge heard oral arguments on all outstanding motions. On March 28, 2006 Judge Nancy Gertner issued an order denying the motions to dismiss and on the same date the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which the defendants filed answers to on April 28, 2006. On May 5, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Defendants filed their opposition to plaintiff's motion for class certification on July 25, 2006. A class has not yet been certified, according to the company's Jan. 29, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2006. The settlement would have no financial effect on Biopure or any of the individual defendants. The suit is "In Re Biopure Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-12628-NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-7230; (2) Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail: ted@shulaw.com; and (3) Gilman and Pastor, LLP, Suite 500, Stonehill Corporate Center, 999 Broadway, Saugus, MA 01906, Phone: 781-231- 7850, Fax: 781-231-7840 (fax) E-mail: palagorio@gilmanpastor.com or dpastor@gilmanpastor.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Bingham McCutchen LLP, 150 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-8717, Fax: 617-951-8736, E-mail: robert.buhlman@bingham.com, eunice.lee@bingham.com and raquel.webster@bingham.com; and (ii) Mary P. Cormier of Edwards & Angell, LLP, 101 Federal St., Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-2225, Fax: 617- 439-4170, E-mail: mcormier@edwardsangell.com. BRISTOL-MYERS: Feist-Weiller Gets $25T in Taxol Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti has given the LSU Health Sciences Center's Feist-Weiller Cancer Center a $25,000 check as part of a settlement of a lawsuit filed against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. over the company's cancer drug Taxol, KSLA News reports. The federal antitrust lawsuit, which involves all 50 states, alleged Bristol-Myers Squibb unlawfully blocked less-expensive generic drugs from the marketplace. Bristol-Myers Squibb reached a settlement in April 2003 with all 50 states to distribute $55 million for the states' claims for damages, penalties and individual consumers redress. Additionally, the company agreed to strong injunctive relief over the next ten years that will prevent it from engaging in anti-competitive conduct. CANADA: Fired Halifax Board Members Plan Suit Against Province -------------------------------------------------------------- Several former Halifax Regional School Board members plan to sue the province for firing them and putting a single trustee in their place, according to CBC News. In December 2006, Education Minister Karen Casey dissolved the largest school board in the province, saying the constant bickering among members hindered their ability to do their jobs. The minister placed Howard Windsor in charge until October 2008, when the next province-wide school board elections are to be held. Former board member Deborah Brunt wouldn't say how many of her colleagues are part of the class action, only that a majority of them have hired a lawyer, hoping to get their jobs back. CANADA: Suit Seeks to Reinstate Home Heating Rebates Program ------------------------------------------------------------ A New Brunswick lawyer is filing a class action on behalf of some New Brunswick residents seeking to reinstate home heating rebates scrapped by the new Liberal government, CBC News reports. Lawyer Yassin Choukiri said the order that created the program was essentially a contract between the government and the people of New Brunswick and should be honored, according to the report. The rebates program took effect July 1, 2006 but was scrapped by the Liberals in December. Class actions are relatively new in New Brunswick and the law governing them has yet to be proclaimed, according to the report. DDI CORP: Feb. 26 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 26, 2007 at 10 a.m. for the proposed $4,350,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re DDi Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-03-7063-SGL (SHx)." The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 3470 Twelfth Street, Riverside, California. The settlement covers all persons and entities that purchased shares of DDi common stock in DDi's Feb. 14, 2001 public offering for $23.50 per share. Objections and exclusions to and from the settlement was due Jan. 26, 2007. Deadline for the submission of a proof of claim is on April 6, 2007. Case Background On Jan. 31, 2001, DDi filed a registration statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission covering the public sale of 6 million shares of DDi common stock. On Feb. 14, 2001, pursuant to its February Prospectus, DDi completed its offering, selling its common stock at $23.50 per share and yielding net proceeds of approximately $66 million for the company and another $66 million for selling shareholders. Five federal securities class action complaints were filed on or after Oct. 1, 2003 against some or all of the defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws, and these actions were consolidated by the court. Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint on July 26, 2004, and defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on Sept. 9, 2004. By order dated Jan. 7, 2005, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice and granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. Thereafter on Feb. 22, 2005, plaintiffs filed their second amended consolidated class action complaint which asserted claims solely under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The second amended consolidated class action complaint alleged that DDi's February prospectus was materially incomplete and contained materially false and misleading statements pertaining to, inter alia, DDi's customer base, market conditions, financial results, business focus and future prospects. The second amended consolidated class action complaint further alleged that defendants' misleading statements and omissions caused the February Offering to be completed at an inflated price, resulting in damages to persons and entities that purchased DDi common stock in DDi's February Offering. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended consolidated class action complaint on March 25, 2005. Both parties submitted additional briefing related to the motions to dismiss. On July 20, 2005, the court denied in part and granted in part defendants' motions to dismiss, allowing plaintiffs to proceed with: -- claims against all defendants under Section 11 of the Securities Act, -- claims against the Underwriter Defendants under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and -- claims against the Individual and Bain Defendants under Section 15 of the Securities Act The court dismissed claims in the second amended consolidated class action complaint relating to convertible notes sold in connection with DDi's Feb. 14, 2001 public offering on statute of limitation grounds. On Sept. 19, 2005, defendants filed answers to the second amended consolidated class action complaint. On Feb. 21, 2006, the court held a scheduling conference regarding discovery, at which time the parties were required to resolve matters of class certification before continuing with discovery on the merits of the action. The court also referred the action to a private mediator. Thereafter, the parties proceeded with class certification discovery and the case was reassigned to the Judge Stephen G. Larson. On April 19, 2006, defendants served plaintiffs with interrogatories relating to class certification issues, and on June 16, 2006, plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. While discovery was ongoing, the parties participated in a mediation session with the assistance of a retired federal judge and formally began their settlement discussions. Although the parties did not resolve the action at the mediation, they then reached the proposed settlement after several months of ongoing telephonic negotiations. For more details, contact: (1) Andrew L. Zivitz and Kay E. Sickles of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: (610) 667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com; and (2) DDi Corp. Securities Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6465, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: 1-888-292-1828, Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com. DELL INC: Workers File Lawsuit in Ore. for Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Disgruntled Dell Inc. employees at the company's Roseburg, Oregon call center filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against the company alleging denial of overtime compensation, the Ars Technica reports. Sales representatives who work at the center claim that Dell rips them off in a whole host of ways, including (but not limited to): -- routinely undercounting hours worked, -- not paying employees for required meetings, and -- deducting more time for lunch then employees actually take The lawsuit alleges that Dell uses the Kronos timekeeping system, but that the software is deeply flawed. The company "regularly and routinely" does not record all hours worked, and the only way to correct the record is to have a supervisor make the change, the suit claims. "This is rarely successful," says the complaint, "either because the supervisor does not make the correction or Kronos still fails to adequately record the time." The lawsuit charges that Dell has been aware of the problems for years, but has yet to make any meaningful changes. It also claims that Kronos automatically deducts one hour for lunch, even though most employees at the call center take only a 30 or 45-minute break. In addition, employees are required to show up for training meetings that occur before their shift begins-and they aren't paid for their time. According to the complaint, the end result is that Dell routinely underpays its employees and manages to avoid paying the overtime that many of the sales representatives would otherwise receive. "The net effect of Dell's policy and practice instituted and approved by company managers is that Dell willfully fails to pay overtime compensation and willfully fails to keep accurate time records in order to save payroll costs," concludes the complaint. The lawsuit seeks class-action status for all of the company's phone sales representatives in the country; if the request is granted. The suit is "Norman et al. v. Dell, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:07- cv-06028-TC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon under Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Representing plaintiffs are: (1) Matthew L. Dameron and George A. Hanson both of Stueve Siegel Hanson Woody LLP, 330 W 47th Street, Suite 250, Kansas City, MO 64112, Phone: (816) 714-7100, Fax: (816) 714-7101, E-mail: dameron@sshwlaw.com or hanson@sshwlaw.com; and (2) Derek C. Johnson and Douglas G. Schaller both of Johnson Clifton Larson & Corson, P.C., 975 Oak Street, Suite 1050, Eugene, OR 97401, Phone: (541) 484-2434, Fax: (541) 484-0882, E-mail: djohnson@jclc.com or dschaller@jclslaw.com. DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlement of Suit by Former Employees Okayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Final approval was granted to the settlement of three California wage-and-hour class actions filed against Dollar Financial Corp., according to the company's Feb. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2006. Under the proposed settlement, class members can submit claims pursuant to a process whereby the company could pay up to $5.8 million to settle claims asserted in the cases. Initially the company was named as a defendant in four lawsuits commenced by the same law firm. Each lawsuit was pled as a class action, and each lawsuit alleges violations of California's wage-and-hour laws. The named plaintiffs are former employees: -- Vernell Woods (suit commenced Aug. 22, 2000), -- Juan Castillo (suit commenced May 1, 2003), -- Stanley Chin (suit commenced May 7, 2003), and -- Kenneth Williams (suit commenced June 3, 2003) Each of these suits seeks an unspecified amount of damages and other relief in connection with allegations that the company: -- misclassified California store (Woods) and area (Castillo) managers as "exempt" from a state law requiring the payment of overtime compensation; -- the company failed to provide non-management employees with meal and rest breaks required under state law (Chin); and -- the company computed bonuses payable to its store managers using an impermissible profit-sharing formula (Williams). The trial court in "Chin" denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. Plaintiffs appealed that ruling and in May 2006, the Appellate Court affirmed the denial of class certification. The trial court in "Chin "denied plaintiff's motion for class certification and that decision was upheld on appeal. On March 15, 2006, the company reached a settlement in the Woods, Castillo and Williams actions, and the court granted preliminary approval of that settlement on June 19, 2006. The company agreed to settle Woods for $4,000,000, Castillo for $1,100,000 and Williams for $700,000. The total amount paid to the class members in "Woods" and "Castillo" may increase if the company's estimate of the total number of workweeks for those classes proves to be too low. It is unlikely that the settlement amounts for "Woods" or "Castillo" will increase by more than twenty percent. The court held a final approval hearing on Oct. 3, 2006. The settlement distribution to the class occurred on Jan. 11, 2007. The company will pay $42,000 in settlement administration fees and $3.1 million in attorneys' fees and costs. The total distribution to the class was $2.7 million including estimated payments of the employer's payroll taxes. Dollar Financial Corp. on the Net: http://www.dfg.com. DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Non-Management Employees File Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Financial Corp. faces a labor-related class action in California, alleging that the company failed to provide non- management employees with meal and rest breaks required under state law. Caren Bufil filed the suit on Sept. 11, 2006, which seeks class certification of the action against the company for failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements and unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices under California law. The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and other relief, according to the company's Feb. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2006. Dollar Financial Corp. on the Net: http://www.dfg.com. DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Still Faces Canadian Payday Loans Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Financial Corp. and its Canadian subsidiary remain defendants in several purported class actions filed by customers who were allegedly subjected to usurious charges in payday loan transactions, according to the company's Feb. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2006. MacKinnon Action On Jan. 29, 2003, a former customer, Kurt MacKinnon, commenced an action against the company's Canadian subsidiary and 26 other Canadian lenders on behalf of a purported class of British Columbia residents who, Mr. MacKinnon claims, were overcharged in payday-loan transactions. The action, which is pending in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, alleges violations of laws proscribing usury and unconscionable trade practices and seeks restitution and damages, including punitive damages, in an unknown amount. Following initial denial, Mr. MacKinnon obtained an order permitting him to re-apply for class certification, which was appealed. The Court of Appeal has granted Mr. MacKinnon the right to apply to the original judge to have her amend her order denying certification. On June 14, 2006, the original judge granted the requested order and the Canadian subsidiary's request for leave to appeal the order was dismissed. The certification motion in this action proceeded in conjunction with the certification motion in the Parsons' action described below. Parsons Action On April 15, 2005, the solicitor acting for Mr. MacKinnon commenced a proposed class action against the company's Canadian subsidiary on behalf of another former customer, Louise Parsons. The certification motion in this action proceeded on Nov. 27, 2006 in conjunction with the McKinnon action. The judge has not released her decision regarding the motions to date. Smith Action On Aug. 19, 2003, a former customer in Ontario, Canada, Margaret Smith, commenced an action against the company and its Canadian subsidiary on behalf of a purported class of Ontario borrowers who, Ms. Smith claims, were subjected to usurious charges in payday-loan transactions. The action, which is pending in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleges violations of a Canadian federal law proscribing usury seeks restitution and damages, including punitive damages and, seeks injunctive relief prohibiting further alleged usurious charges. The company's Canadian subsidiary's motion to stay the action on grounds of arbitrability was denied. The company's motion to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction was denied and the appeal was dismissed. On Oct. 25, 2006, the plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class. The judge granted the certification motion. Mortillaro Action On Oct. 21, 2003, another former customer, Kenneth D. Mortillaro, commenced a similar action against the company's Canadian subsidiary, but this action has since been stayed on consent because it is a duplicate action. The allegations, putative class and relief sought in the Mortillaro action are substantially the same as those in the Smith action. Young Action On Nov. 6, 2003, Gareth Young, a former customer, commenced a purported class action in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Canada on behalf of a class of consumers who obtained short-term loans from the company's Canadian subsidiary in Alberta, alleging, among other things, that the charge to borrowers in connection with such loans is usurious. The action seeks restitution and damages, including punitive damages. On Dec. 9, 2005, the company's Canadian subsidiary settled this action, subject to court approval. On March 3, 2006, just prior to the date scheduled for final court approval of the settlement, the plaintiff's lawyer advised they would not proceed with the settlement and indicated their intention to join the purported national class action. No steps have been taken in the action since March 2006. Subsequently, the company's Canadian subsidiary commenced an action against the plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyer for breach of contract. That action has not proceeded past the pleadings stage. Other Litigation Similar purported class actions have been commenced against the company's Canadian subsidiary in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. The company is named as a defendant in the actions commenced in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland but it has not been served with the statements of claim in these actions to date. The claims in these additional actions are substantially similar to those of the Ontario actions referred to above. Dollar Financial Corp. on the Net: http://www.dfg.com. GENESIS MICROCHIP: Calif. Securities Suit Granted Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval to the settlement of the class action, "Kuehbeck v. Genesis Microchip, et al., Case No. 02-CV-05344." In November 2002, a putative securities class action was filed against the company, former chief executive officer Amnon Fisher, and former interim chief executive officer Eric Erdman. The suit was amended in July 2003 to include executive vice president Anders Frisk. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against Genesis and individual defendants, and violations of Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock between April 29, 2002 and June 14, 2002. In July 2005, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the case, with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, on March 2006, parties signed an agreement to settle the case. In August 2006, the court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On Dec. 8, 2006, the court issued a final judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the case with prejudice, according to its Feb. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2006. The suit is "Kuehbeck v. Genesis Microchip Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-05344-JSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) William M. Audet of Alexander, Hawes & Audet, LLP, 300 Montgomery Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415/982-1776, Fax: 415/576-1776, E-mail: waudet@alexanderlaw.com; (2) Patricia I. Avery of Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-759-4600, Fax: 212-486-2093, E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com; and (3) Ryan M. Hagan of Alexander Hawes & Audet, LLP, 152 North Third Street, Suite 600, San Jose, CA 95112, Phone: 408-289-1776, Fax: 408-287-1776, E-mail: rhagan@alexanderlaw.com. Representing the defendants is Nina F. Locker, Ignacio E. Salceda and Bahram Seyedin-Noor of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail: nlocker@wsgr.com, isalceda@wsgr.com and bnoor@wsgr.com. H'S RESORT: Developers Offer $770T to Settle Suit Over Condos ------------------------------------------------------------- Developers of the failed H's Resort condominium tower have offered $770,000 to settle a class action over contracts violating the Housing and Urban Development law, The Sun News reports. Under the agreed settlement, project broker William Olive will contribute $50,000 toward the proposed settlement, while most of the money will come from resort developer Harvey Graham Jr. In Nov. 2005, buyers who had agreed to pay between $260,000 and $305,000 for units at the 18-story tower, filed suit accusing Mr. Graham of fraud after he canceled their contracts, returned their deposits and told them they would have to pay as much as 51 percent more for their units. Gene Connell, the lawyer representing the buyers, said Mr. Graham canceled the contracts in the fall of 2005 because he wanted more money for the units at a time when prices had been rising for condos near the oceanfront. But prices for condos in the market fell. Under the settlement, both Messrs. Olive and Graham have agreed to split at least $770,000 among 385 people who had signed contracts or reservation agreements to purchase units at H's Resort, which was to be located a block from the beach at Second Avenue North and Ocean Boulevard. The prospective buyers could split as much as $1 million, depending on how much money Graham gets for the block of second- row land where H's Resort was to have been built. The least they will split is $770,000 if the settlement is ratified. The 169 buyers who signed purchase contracts will split most of the money, while the 216 buyers who signed reservation agreements will get $100 payouts. The buyers will get the money only after the H's Resort land is sold. The proposed settlement sets a Dec. 31 deadline for the sale of the land. A court hearing is scheduled for March 8 in Conway to finalize the agreement. INDIAN HEALTH: Faces Suit by Tribal Health Organizations in N.M. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Indian Health Service is a defendant in a purported class action that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico by 334 tribal health organizations, The Anchorage Daily News reports. The suit, originally filed in 2001 by the Zuni Pueblo was put on hold pending the outcome of a similar case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. It hasn't been certified as a class action. The tribal health organizations claim that the federal agency, which is responsible for providing health care to American Indians and Alaska Natives, has knowingly and annually shortchanged them since the early 1990s. Thus, the organizations, which contract with the agency to deliver health care, are pursuing class-action status for their case. They are also suing the service for nearly one billion dollars. The massive shortfall, according to them, has hurt a population facing medical crises on many fronts, including soaring rates of diabetes, heart disease, suicide and alcoholism. Officials with the Washington, D.C.-based Indian Health Service, acknowledge there's a huge shortfall. However, they pointed out that they've paid out all that Congress allows. More information about the case is available free of charge at: http://www.cscclass.net/Zuni_Litigation/case.htm. The suit is "Pueblo of Zuni, et al. v. United States of America; Tommy Thompson, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; and Michael h. Trujillo, Director of the Indian Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Case No. Civil Action No. 01-1046LH," filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Lloyd Benton Miller, Esq. of Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Miller & Munson, LLP, 900 West Fifth Avenue, Suite 700, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, Phone: (907) 258-6377, Fax: (907) 272-8332, E-mail: lloyd@sonosky.net; and (2) David C. Mielke, Esq. and Gary F. Brownell, Esq. of Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Mielke, LLP, 500 Marquette Avenue Northwest, Suite 1310, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102, Phone: (505) 247-0147, Fax: (505)843- 6912, E-mail: dmielke@abqsonosky.com and gbrownell@abqsonosky.com. MICHIGAN: Federal Judge Certifies Class in Foster Kids' Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan certified as a class action a lawsuit brought against the state of Michigan that seeks to improve services provided to foster children, The Detroit Free Press reports. The suit, "D.B. et al. v. Granholm et al.," was filed on Aug. 8, 2006 by the Children's Rights, a New York-based children's rights organization. The class certification is expected to affect nearly 19,000 foster children in the state. Judge Nancy Edmunds, issued the ruling, after reviewing written briefs and verbal arguments from lawyers for the advocacy group and the state Attorney General's Office. No trial date though was set for the case, which was brought on behalf of six foster children identified by first names or last initial only. Generally, the suit seeks to force the state Department of Human Services to adequately provide for the safety, well-being and permanency of foster children. Children's Rights argues that Michigan's foster care system is accused of routinely violating the constitutional rights of foster children by denying them adequate services such as finding permanent adoptive homes. In arguing against class certification, Assistant Attorney General William Morris stated that the Children's Rights had not provided evidence that such problems afflict thousands of other children in the foster care system and that. He adds that in any event, the children have lawyers assigned to them and juvenile court judges can address the issues plaintiffs are raising. The suit is "D. B. et al. v. Granholm et al., Case No. 2:06-cv- 13548-NGE-DAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Nancy G. Edmunds with referral to Judge Donald A. Scheer. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Susan Lambiase, Children's Rights, 330 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, US, Phone: 212-683-2210; and (2) Richard J. Landau of Dykema Gossett (Ann Arbor), 2723 S. State Street, Suite 400, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6188, Phone: 734-214-7669, E-mail: rlandau@dykema.com. Representing the defendants is William R. Morris of Michigan Department of Attorney General, P.O. Box 30758, Lansing, MI 48909, Phone: 517-373-7700, E-mail: morriswr@michigan.gov. NEW JERSEY: $2.5M Settlement Reached in Suit Over Dam Failures -------------------------------------------------------------- Three governmental entities that own four dams and 180 property owners reached a $2.5 million agreement to settle a class action over property damages as a result of dam failures during a storm three years ago, a lawyer representing property owners said, according to Mike Mathis of the Burlington County Times. Property owners filed a class action against public and private owners of 21 dams that were destroyed and the 30 that were damaged in July 2004 during a storm. The plaintiffs accuse defendants of failing to properly maintain the structures, resulting to worsening of the flood from the rainstorm and the subsequent damage to their homes and businesses. Medford Lakes, Medford Township and the Evesham Municipal Utilities Authority will pay a total of $2.5 million under the agreement, said Edward Petkevis, an attorney who represents the property owners. The dams involved in the settlement are Upper Aetna Lake Dam and Lower Aetna Lake Dam, both in Medford Lakes; Timber Lake Dam in Medford; and a cranberry bog dam owned by the Evesham MUA. Mr. Petkevis said the proposed settlement does not involve the Medford Lakes Colony Club, which is also named as an owner of Lower Aetna Lake, or the Birchwood Lakes Colony Club, which owns Timber Lake Dam, according to the report. A fairness hearing has not been scheduled. Also, on Feb. 1, retired Superior Court Judge Harold B. Wells III approved a settlement that allowed the owners of six dams and a contractor that reconstructed one of the structures to pay the plaintiffs a total of $285,000, according to the report. The settlement involves the municipalities of Southampton, Medford and Medford Lakes; the Medford Board of Education; the Rancocas Cranberry Co. in Southampton; and the Union Mill Lake Colony Club in Medford. The dams involved are Southampton's Vincentown Mill Dam, the Rancocas Cranberry Co.'s No Name No. 8 Dam, Medford's Fostertown Road Dam, the Medford Board of Education's Hinchman Dam, the Union Mill Lake Colony Club's Union Mill Dam, and Medford Lakes' Quogue Dam. Non-settling defendants are the Girl Scouts of Camden County, YMCA Camp Ockanickon, JCC Camps at Medford and several homeowners associations as well as Burlington County and the state Department of Environmental Protection. Karen McGuinness is attorney for the municipalities. NX CARE: Makers of 'Fat Burner' Face Md. Consumer Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Several makers of "fat burner" formula are facing class-action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Named defendants in the suit are: -- NX Care, Inc. -- NXLABS, Inc. -- WellNX Life Sciences, Inc. -- Derek Woodgate -- Brad Woodgate and -- Scott Welch. The company defendants are makers of Remarkable! "Slimquick - the Female Fat Burner," advertised as "the world's first advanced fat burner designed specifically for women," and "NV" "the first weight-loss formula with beauty enhancing properties." Plaintiffs claim defendants are selling bogus goods under false pretenses. And they claim the defendants use bogus "testimonials" from women who claim to have lost 34 lbs. through the "fat burners," but who happen to be the wife of the defendants' marketing director, and the girlfriend of defendant Mr. Welch. Common questions of law and fact common to the class include: (a) whether defendants knowingly made false representations as to the characteristics, ingredients, uses and benefits of the SLIMQUICK and NV products; (b) whether the defendants represented that SLIMQUICK and NV were of a particular standard, quality or grade, when they knew or should have known that they were of another standard quality or grade; (c) whether the defendants knowingly failed to disclose material facts in connection with the sale of SLIMQUICK and NV; (d) whether the defendants made assertions of scientific, clinical or quantifiable fact in advertisements (the SLIMQUICK and NV packages and package inserts) which could cause a reasonable person to believe the assertion to be true, when the defendants did not have in their possession at the time of making those assertions factually objective scientific, clinical or quantifiable evidence which substantiated the assertions made; and (e) whether defendants knowingly made false representations. Plaintiff seeks the following relief: -- certification of this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and appointment of the plaintiff as a class representative and her counsel as class counsel; -- compensatory damages in excess of $10,000 according to proof, including, without limitation, the refund of the entirety of the products' purchase price; -- aggregate compensatory damages for the plaintiff class in excess of $5 million; -- attorney's fees pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and costs; and -- all other forms of relief deemed just and proper by the court. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?19d2 The suit is "Weeks v. Nx Care, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv- 00367-WDQ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland under Judge William D Quarles, Jr. Representing plaintiffs is William J. Murphy of Murphy and Shaffer LLC, 36 S Charles St Ste 1400, Baltimore, MD 21201, Phone: 14107837000, Fax: 14107838823, E-mail: wmurphy@murphyshaffer.com. PEOPLES ENERGY: Responds to Allegations in Ill. Consumer Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Peoples Energy Corp. has responded to a motion for class certification and to a third amended complaint of Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act violation filed against it in Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois. The class now consists of those persons who were customers during the time that Peoples Energy's joint venture with Enron Corp. was in operation and did not receive part of the settlement proceeds from gas charge reconciliation cases. In February 2004, a purported class action was filed in Cook County Circuit Court against Peoples Energy, together with its consolidated subsidiaries and Peoples Gas by Stephen Alport, a Peoples Gas customer. The suit alleges, among other things, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act related to matters at issue in Peoples Gas' fiscal year 2001 gas charge reconciliation proceedings. It seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The company and Peoples Gas deny the allegations and are vigorously defending the suit. Peoples Gas has been dismissed as a defendant and the only remaining counts of the suit allege violations of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and that the company acted in concert with others to commit a tortuous act. Based upon the settlement and dismissal of Peoples Gas' fiscal years 2001 through 2004 reconciliation cases by the Illinois Commerce Commission, the court on Sept. 25, 2006 ruled to limit the potential class members in the suit seeking damages to those persons who were customers during the time that Peoples Energy's joint venture with Enron was in operation and did not receive part of the settlement proceeds from the reconciliation cases. The court also denied Peoples Energy's motion to dismiss the case to the extent that the complaint seeks punitive damages, which could not have been obtained in the administrative reconciliation cases. Plaintiffs have filed a third amended complaint and a motion for class certification, to which the company has responded, according to its Feb. 9, 2007 Form 10-QT filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2006. PEOPLES GAS: Ill. Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Connection Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Cook County in Illinois has entered an order dismissing allegations that Peoples Gas Light and Coke, Co. and several other companies are improperly charging connection and disconnection fees to several Chicago-based builders. In June 2005, a purported class action was filed against the company by Birchwood Builders, LLC in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois alleging that: * Peoples Gas Light and Coke, Co.; and * North Shore Gas Co. were fraudulently and improperly charging fees to customers with respect to utility connections, disconnections, reconnections, relocations, extensions of gas service pipes and extensions of distribution gas mains and failing to return related customer deposits. A report by The Chicago Tribune stated that plaintiffs also include Columbia Properties and S&S Home Builders, both of Chicago (Class Action Reporter, June 16, 2005). In their suit, the builders argued that they paid "tens of millions" of dollars in fees. They claim that the company should have filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission for permission to charge the fees but never did so. They are specifically claiming that they are wrongfully charged $550 to disconnect gas service to a property before construction on a home can begin and then charged another $780 to reconnect service once the construction is finished. A third fee is sometimes charged when the defendants supplies pipeline connecting the property to the area's main gas line. Michael Johnson, an attorney for the contractors, told The Chicago Tribune that the builders usually end up paying between $2,000 and $4,000 in fees to the defendants. The suit also alleges that deposits paid upfront for work on main gas lines is not returned. The suit seeks a court order barring the defendants from charging the fees and punitive damages equal to the amount of money collected in fees from the plaintiffs. On Jan. 25, 2007, the judge entered an order dismissing the complaint, but allowing the plaintiffs the option of filing an amended complaint, except as to the plaintiffs' seeking of declaratory relief, which was dismissed with prejudice. The order also directs the parties to mediation, with the company's jurisdictional motion to dismiss entered and continued pending efforts at mediation. Plaintiffs have not yet filed a new complaint and continue to seek settlement with the company, according to its Feb. 9, 2007 Form 10-QT filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2006. For more details, contact Michael Johnson of Halunen & Associates, 415 North LaSalle St., Suite 203, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: 312-222-0660, Fax: (312) 222-1656, Web site: http://www.youhaverights.info/. PLAYERS INC: Ex-NFL Players File Calif. Suit Over Fees Sharing -------------------------------------------------------------- Two former N.F.L. players, Bernie Parrish and Herb Adderley, filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Players Inc., the licensing subsidiary of the National Football League Players Association, the New York Times reports. The suit claims that Players Inc. has improperly represented more than 3,500 retired players and may owe them "tens of millions of dollars" in back licensing fees. It asserts that Players Inc. has behaved as a representative for most former N.F.L. players while distributing little money from, or information regarding, agreements with licensees like video- game manufacturers and apparel companies. Ronald S. Katz, the players' lead lawyer, said that Players Inc.'s claim of representing 3,500 retired players in collective marketing ventures raised the question of why only 358 received payments during 2005. He said that dozens of requests by players over several years to receive more information were ignored by Players Inc. representatives. "Players Inc. says that they represent these 3,500 people, and I don't think there's any doubt that they're generating large amounts of revenue," Mr. Katz said. "It just cannot be true that 90 percent of our people do not deserve any money." He said that by law, Players Inc. must respond to the lawsuit within 20 days, but that extensions of 30 days or more were common, according to the report. He said that the case would go to trial in about 18 months, before which players could see documents and interview potential witnesses that otherwise had been unavailable. Ronald S. Katz is with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, 1001 Page Mill Road, Building 2, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: (650) 812- 1346, Fax: (650) 213-0260. PREMCOR INC: Ill. Judge Refuses Insurers' Motion to Change Venue ---------------------------------------------------------------- Madison County (Illinois) Associate Judge Ellar Duff denied a motion filed by insurers of companies being sued over refinery pollution in the village of Hartford to send the case to circuit court in the city of St. Louis. Apex Oil Co. Inc. sued nine insurers in 2005 seeking a declaration that they were obligated to defend and indemnify the company in the suit. Defendant National Union Fire Insurance and Royal Indemnity sued Apex Oil at U.S. District Court in St. Louis. The federal court declined jurisdiction in both cases. National Union Fire then challenged Madison County as an inconvenient forum, saying that Missouri law is more proper because National Union Fire issued policies to Apex Oil in St. Louis through brokers in St. Louis, where Apex Oil has its headquarters. Other insurers joined the motion. Dennis Dolan of Chicago moved June 23 to dismiss so Apex Oil could file the suit in St. Louis city civil court. Judge Duff brought the motion to a hearing Jan. 19. Apex Oil attorney William Knapp reasoned that Apex Oil was a defendant in four Madison County suits, potentially involving hundreds of properties and thousands of individuals. Four days later the court ruled in favor of Apex Oil. In her ruling, the judge noted that no defendant filed an affidavit, deposition testimony or other evidence affirmatively stating that Madison County was an inconvenient forum, according to the report. The Class Action In 1987, Apex Oil and most of its subsidiaries (including Apex Holding Co. and Clark Oil & Refining Corp., which purchased a petroleum refinery in Hartford) filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. As part of the bankruptcy case, Apex sold the refinery to the Premcor Refining Group, Inc. in November 1988. On July 29, 2003, a group of Hartford homeowners filed a class action complaint against Apex, Premcor, and 50 John Doe defendants in the Circuit Court of Madison County. The John Doe defendants are allegedly employees, contractors, sub- contractors, and agents of Apex and Premcor. The complaint alleged that, through their design, operation, and maintenance of the refinery and its accompanying pipelines and storage tanks, Apex, Premcor, and the John Doe defendants have allowed 4 million gallons of gasoline and other petroleum products to form an underground toxic plume beneath Hartford. The complaint further alleged that the plume has destroyed property values in Hartford and has jeopardized the health of Hartford's residents. The complaint sought injunctive relief and damages on nuisance, trespass, and strict liability theories. The complaint also requested the institution of a medical monitoring program for Hartford's residents. One suit was filed by seven Missouri attorneys against Premcor Refining, Shell Oil and other oil companies with Katherine Sparks as lead plaintiff. In 2004, Goldenberg Heller sued most of the same companies for individual damages on behalf of 65 plaintiffs. The Goldenberg Heller clients did not became part of the "Sparks" class. It later reached a settlement with Premcor and Shell Oil on an $8 million settlement that Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack approved. Attorneys from Missouri asked the Illinois Supreme Court to overturn the settlement agreement, but the court refused. A fairness hearing is set March 13, 2007. Circuit Judge Daniel Stack had conditionally certified Harry and Ruth Goforth as lead plaintiffs in the Goldenberg Heller suit. He also certified the three Roses, Tim and Kim Sullivan, Michael Hanbaum and John Copeland as class representatives. Plaintiffs' counsel is Goldenberg, Heller & Antognoli, P.C., 2227 S. State Route 157, P.O. Box 959, Edwardsville, Illinois 62025, Phone: (618) 656-5150, Fax: (618) 656-6230, E-mail: info@ghalaw.com. REAL ESTATE COS: Okla. Judge Dismisses RESPA Violations Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gregory Frizzell of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma dismissed a class action against several real estate companies over alleged Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act violations, the Tulsa World reports. Named defendants in the suit: -- Closings of Tulsa, LLC; -- Closing and Escrow Co. of Tulsa, Inc.; -- McGraw-Davisson-Stewart, Inc.; -- Residential Sales Associates, LLC; -- 2003 Builders Services, LLC; -- Builders Title and Escrow, LLC; -- Robert Dailey; -- Helen Elizabeth Dailey; -- John Woolman; -- Joseph McGraw; -- Peter McGraw; and -- Darrell Jenkins. Led by Eric Bohne, vice chairman of Security Bank in Tulsa, the suit, which was filed in April 2005, alleges that the defendants violated Section 8(a) and (b) of RESPA by paying, receiving or exchanging unearned fees for rendering settlement services. In its motion to dismiss the case, McGraw Davisson claimed that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for three reasons: the plaintiff, Eric Bohne, didn't allege an "injury in fact"; the claim, which deals with a home sale made in 2002, is barred by RESPA's one-year statute of limitations; and the transaction is outside RESPA's coverage. In October, District Judge Terence Kern dismissed a motion to grant class-action status to the suit. Judge Frizzell dismissed the suit with prejudice on Feb. 8. The suit is "Bohne v. Closings of Tulsa, LLC et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-00197-GKF-SAJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma under Judge Gregory K. Frizzell, with referral to Judge Sam A. Joyner. Representing plaintiffs are: (1) Steven Kent Balman and George Steven Stidham, both of Sneed Lang PC, 1 W 3RD ST STE 1700, TULSA, OK 74103- 3136, Phone: 918-583-3145, Fax: 918-582-0410, E-mail: sbalman@sneedlang.com or gstidham@sneedlang.com; and (2) Fred Everett Stoops, Sr. of Stoops Law, P.L.L.C., 400 Riverwalk Terrace Ste 250,Jenks, OK 74037, Phone: 918- 518-5230, Fax: 918-518-5235, E-mail: fstoops@sbcglobal.net. Representing defendants are: (1) Christopher A. Barrow and William Robert Grimm both of Barrow & Grimm PC, 610 S Main St Ste 300, Tulsa, OK 74119-1258, Phone: 918-584-1600, Fax: 918-585-2444, E- mail: cbarrow@bggg.com or grimm@barrowgrimm.com; and (2) Clark Otto Brewster, Mark Byron Jennings and Robert Russell Nigh, Jr., all of Brewster & De Angelis PLLC, 2617 E 21st St., Tulsa, OK 74114-5725, Phone: 918-742- 2021, Fax: 918-742-2197, E-mail: Cbrewster@brewsterlaw.com or MJennings@brewsterlaw.com or rnigh@brewsterlaw.com. SENDTEC INC: Lead Plaintiffs, Counsel Named in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida appointed Richard F. Thompson and L. Alan Jacoby as co-lead plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action against SendTec, Inc., formerly known as RelationServe Media, Inc., and individual defendants. The court also approved the plaintiffs' selection of Cohen & Malad, LLP, as lead counsel, and approved plaintiffs' selection of Friendman, Rosenwasser & Goldbaum, P.A. as liaison counsel. The proposed class is defined in the amended complaint as all persons who purchased RelationServe shares between May 24, 2005 and Aug. 28, 2006, inclusive. On July 27, 2006, RelationServe Media, Inc. announced that it had completed the change of its name and symbol to SendTec, Inc. On or about Aug. 31, 2006, an action was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 06-61327) by Richard F. Thompson as putative class representatives against the company and certain former officers and directors of the company alleging securities laws violations in connection with the purchase of company stock during the period May 24, 2005 to the present. The company provides direct marketing services, including Internet customer and lead acquisition, DRTV advertising, and offline marketing. The complaint alleges that RelationServe and the individual Defendants violated U.S. securities laws, and the securities laws of the states of Florida and Indiana, causing an artificial inflation of RelationServe's stock process. According to the complaint, RelationServe made false and misleading statements by failing to disclose that it was selling its securities through unregistered and commissioned agents and broker/dealers in violation of state and federal law, thereby creating a substantial risk of civil liability for damages and/or the rescission of stock purchases. The suit is "Thompson v. Relationserve Media, et al., Case No. 0:06-cv-61327-PCH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Paul C. Huck with referral to Judge Andrea M. Simonton. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Cohen & Malad, LLP, 1 Indiana Square, Suite 1400, Indianapolis, IN 46204, Phone: 317-636-6481; and (2) Friedman Rosenwasser & Goldbaum, 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 801, Boca Raton, FL 33486-1092, Phone: 561-395- 5511, Fax: 368-9274, E-mail: kgoldbaum@frglaw.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Genovese Joblove & Battista, 100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 4400, Miami, FL 33131, Phone: 305-349-2300, Fax: 349- 2310, Web site: http://www.gjb-law.com;and (ii) Haynes & Boone, LLP, 153 E. 53rd Street, Suite 4900, New York, NY 10022, US, Phone: 212-659-4980, Web site: http://www.haynesboone.com. SERVICE CORP: Summary Judgment Granted to "Baudino" Plaintiffs -------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles County Superior Court granted Service Corp. International's motion for summary judgment in the suit, "Mary Louise Baudino, et al. v. Service Corp. International, et al. (Case No. BC324007)." The case was filed in 2004 by plaintiffs' counsel in the lawsuit filed by David Hijar against SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc., SCI Funeral Services, Inc., and Service Corp. International, (Cause Number 2002-740). The Baudino Lawsuit makes claims similar to those made in the Hijar lawsuit. However, the Baudino Lawsuit seeks a nation-wide class of plaintiffs. The Hijar lawsuit, pending in the County Court of El Paso, County, Texas, County Court at Law Number Three, involves a statewide class action brought on behalf of all persons, entities and organizations that purchased funeral services from the company or its subsidiaries in Texas at any time since March 18, 1998. Plaintiffs allege that federal and Texas funeral related regulations and/or statutes required the company to disclose its markups on all items obtained from third parties in connection with funeral service contracts and that the failure to make certain disclosures of markups resulted in breach of contract and other legal claims. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of monetary damages. They also seek attorneys' fees, costs of court, pre- and post-judgment interest, and unspecified "injunctive and declaratory relief." On Sept. 15, 2006, the trial court granted the company's motion for summary judgment on the merits of plaintiffs' claims in the Baudino lawsuit. SERVICE CORP: Faces Suits for Anti-competitive Practices in Tex. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Service Corp. International is a defendant in two related antitrust class actions filed in 2005. The first case is "Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. v. Service Corp. International, et al., (Cause No 4:05-CV-03394)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas-Houston. This is a purported class action on behalf of casket consumers throughout the U.S. alleging that Service Corp. and several other companies involved in the funeral industry violated federal antitrust laws and state consumer laws by engaging in various anti-competitive conduct associated with the sale of caskets. Service Corp. is also a defendant in "Pioneer Valley Casket, et al. v. Service Corp. International, et al. (Cause No. 4:05-CV- 03399)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas- Houston Division. This lawsuit makes the same allegations as the Funeral Consumers Case and is also brought against several other companies involved in the funeral industry. Unlike the Funeral Consumers Case, the Pioneer Valley Case is a purported class action on behalf of all independent casket distributors that are in the business or were in the business any time between July 18, 2001 to the present. The Funeral Consumers Case and the Pioneer Valley Case seek injunctions, unspecified amounts of monetary damages, and treble damages. Since the litigation is in its preliminary stages, Service Corp. cannot quantify its ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of damages. The Funeral Consumers suit and the Pioneer Valley Casket suit are before Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt with referral under Judge Calvin Botley. Representing the plaintiffs in the Funeral Consumers suit are: (1) Jonathan S. Abady of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff, 545 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-763-5000, Fax: 212-763-5001, E-mail: jabady@ecbalaw.com; (2) Gordon Ball of Ball & Scott, 550 W. Main Ave., Ste. 750, Knoxville, TN 37902, Phone: 865-525-7028, Fax: 865-525-4679, E-mail: gball@ballandscott.com; and (3) Thomas E. Bilek of Hoeffner and Bilek, LLP, 1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713- 227-7720, Fax: 713-227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com. Representing the the company is Gayle Anne Boone of Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP, 1445 Ross Avenue, Ste. 3800, Dallas, TX 75202- 2711, Phone: 214-468-3800, Fax: 214-468-3888. Representing plaintiffs in the Pioneer Valley suit are: (1) Thomas E. Bilek of Hoeffner and Bilek, LLP, 1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713- 227-7720, Fax: 713-227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com; (2) Robert S. Green of Green Welling, LLP, 595 Market Street, Suite 2750, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-477-6700, Fax: 415-477-6710, E-mail: rsg@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM; and (3) Christine G. Pedigo of Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran, 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 665, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-398-8700, Fax: 415-398-8704. Representing the company is Andrew M. Edison of Bracewell and Giuliani, LLP, 711 Louisiana, Ste. 2300, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-221-1371, Fax: 713-221-2144, E-mail: andrew.edison@bracewellgiuliani.com. TENNESSEE: County Faces Prisoner Civil Rights Violations Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Former Carter County jail inmate, Aaron J. Mayo, filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee over alleged violation of Prisoner Civil Rights by the county, the Elizabethton Star reports. Named defendants in the lawsuit are Carter County and Chris Mathes, Sheriff of Carter County. Mr. Mayo was an inmate in the Carter County Jail from April 28 to June 5 of last year, and was housed in one of the temporary pods. He contends he was forced to sleep on the floor on a filthy mattress, and that at one time he relinquished his bed to a wheelchair-bound inmate, who was unable to sleep on the floor. The lawsuit alleges that the conditions in the Carter County Jail are such that they "inflict human, cruel and unusual punishment in an environment that fosters unlawful physical and mental harm on inmates during their incarceration and continuing even after their release." Mr. Mayo and his attorney claim that the jail does not have sufficient beds or spaces for the number of inmates housed there, forcing inmates to sleep on the jail floor in unsanitary conditions. The suit contends that the Carter County Jail was designed to house inmates serving short times either while awaiting trial or for brief misdemeanor sentences, and was neither designed or constructed to house inmates serving extended stays or sentences. The suit further contends that the jail has only enough beds for 216 inmates, but regularly houses an average daily population of 250. Mr. Mayo also notes that the jail was recently decertified by the state. Mr. Mayo brings the action individually and on behalf "of all persons who have been incarcerated, who are incarcerated, or who will be incarcerated in the Carter County Jail." He also seeks to represent subclasses of those pre-trial detainees who are, have been or will be incarcerated in the Carter County Jail and of those Tennessee Department of Corrections-sentenced inmates who are or will be incarcerated in the jail. According to the complaint, Mr. Mayo and class members sue to "alleviate substandard, unlawful and unconstitutional health conditions including: -- inadequate medical, mental and dental care; -- inadequate personal hygienic materials and facilities; -- insufficient physical exercise and recreation options and facilities -- particularly no outdoor exercise opportunity even for inmates with minor offense histories; -- no access to legal research materials and assistance; -- inadequate provisions for fire prevention, safety and response; -- inadequate inmate supervision; -- creating an environment of personal violence and physical threat among inmates; -- evasive and deceptive administrative handling of inmate complaints that discourages, mishandles and ultimately ignores or improperly dismisses inmate complaints, requests for medical care and other assistance, and most significantly, chronic overcrowding in the facility." The suit specifically raises concerns on: -- mattresses, which are in need of repair and replacement, and which are not disinfected regularly; -- cramped jail cells, which are unventilated ; -- antiquated jail plumbing; -- insufficient number of working toilets, washbasins and showers; -- inadequate lighting; -- not enough staffing; -- insufficient storage space; -- lack of adequate fire emergency management plan; -- inadequate supplies, equipment and hot water in cells; -- lack of adequate drinking water; -- inadequate security surveillance; -- lack of outdoor exercise; -- denial of medical, dental and mental health care; and -- inadequate access to legal research materials The lawsuit outlines a number of other conditions, which the plaintiff says is inadequate, and treatment, which is cruel and not humane. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive and declaratory relief for "cruel, inhuman and unconstitutional" treatment and conditions while being detained at the jail last year. Further, plaintiff seeks to refrain the defendants from accepting into custody at the jail more inmates than can be incarcerated in a "constitutional and lawful manner": -- that the defendants submit to the Court a plan within 60 days assuring that inmates be afforded their constitutional rights; -- that compensatory damages be awarded the plaintiff; -- award reasonable attorney fees to his attorney; -- assess all court costs against the defendants; and -- award such reasonable costs to plaintiffs as allowed by law. The suit is "Mayo v. Carter County, TN et al., Case No. 2:07-cv- 00036," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge J. Ronnie Greer with referral to Judge Dennis H. Inman. Representing plaintiffs is Robert L. King, P O Box 4055, Johnson City, TN 37602-4055, Phone: 423-283-5464, Fax: 423-282-4030, E- mail: kinglaw@chartertn.net. TIBCO SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California of a consolidated securities fraud class action against TIBCO Software, Inc. In May 2005, three purported shareholder class action complaints were filed against the company and several of its officers: -- "Guzzetti v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-02373-SBA," filed on June 10, 2006; -- "Bernheim v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-02205-SBA," filed on May 31, 2005; and -- "Siegall v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No. 4:05- cv-02146-SBA," filed on May 25, 2005. Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of purchasers of the company's common stock from Sept. 21, 2004 through March 1, 2005. The complaints generally allege that the company made false or misleading statements concerning its operating results, its business and internal controls, and the integration of Staffware and seek unspecified monetary damages. It charges the company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages. The actions were consolidated and in September 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the litigation with prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal, according to the company's Feb. 9, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2006. The first identified complaint is "Lance Siegall, et al. v. Tibco Software, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-02146," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com; (2) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO, 80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E- mail: info@dyershuman.com; (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119, Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail: info@milbergweiss.com; (4) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com; and (5) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail: info@whhf.com. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Files Motion to Dismiss 401(k) Suit in Minn. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm Stull, Stull & Brody reported that a motion to dismiss has been filed in the 401(k) breach of fiduciary duty class action against UnitedHealth Group Inc. UnitedHealth Group Inc. was named as a defendant in a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota filed on behalf of participants in the company's 401(k) defined contribution retirement plan (the UnitedHealth Group Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan) for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased and/or held shares of UnitedHealth Group Inc. common stock at any time from Dec. 21, 2005 through May 24, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 3, 2007). The case [No. 06-CV-2237 (JNR/SRM)], alleges that UnitedHealth Group Inc. and other Plan fiduciaries concealed from Plan participants important information concerning: (i) long-standing, improper practices at the company relating to executive stock options, including those awarded to former chief executive William McGuire and current chief executive Stephen Hemsley; and (ii) whether UnitedHealth Group Inc. common stock was a prudent and suitable retirement investment for the Plan. After receiving from the company certain documentation relating to the Plan Stull, Stull & Brody filed an amended class action complaint for Violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which is the current pleading in the case. On Feb. 7, 2007 UnitedHealth Group and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground, among others, that the plaintiff is no longer a participant in the Plan and does not have standing to sue. Stull, Stull & Brody said it intends to vigorously oppose the motion to dismiss in papers to be filed by March 6, 2007. Stull, Stull & Brody also plans to move the Court for leave to add one or more current Plan participant as additional plaintiffs to eliminate any issue concerning standing. The suit is "Zilhaver v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:06-cv-02237-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge James M. Rosenbaum, with referral to Judge Franklin L. Noel. Representing plaintiffs are: (1) Edwin J. Mills of Stull Stull & Brody - NY, 6 E 45th St., Ste 500 New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-7230, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com; and (2) James B. Hovland and David E. Krause, both of Krause & Rollins, 310 Groveland Ave., Mpls, MN 55403, Phone: 612-874-8550, Fax: 612-874-9362, E-mail: jhovland@krauserollins.com or dkrause@krauserollins.com. Representing defendants are: (1) Peter W. Carter and Thomas P. Swigert, both of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 50 S 6th St Ste 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498, Phone: 612-340-2600, Fax: 612-340-2868, E- mail: carter.peter@dorsey.com or swigert.tom@dorsey.com; (2) David M. Brodsky, Blair Connelly and Alexandra A. E. Shapiro, all of Latham & Watkins - NYC, 885 3rd Ave., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-906-1628 or 212-906-1658 Or 212-906-1670, Fax: 212-751-4864, E-mail: david.brodsky@lw.com or blair.connelly@lw.com or alexandra.shapiro@lw.com; (3) Thomas S. Gigot and Mark C. Nielsen, both of Groom Law Group, Chartered, 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Ste 1200, Washington, DC 20006-5811, Phone: 202-861-6624 or 202- 861-5429, E-mail: tsg@groom.com or mnielsen@groom.com; and (4) Jodi F. Colton, Steve W. Gaskins, Eric W. Hageman and Kelly A. Moffitt, all of Flynn Gaskins & Bennett, LLP, 333 S 7th St Ste 2900, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: 612-333-9500 or 612-333-9503 or 612-333-9553 or 612- 333-9538, Fax: 612-333-9579, E-mail: jcolton@flynngaskins.com or sgaskins@flynngaskins.com or ehageman@flynngaskins.com or kmoffitt@flynngaskins.com. VIRGINIA: VCU Settles Racial Bias Suit Over Journalism Program -------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement was reached for a purported "reverse" racial discrimination class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia over the exclusion of a high school student from a university minority journalism program. Under the settlement terms, which was filed on behalf a white high school student who was rejected in the program, race will not be used as a criteria for enrollment in more than two-dozen urban journalism programs nationwide. Dow Jones Newspaper Fund, which sponsors the programs at Columbia College and Roosevelt University in Chicago and in Virginia Commonwealth University, agreed to the settlement in return for the legal challenge being withdrawn, according to a report by The Associated Press. In addition, the settlement requires Virginia Commonwealth University and other programs sponsored by Dow Jones to select students "without regard to race." They also agreed to publicly acknowledge that they would offer no preferential treatment or discriminate against any prospect. Case Background The suit was filed by the Center for Individual Rights on behalf of the parents of 16-year-old Emily Smith, a student of Monacan High School in Chesterfield County, Virginia. The student's parents are Steven and Jane Smith (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 12, 2006). According to the suit, Ms. Smith, 15, was accepted last spring to the Urban Journalism Workshop at VCU, but a week later, she was rejected after program sponsors learned she was white. Besides Virginia Commonwealth University and Dow Jones Newspaper Fund, other defendants in the suit include: -- Media General, Inc., -- Bonnie Davis, -- Robert D. Holsworth, -- June Nicholson, -- Richard J. Levine, -- Barbara Martinez, -- Thomas W. Mcguirl, -- Richard S. Holden and -- Thomas A. Silvestri. In particular, the suit alleges that the program violates the right of non-minority individuals to equal protection under the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 5, 2006). In addition, the program illegally discriminates on the basis of their race in violation of federal law, specifically sections 1981, 1983 and 2000d, et. seq. of The Public Health and Welfare Code. The defendants, according to the complaint, conspired to operate the program in a racially exclusive fashion. Specifically, they conspired, and each of them acted in furtherance of the conspiracy, to limit student participation to the following groups: -- African-American, -- Asian/Pacific Islander, -- Hispanic or -- American Indian/Alaskan Native. As a result of discriminatory refusal to admit Ms. Smith to the workshop, she has suffered damages, including lost time, diminished educational opportunities and attainment, and emotional distress. The Center for Individual Rights had sought to enjoin the defendants from continuing to exclude Caucasian students from these programs. They claimed that defendants acted in gross disregard of Ms. Smith's rights, and sought an award of punitive damages. The minority-only summer journalism workshop is offered at more than two-dozen campuses across the country. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?12f3 The suit is "Smith et al. v. Virginia Commonwealth University et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00638-RLW," filed in the in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under judge Richard L. Williams. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Elliot Bender, 6 West Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia 23220, Phone: (804) 648-8000; and (2) Michael E. Rosman and Michelle A. Scott of Center for Individual Rights, 1233 20th Street, NW, Ste. 300, Washington, D.C. 20036, Phone: (202) 833-8400, Web site: http://www.cir-usa.org/. Representing the defendants are: (i) Martha Murphey Parrish of Virginia Commonwealth University, Associate General Counsel and Special Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 980116, Richmond, VA 23298-0116, Phone: (804) 828-6612; and (ii) Jason Craig Schwartz of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, 1050 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036-5306, Phone: (202) 955-8500. Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Ameron Int'l. Drop to 145 in 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ameron International Corp., as of Nov. 30, 2006, faced asbestos- related cases involving 145 claimants, compared with 8,906 claimants as of Nov. 30, 2005, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 8, 2007. As of Sept. 3, 2006, the Company was faced with asbestos-related cases involving 149 claimants. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 13, 2006) The personal injury lawsuits the Company faces seek unspecified damages for asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposure to products previously made by the Company and others. At this time, the Company is generally not aware of the extent of injuries suffered by the individuals or the facts supporting the claim that injuries were caused by the Company's products. For the year ended Nov. 30, 2006, new claims involving 18 claimants were filed and claims involving 8,779 claimants were dismissed or settled. There were no new judgments. The Company incurred no net costs and expenses for the year ended Nov. 30, 2006 in connection with asbestos-related claims. Based in Pasadena, Calif., Ameron International Corp. makes steel pipe, fiberglass-composite pipe, and reinforced concrete pipe for various industrial uses, including chemical and petrochemical processing, water transmission, and sewage collection. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Todd Shipyards Corp. Drop to 568 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Shipyards Corp. is faced with about 568 asbestos-related claims, of which about 22 are "malignant" and about 546 are "non-malignant," according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 8, 2007. The Company was faced with about 571 asbestos-related claims, of which 22 are "malignant" and 549 are "non-malignant," according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the SEC for the period ended Oct. 1, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 8, 2006) The Company is a defendant in civil actions by parties alleging damages from past exposure to toxic substances, generally asbestos, at closed former Company facilities. The cases generally included as defendants other ship builders and repairers, ship owners, asbestos manufacturers, distributors and installers, and equipment manufacturers. The cases arose from injuries or illnesses allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos or other toxic substances. The Company categorizes certain diseases including mesothelioma, lung cancer and fully developed asbestosis as "malignant" claims. All others of a less medically serious nature are categorized as "non-malignant." As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded a bodily injury liability reserve of US$6.8 million and a bodily injury insurance receivable of US$5.3 million. As of April 2, 2006, the Company recorded a bodily injury reserve of US$7.3 million and a bodily insurance receivable of US$5.5 million. Based in Seattle, Todd Shipyards Corp., through subsidiary Todd Pacific Shipyards, repairs, maintains, overhauls, and builds government-owned and commercial vessels. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. United Technologies Rise to 2,830 ---------------------------------------------------------------- United Technologies Corp. is named in about 2,830 asbestos- related lawsuits involving about 15,365 individual claimants, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 8, 2007. In its 2005 annual report filed with the SEC, the Company said that it was named in about 2,270 asbestos-related suits involving about 20,100 individual claimants. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 17, 2006) Like many other companies in recent years, the Company and its subsidiaries have been named as defendants in suits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos integrated into certain of the Company's products or premises. Certain of the Company's historical products have contained components incorporating asbestos. To date, the Company has made no payment in most of the cases closed. The remaining resolved cases have settled for amounts that are not material to the Company, and have been supported in part by insurance. In its report on Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2004, the Company reported that about 18,000 claimants were then joined in suits in Mississippi state courts. Typically, these Mississippi suits named from 200 to 400 other companies as defendants along with the Company or its subsidiaries. Since the 2004 report, as a result of changes in the law governing joinder and pleading in Mississippi, about 5,700 Mississippi claimants have been transferred to the Federal Multidistrict Litigation asbestos docket in Pennsylvania. At present, the total number of claimants in Mississippi is about 4,955. Based in Hartford, Conn., United Technologies Corp. provides high technology products and services to the building systems and aerospace industries worldwide. Company brands included Carrier, Otis, Pratt & Whitney, and Sikorsky. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Has $627M Claims Reserve in 4Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc., for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2006, reserved US$627 million, compared with US$562 million for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2005, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 7, 2007. The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Those claims resulted from indemnification obligations in 1990 related to the sale of Riley Stoker Corp., a former subsidiary. Although Riley was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos, its industrial boilers contained some asbestos- containing components provided by other companies. For the three months ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company made US$8 million in asbestos-related payments, compared with US$9 million for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2005. For the year ended Sept. 30, 2006, the Company reserved US$635 million for asbestos claims, incurred US$104 million asbestos- related expenses, and made US$40 million in asbestos-related payments. At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's receivable for recoveries of litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers amounted to US$470 million, of which US$69 million related to costs previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to US$474 million at Sept. 30, 2006 and US$393 million at Dec. 31, 2005. The receivable was increased by US$104 million during the June 2006 quarter. About 31 percent of the estimated receivables from insurance companies at Dec. 31, 2006 are expected to be due from Equitas Ltd. and other London companies. On Oct. 20, 2006, Equitas announced an agreement in principle on a structure in which National Indemnity Co. will reinsure all of Equitas' liabilities, provide up to a further US$7 billion of reinsurance coverage to Equitas, and take on the staff and operations of Equitas and conduct the run-off of Equitas's liabilities. For the three months ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 151 open claims, one claim filed, and 12 claims dismissed. For the three months ended Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded 181 open claims, two claims filed, one claim settled, and four claims dismissed. Since Oct. 1, 2003, Riley has been dismissed as a defendant in 82 percent of the resolved claims. Amounts spent on litigation defense and claim settlements averaged US$686 per claim resolved in the three months ended Dec. 31, 2006, compared with US$1,961 in the three months ended Dec. 31, 2005, and annual averages of US$1,428 in 2006, US$1,985 in 2005 and US$1,655 in 2004. Based in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc.'s Chemicals unit has two subsidiaries. Ashland Distribution buys chemicals and plastics, then blends and repackages them for distribution. Ashland Specialty Chemical makes specialty resins and polymers, adhesives, and chemicals for water treatment. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Records 49,700 Active Suits in 4Q06 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded 49,700 active asbestos-related lawsuits, of which plaintiffs have asserted specific dollar claims for damages in about five percent of the suits, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 7, 2007. The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Those claims resulted from indemnification obligations in 1990 related to the sale of Riley Stoker Corp., a former subsidiary. Although Riley was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos, its industrial boilers contained some asbestos- containing components provided by other companies. Most of the suits filed involved multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, with the number of defendants in many cases exceeding 100. In the 49,700 active suits, about 0.4 percent of the active suits involved claims between US$0 and US$100,000. About 1.6 percent of the active suits involved claims between US$100,000 and US$1 million. Less than one percent of the active suits involved claims between US$1 million and US$5 million. Less than 0.2 percent of the active suits involved claims between US$5 million and US$10 million. Less than 2 percent of the active suits involved claims between US$10 million and US$15 million. Less than .02 percent of the active suits involved claims between US$15 million and US$100 million. Based in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc.'s Chemicals unit has two subsidiaries. Ashland Distribution buys chemicals and plastics, then blends and repackages them for distribution. Ashland Specialty Chemical makes specialty resins and polymers, adhesives, and chemicals for water treatment. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $859M Recoverable in 4Q06 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federal-Mogul Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2006, recorded US$859 million asbestos-related insurance recoverable, according to a Company press release dated Feb. 8, 2007. As of Dec. 31, 2005, the Company recorded US$777.4 million asbestos-related insurance recoverable. Based in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. is a global supplier, serving equipment manufacturers of automotive, light commercial, heavy-duty, agricultural, marine, rail, off-road and industrial vehicles, as well as the worldwide aftermarket. Founded in Detroit in 1899, the Company employs 45,000 people in 35 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. DEQ Settles With Environmental Mgmt. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Montana Department of Environmental Quality has settled its enforcement action against Environmental Management Services Inc. for breaches of the Montana Asbestos Control Act, Independent Record reports. According to the DEQ, in August 2005, EMS failed to follow proper work practices during an asbestos abatement project at Moose Magoo's Bar in Helena, Mont. Although EMS failed to follow proper work practices during the asbestos abatement project, daily air monitoring indicated that asbestos levels were below permissible exposure limits. The Company paid an administrative penalty of US$1,500 to resolve the violation. Moreover, in accordance with the asbestos rules, an independent contractor ensured that the maximum indoor concentration for airborne fibers was below the required levels when the project was completed. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DaimlerChrysler Bid in Hurst Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- The District Court of Appeal of Florida, 3rd District, granted DaimlerChrysler Corp.'s petition for writ of certiorari in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Kenneth and Beatrice Hurst. The Panel, comprised of Judges Wells, Suarez, and Rothenberg, handed down the decision of Case No. 3D06-2593 on Feb. 7, 2007. In August 2004, Mr. Hurst was diagnosed with lung cancer. While he was a smoker, he had not smoked cigarettes for about 13 years before his lung cancer diagnosis. In November 2004, Mr. Hurst sued DaimlerChrysler and other defendants, alleging that he was exposed to asbestos and the exposure to asbestos caused his lung cancer. In April 2005, he died of lung cancer. Thereafter, Mrs. Hurst was substituted as the plaintiff. DaimlerChrysler moved to dismiss the suit based upon Mrs. Hurst's failure to provide evidence satisfying the "prima facie" showing under the Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act. At the hearing on DaimlerChrysler's motion, Mrs. Hurst conceded that she could not satisfy the Act's prima facie showing, and argued that the Act's retroactive application to her claim violated her due process rights and was unconstitutional. The Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County found that Mrs. Hurst had a "vested right, which cannot be altered by legislation like the instant Act." The Trial Court concluded that "the Act is unconstitutionally retroactive as applied to the [plaintiff]" and denied DaimlerChrysler's motion to dismiss. In its petition for writ of certiorari, DaimlerChrysler did not assert that the Trial Court failed to afford it procedural due process. DaimlerChrysler contended that the Trial Court violated clearly established law by finding that the retroactive application of the Act is violative of Mrs. Hurst's due process rights. The Appeal Court agreed. As Mrs. Hurst conceded that she cannot satisfy the "prima facie showing", the Company granted the petition, quashed the order under review, and remanded to the Trial Court for entry of an order granting DaimlerChrysler's motion to dismiss. Bell Melamed and Jeffrey M. Bell of Bell Melamed in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. represented DaimlerChrysler Corp. David M. Lipman, Rebecca S. Shull, and Marisol Estevez and Jonathan Ruckdeschel of Maryland represented Beatrice Hurst, for Kenneth Hurst. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $8.4M Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Columbus McKinnon Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2006, estimated US$8,400,000 as asbestos-related liability in its consolidated financial statements, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 9, 2007. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability payments of about US$325,000 over the next 12 months. The Company recorded a US$7,500,000 asbestos-related liability in its consolidated financial statements, according to the Company's quarterly report for the period ended Oct. 1, 2006 filed with the SEC. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 1, 2006) The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability through March 31, 2025 and March 31, 2037 to range between US$5,000,000 and US$14,000,000 using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to 30 years. Based in Amherst, N.Y., Columbus McKinnon Corp. makes and markets material handling products, systems, and services. Key products include hoists, cranes, chain and forged attachments. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Spends $300T for Various Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magnetek Inc., in the 2007-2nd quarter, recorded costs of US$300,000 related to asbestos claims, p