/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070511.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 11, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 93 Headlines ALLIED STEEL: Tommy Termite Files Suit Over Unsolicited Ads ALVARION LTD: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif., N.Y. AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Ohio ERISA Suit AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Mutual Fund Investors' Complaint Junked BAXTER INT'L: Discovery Begins in Ill. ERISA Violations Lawsuit BAXTER INT'L: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit BIOGEN IDEC: Mass. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit BRIGGS & STRATTON: Ill. Court Dismisses Claim Over Lawnmowers CAREER EDUCATION: Nixing of Securities Fraud Complaint Appealed CARFAX INC: Kans. Resident Objects to Vehicle History Suit Deal CASH AMERICA: Court Mulls Motion to Arbitrate Payday Loans Suit CBOCS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Stools That Collapse Unexpectedly CHICAGO BRIDGE: May Certification Hearing Set in Securities Suit CITIGROUP INC: "Specialists" File FLSA Violations Suit in N.Y. COCA-COLA: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Securities Suit in Ga. COOPER LIGHTING: Recalls Emergency Lights With Faulty Circuit CRUM & FORSTER: RICO, Antitrust Claims Dismissed in N.J. Suit CUTERA INC: Paskowitz Expands Class Period in Securities Suit DVA RENAL: Continues to Face Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif. DVA RENAL: Patients Seek Arbitration in Dismissed La. Lawsuit EBAY INC: Calif. Court Orders Consolidation of Antitrust Suits FAMILY SERVICES: Employee Files FLSA Violations Suit in N.Y. FEDEX GROUND: Driver Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Mass. HORACE MANN: Customer Files Calif. Lawsuit Over Claims Valuation HSBC BANK: Settles "Puterman" Pension Fraud Litigation in Fla. JANSSEN-ORTHO: Sued in Canada Over Lethal Content of Tylenol 3 KEANE INC: Agrees to Settle Lawsuit Over Disposal to Caritor KENNETH COLE: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Credit Card Purchases MAYFIELD DAIRY: Recalls Ice Cream on Undeclared Peanut Content MULTIPLEX GROUP: Presents Arguments on Falsity of Investor Suit ONEOK INC: Faces Energy Trading Lawsuit by Heartland Hospital SARA LEE: Meat Plant Employees File FLSA Violations Lawsuit SHARPCUTS INC: Stylist Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Fla. TOBACCO LITIGATION: Philip Morris Argues Transfer of "Watson" TOBACCO LITIGATION: Ill. Lawyer Back in Court to Revive "Price" TREMONT TOWING: Faces Fair Labor Standards Act Violations Suit UNITED STATES: TSA Faces Suit Over Missing Employee Records * Chinese Exporters of Melamine-Contaminated Gluten Face Charges Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. TriMas Corp. Drop to 1,650 in 1Q07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has 26,034 Pending Claims in 1Q07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $230.2M Liabilities in 1Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has $41.3M from Reversion of Trust ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $1.392B Liabilities in 1Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Still Deals w/ Fel-Pro Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $701M Recoverable for T&N ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abex & Wagner Liability Remains at $213.6M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial for Sempra Cleanup Case Set for June ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Cytec Ind. Drop to 8,500 in 1Q07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Records 1,178 Cases in 1Q07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Seek Review of Cleco Corp. Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Reserves $3.926B for Claims in 1Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Chicago Bridge Increase to 1,942 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Liability Remains at $18.7M in 1Q07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Reserves $37.18M for Liabilities ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Continue to Face 6,000 Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Faces 490 Cases W/ 7,000 Plaintiffs ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro's Liability Drops to $466.8M in 1Q07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Pays $3M for Claims, Expenses in 1Q07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Records $341M Losses in 1Q07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Records $159M for Liabilities in 1Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Accrues $194M for Claims in 1Q07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Receives 1,635 New Claims in 1Q07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper's Appeal Briefing to be Heard in '07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Action v. RJR Tobacco Still Pending ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT Corp. Engages in Calif., N.Y. Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Receives $23M for Claims in 1Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quaker Chem. Receives $5M for Claims in 2Q ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. CBS Corp. Drop to 72,510 in 1Q07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Has 158 Pending Claims in 1Q07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden CDT Notes 33 Cases for Trial in 2007 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Worldwide Incurs $1M Unindemnified Cost ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Action Filed v. 69 Companies in W.Va. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Contractor Fined for CAA Violations in Fla. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Assigns Experts to Israel for Training ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Smoker's Wife Sues 43 Firms in Texas Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Manuals Can Be Used in Trials, Judge Rules ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrician's Kin Settles $2.3M W/ 6 Firms ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.O. Smith, 42 Firms Sued in Texas on May 1 ********* ALLIED STEEL: Tommy Termite Files Suit Over Unsolicited Ads ----------------------------------------------------------- Tommy Termite Pest Management filed a class action against Allied Steel Buildings in Madison County (Ill.) Circuit Court on May 8 over the latter's sending of unsolicited faxes, Steve Gonzalez of the Madison County Record reports. The suit was originally filed on April 23 in small claims court, but was amended to become a class-action complaint. It claims that Allied sent unsolicited fax advertisement to the company on May 8, 2006, in violation of the Federal Consumer Protection Act. It is seeking $500 for every violation and triple damages for the willful violation of the Act, Mr. Gonzales said in the report. The case is before Circuit Judge Daniel Stack. The plaintiff is represented by: Larry H. Darr II, Esq. Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly & Darr, L.T.D. Suite 415 307 Henry Street Alton, IL 62002-6326 Phone: (618) 465-2311 Fax: (618) 465-2318 ALVARION LTD: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif., N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- Alvarion Ltd. is a defendant in several purported securities fraud class actions filed in New York and California, according to the company's April 30, 2007 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. On Jan. 19 and Feb. 2, 2007, purported securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and on Feb. 13 and March 9, 2007, purported securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The four complaints are substantially identical. Each complaint names the company as a defendant. The first three complaints also name as defendants one of the company's officers and two of its directors, while the fourth complaint names two officers and only one director. Each complaint generally alleges violations of certain U.S. federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers of Alvarion ordinary shares between Nov. 3, 2004 and May 12, 2006. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements concerning Alvarion's business prospects, purportedly violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The company anticipates that these four complaints will be consolidated. The company has not responded to the complaints, and does not expect to respond until the court appoints a lead plaintiff and the appointed lead plaintiff files a consolidated amended complaint, which the company anticipates will occur in the second or third quarter of 2007. Alvarion Ltd. -- http://www.alvarion.com/-- is a provider of wireless broadband systems. The company supplies carriers, Internet service providers and private network operators with Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access standard and other wireless broadband solutions, as well as compact cellular networks to developing countries and remote areas. AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Ohio ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff in a purported class action alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act by American Electric Power appealed the dismissal of a case they filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In the fourth quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003, three putative class actions were filed against AEP, certain executives and AEP's ERISA Plan Administrator alleging violations of ERISA in the selection of AEP stock as an investment alternative and in the allocation of assets to AEP stock. Defendants are American Electric Power Co., Inc., American Electric Power Service Corp., E. Linn Draper, Jr., and Thomas V. Shockley, III. In July 2006, the court entered judgment denying plaintiff's motion for class certification and dismissing all claims without prejudice. In August 2006, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Parties await the scheduling of oral argument, according to the Appalachian Power Co.'s May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The suit is "Bridges v. American Electric Po, et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-00067-ALM-MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Algenon L. Marbley with referral to Judge Mark R. Abel. Representing the plaintiffs are: Edwin J. Mills, Esq. Stull, Stull and Brody 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-687-7230 E-mail: ssbny@aol.com James Edward Arnold, Esq. Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott 471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614-469-1400 E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com - and - Joseph J. Braun, Esq. Strauss & Troy - 1 The Federal Reserve Bldg., 150 E Fourth St., 4th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018 Phone: 513-621-2120 E-mail: jjbraun@strausstroy.com. Representing the defendants are: Michael J. Chepiga, Esq. Charlie L. Divine, Esq. Joseph M. McLaughlin, Esq. Issa Mikel, Esq. George S. Wang, Esq. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017-3954 Phone: 212-455-2000 Fax: 212-455-2502 Web site: http://www.stblaw.com/ AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Mutual Fund Investors' Complaint Junked --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted a motion by defendants to dismiss a complaint filed by American International Group, Inc. mutual fund purchasers and granted plaintiffs' permission to file a new amended complaint. The ruling is with respect to a class action that was filed on April 7, 2006 against AIG and certain of its affiliates, on behalf of those who purchased any of the mutual funds within the Shelf Space Mutual Funds from the AIG Advisor Group between June 30, 2000 and June 8, 2005, inclusive. The Court has set May 24, 2007 as the last day for the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The Court dismissed the Complaint insofar as it relates to funds other than the ones in which plaintiffs allege they actually invested and for any claim arising prior to April 7, 2001. As a result, even a new amended complaint filed by the Plaintiffs would be limited to those persons who purchased the same funds as those purchased by Plaintiffs and for purchases on or after April 7, 2001 unless persons who purchased any of the other Shelf Space Mutual Funds between April 7, 2001 and June 8, 2005 through the AIG Advisor Group join the new amended complaint. The funds for which plaintiffs previously brought claims are: * AIM Value, * AIM Intermediate Government, * WM Balanced, Investment Company of America, * Oppenheimer Limited-Term Government, * Putnam California Tax Exempt Income, * AllianceBernstein Municipal Income California, * SunAmerica Growth Opportunities, * SunAmerica New Century, and * American Funds Income Fund of America The Court also dismissed the complaint because it found that it did not contain all of the factual detail required by the law. Plaintiffs intend to file an amended complaint that addresses the Court's concerns. AIG Advisor Group During the Class Period, the AIG Advisor Group consisted of the following broker-dealers: Royal Alliance, Inc., SunAmerica Securities, Inc., FSC Securities Corp., Sentra Securities Corporation, Spelman & Co., Inc., and Advantage Capital Corp. The suit is "Martingano v. American International Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01625-JG-JMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under John Gleeson with referral to Joan M. Azrack. Fore more information, contact: Henry Glavin, Esq. Stull, Stull & Brody Phone: 212-687-7230 Toll Free: 1-800-337-4983 Fax: 212-490-2022 BAXTER INT'L: Discovery Begins in Ill. ERISA Violations Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery has begun in a lawsuit filed against Baxter International Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging Employee Retirement Income Security Act violations. In October 2004, a purported class action was filed in the Northern District of Illinois against Baxter and its current chief executive officer and then current chief financial officer and their predecessors for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended. Plaintiff alleges that these defendants, along with the Administrative and Investment Committees of the company's 401(k) plans, breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants by offering Baxter common stock as an investment option in each of the plans during the period of January 2001 to October 2004. Plaintiff alleges that Baxter common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during this period and seeks unspecified damages and declaratory and equitable relief. In March 2006, the trial court certified a class of plan participants who elected to acquire Baxter common stock through the plans between January 2001 and the present. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss, but has allowed Baxter to seek an interlocutory appeal of the decision, which it has done. Discovery has begun in this matter, according to the company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The suit is "Rogers v. Baxter Int'l. Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-06476," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Joan B. Gottschall. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert D. Allison, Esq. Robert D. Allison & Associates, 122 S. Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 427-4500 E-mail: rdalaw@ix.netcom.com - and - Michael M. Mulder, Esq. Meites, Mulder, Mollica & Glink 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 263-0272 Fax: (312) 263-2942 E-mail: mmmulder@mmbmlaw.com Representing the defendants is: Matthew Robert Kipp, Esq. Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP 333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 407-0700 E-mail: mkipp@skadden.com BAXTER INT'L: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Baxter International Inc. remains a defendant in a consolidated securities fraud suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In August 2002, six purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois naming the company and its then chief executive officer and then chief financial officer as defendants. These lawsuits alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making misleading statements regarding the company's financial guidance that allegedly caused Baxter common stock to trade at inflated levels. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a trial court order granting the company's motion to dismiss the complaint and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari in March 2005. In February 2006, the trial court denied Baxter's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court has twice denied Plaintiffs' request for certification of a class action based on the inadequacy of their class representatives, but allowed Plaintiffs a final chance to find new ones, according to the company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The suit is "Asher, et al. v. Baxter Int'l. Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-05608," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Blanche M. Manning, with referral to Judge Arlander Keys. Representing the plaintiffs is: Steven G. Schulman, Esq. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Representing the defendants is: Matthew Robert Kipp Esq. Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP 333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 407-0700 E-mail: mkipp@skadden.com BIOGEN IDEC: Mass. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a purported securities fraud class action filed against Biogen Idec, Inc., according to the company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. On March 2, 2005, the company, along with William H. Rastetter, former executive chairman, and James C. Mullen, chief executive officer, were named as defendants in a purported class action, captioned, "Brown v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action is purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's publicly-traded securities between Feb. 18, 2004 and Feb. 25, 2005. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding potentially serious side effects of TYSABRI in order to gain accelerated approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the product's distribution and sale. The plaintiff alleges that these materially false and misleading statements harmed the purported class by artificially inflating the company's stock price during the purported class period and that company insiders benefited personally from the inflated price by selling the company's stock. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, as well as interest, costs and attorneys' fees. Substantially similar actions were also filed: -- "Grill v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al." and -- "Lobel v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al.," Other purported class representatives brought the suits on March 10, 2005 and April 21, 2005, respectively, in the same court. Those actions have been consolidated with the Brown case. On Oct. 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, which, among other amendments to the allegations, adds as defendants: -- Peter N. Kellogg, chief financial officer; -- William R. Rohn, former chief operating officer; -- Burt A. Adelman, executive vice president of Portfolio Strategy; and -- Thomas J. Bucknum, former general counsel. On Nov. 15, 2006, the company and all the other defendants who had been served as of that date filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on March 12, 2007. The suit is "Brown v. Biogen Idec Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05- cv-10400-RCL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Reginald C. Lindsay. Representing the plaintiffs are: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Mario Alba Jr., Esq. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY 10119 Phone: 646-733-5768 Fax: 212-273-4445 E-mail: shopkins@milbergweiss.com - and - David Pastor, Esq. Gilman and Pastor, LLP 60 State Street, 37th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-742-9700 Fax: 617-742-9701 E-mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com. Representing the company is: James R. Carroll, Esq. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom One Beacon Street, 31st Floor Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-573-4800 Fax: 617-573-4822 E-mail: jcarroll@skadden.com BRIGGS & STRATTON: Ill. Court Dismisses Claim Over Lawnmowers ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois dismissed an amended complaint in "Phillips et al. v. Sears Roebuck and Co. et al.," which names Briggs & Stratton Corp. as defendant, but permitted plaintiffs to refile a new complaint. On June 3, 2004, eight individuals who claim to have purchased lawnmowers in Illinois and Minnesota filed a lawsuit, captioned, "Ronnie Phillips et al. v. Sears Roebuck Corp. et al., No. 04-L- 334," in the 20th Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois against Briggs & Stratton and other defendants alleging that the horsepower labels on the products they purchased were inaccurate. The plaintiffs have amended their complaint several times and currently seek an injunction, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees under various federal and state laws including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act on behalf of all persons in the U.S. who, beginning Jan. 1, 1994 through the present, purchased a lawnmower containing a two- stroke or four-stroke gasoline combustion engine up to 30 horsepower that was manufactured by the defendants. On May 31, 2006, the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (No. 06- 412-DRH). The defendants subsequently filed cross claims against each other for indemnification and contribution and filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 30, 2007, the court issued an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, but the order permits the plaintiffs to refile a complaint after amending several claims. An opinion of the Court providing more detail concerning its order is expected but has not yet been filed, according to Brigg's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2007. The suit is "Phillips et al v. Sears Roebuck and Company et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00412-GPM-DGW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois under Judge G. Patrick Murphy with referral to Judge Donald G. Wilkerson. Representing the plaintiffs is: Samuel D. Heins, Esq. Heins Mills et al. 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 3550 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-338-4605 E-mail: heins@heinsmills.com Representing the defendants is: Joel A. Blanchet, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 5800 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-861-2000 Fax: 312-861-2200 E-mail: jblanchet@kirkland.com CAREER EDUCATION: Nixing of Securities Fraud Complaint Appealed --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in "In re: Career Education Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08884," are appealing the dismissal of a third amended consolidated complaint in the case, which remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case represents the consolidation into one suit of six purported class actions filed between Dec. 9, 2003, and Feb. 5, 2004, by and on behalf of certain purchasers of the company's common stock, against the company, John M. Larson, a former officer of CEC, and Patrick K. Pesch, a current officer of the company. The lawsuit alleged that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, the defendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts about the condition of the company's business and prospects during the putative class period, causing the respective plaintiffs to purchase shares of the company's common stock at artificially inflated prices. Plaintiffs further claimed that Messrs. Larson and Pesch were liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On March 29, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' third amended consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 24, 2007, according to the company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The suit is "In re: Career Education Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08884," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow. Representing the company are: Karl Richard Barnickol, Esq. Mary Ellen Hennessy, Esq. Joni S. Jacobsen, Esq. David H. Kistenbroker, Esq. Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, Il 60661-3693 Phone: (312) 902-5200 CARFAX INC: Kans. Resident Objects to Vehicle History Suit Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- A Carfax, Inc. customer who resides in Lawrence, Kansas is objecting to a proposed nationwide settlement of a class action filed against the company in the Court of Common Pleas Trumbull County, Ohio, The Lawrence Journal World reports. According to a report in The New York Times, the objector is one David P. Wolfe. Mr. Wolfe said he bought a Honda Civic in Texas relying on a Carfax report. A Honda dealer told him later that the car had been so badly damaged in a crash it was not safe to drive. Mr. Wolfe said he did not want the coupon that would come with the settlement. In general, the suit alleges that consumers are being deceived by Carfax's claim that its vehicle history reports are based on searches of its nationwide database, when in fact the database does not include police accident data from 22 states and the District of Columbia (Class Action Reporter, April 2, 2007). Case Background In 2004, the law firm of Federman & Sherwood filed the complaint alleging violations of the Ohio Sales Practices Act and Common Law (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 11, 2004). Plaintiff claims that Carfax violated the consumer protection laws of all fifty states by not properly disclosing terms and conditions for, and limitations of, Carfax Vehicle History Reports. The complaint further alleges that Carfax engages in unfair, misleading and/or deceptive sales practices in connection with the automobile database services that it offers to the public. The class period is from October 1998 to the present. The suit involves a nationwide scheme devised and implemented by defendants to market Carfax's Vehicle History Reports concerning used automobiles in a manner which is unfair, false, deceptive and materially misleading. Carfax purports to conduct accident report searches for used vehicles on a nationwide basis in order to determine for consumers whether a specific used car has been involved in a collision. CarFax, however, failed to disclose to consumers that it does not have the ability to access and search public accident records in more than 23 states in the U.S. In January, Carfax settled the lawsuit, denying all of plaintiff's claims of wrongdoing (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 16, 2007). Under the settlement, class members can claim: -- a Voucher good for $20.00 off a vehicle inspection by a designated third party within six months of final approval of the settlement, -- a Voucher good for two free Carfax Vehicle History Reports from Carfax within one year of final approval of the settlement, -- a Voucher for one free Carfax Vehicle History Report from Carfax within two years of final approval of the settlement, or -- a Voucher for 50% off an unlimited number of Carfax Vehicle History Reports (for personal, not commercial use) over 30 consecutive days within three years of final approval of the settlement. A hearing on the motion for approval of the settlement is scheduled for May 11 in Warren, Ohio. Deadline to file claims is May 27, 2007. The Settlement on the Net: http://www.westcarsettlement.com. The suit is "West v. Carfax, Inc., Case No. 04-CV-1898," filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Trumbull County, Ohio under Judge Andrew D. Logan. Representing plaintiffs are: William B. Federman, Esq. Federman & Sherwood 120 N. Robinson Avenue, Suite 2720 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 - and - Curtis J. Ambrosey, Esq. Ambrosey & Fredericka 144 North Park Avenue, Suite 200 Warren, Ohio 44481 Representing the defendants are: Christopher M. Mason, Esq. Nixon Peabody LLP 437 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10022 Phone: (212) 940-3017 Fax: (866) 947-2229 E-mail: cmason@nixonpeabody.com - and - Hugh E. McKay, Esq. Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP 925 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1700 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Phone: 216-443-2580 Fax: 216-443-9011 E-mail: hmckay@porterwright.com CASH AMERICA: Court Mulls Motion to Arbitrate Payday Loans Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The State Court of Cobb County, Georgia has yet to rule on a motion to stay and compel arbitration in a purported class action over payday loans that was filed against Cash America International Inc. On Aug. 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action against Georgia Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc., Daniel R. Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders" of Cash America. The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the most significant of which is that Cash America has been making illegal payday loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Community State Bank for some time made loans to Georgia residents through Cash America's Georgia operating locations. The complaint in this lawsuit claims that Community State Bank is not the true lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers and that its involvement in the process is "a mere subterfuge." Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America is the "de facto" lender and is illegally operating in Georgia. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages. The parties are currently in dispute over the scope of the discovery requests made by the plaintiffs, and Cash America has appealed a recent State Court discovery ruling on this issue. Cash America is also seeking enforcement of the arbitration provisions and has filed a motion to stay and compel arbitration with the state court. The company reported no development in the matter in its May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com- - provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing services and other specialty financial services to individuals. It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn lending operations. CBOCS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Stools That Collapse Unexpectedly ------------------------------------------------------------- CBOCS Distribution Inc., of Lebanon, Tenn., in cooperation with The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is conducting a voluntary recall of 2,600 units of Rooster Kitchen Stools. The firms said the stools can unexpectedly collapse during use, causing a consumer to fall to the floor. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc. has received two reports of incidents in which the kitchen stool collapsed. A 10 year- old boy received bruises when the kitchen stool collapsed and he fell. The Rooster Kitchen Stool is about two feet tall and one foot in diameter. It has light brown wood and has a rooster painted on the seat. "Made in China" and item number 260161 are printed on a sticker under the seat. These stools were manufactured in China and were being sold at Cracker Barrel Old Country Storer locations nationwide from February 2007 through March 2007 for about $30. Consumers must stop using these kitchen stools immediately and return them to any Cracker Barrel Old Country Store for a full refund. To view the picture of this stool, visit: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07184.html For additional information, contact Cracker Barrel at (800) 333- 9566, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.crackerbarrel.com CHICAGO BRIDGE: May Certification Hearing Set in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York scheduled a May 29, 2007 hearing on a motion seeking class- action status for the consolidated securities fraud suit against Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. and its officers. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed the suit, "Welmon v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. NV, et al., Case No. 06 CV 1283," on Feb. 17, 2006 against the company, Gerald M. Glenn, Robert B. Jordan, and Richard E. Goodrich. It was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities from March 9, 2005 through Feb. 3, 2006 and were damaged thereby. The action asserts claims under the U.S. securities laws and alleges, among other things, that the company materially overstated the company's financial results during the class period by misapplying percentage-of-completion accounting and did not follow the company's publicly stated revenue recognition policies. Since the initial lawsuit, other suits containing substantially similar allegations and with similar, but not exactly the same, class periods were filed. On April 18, 2006, competing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with the court. On May 10, 2006, Judge John E. Sprizzo, issued an order consolidating all related cases into one class action and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On June 20, 2006, Judge Sprizzo issued order appointing co-lead counsel to oversee the litigation. On July 5, 2006, a single consolidated amended complaint was filed in the Welmon action in the Southern District of New York consolidating all previously filed actions. The company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was denied by the court. On March 2, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and the company and the individual defendants filed an opposition to class certification on April 2, 2007. The court has scheduled a hearing on the motion for class certification on May 29, 2007, according to the company's May 2, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The suit is "Wayne Welmon, et al. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. NV, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01283-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Catherine A. Torell of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 150 East 52nd Street, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-838-7797, Fax: 212-838-7745, E-mail: ctorell@cmht.com; (2) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, (LIs), 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367- 7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com; (3) Arthur N. Abbey of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, US, Phone: (212) 889-3700, Fax: (212) 684-5191, E-mail: aabbey@abbeygardy.com; and (4) Eric James Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-907-0878, Fax: 212-818-0477, E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com. CITIGROUP INC: "Specialists" File FLSA Violations Suit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging Labor Code violations. Lead plaintiffs Lucille M. Smith and Cesar Quinones bring this action to recover unpaid compensation owed to plaintiffs and all current and former employees of Citigroup who are similarly situated pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et. seq. The complaint alleges that for at least three years prior to the filing of this complaint, Citigroup has willfully committed widespread violations of the FLSA by, among other violations, misclassifying employees in the positions of specialist, senior specialist, and comparable positions with different titles, such as associate, assistant manager, and assistant vice-president as salaried exempt employees and failing to pay such employees for overtime hours worked in excess of 40 hours perr week at a rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay. Plaintiffs bring their FLSA claim on behalf of all persons who worked for defendant as "Specialists" (or in comparable positions with different titles, such as senior specialist, associate, assistant manager and assistant vice-president) at any time from three years prior to the filing of this complaint to entry of judgment in this case. The complaint alleges defendant is liable under the FLSA for failing to properly compensate plaintiffs and the FLSA collective, and as such, notice should be sent to past and present "Specialists" who worked for defendant. Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises, include: (a) whether the defendant employed and/or jointly employed the plaintiffs within the meaning of the New York Labor Law; (b) what proof of hours worked sufficient where employers fail in their duty to maintain time records; (c) whether defendant failed and/or refused to pay plaintiffs premium pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek within the meaning of the New York Labor Law; and (d) whether defendant failed and/or refused to pay plaintiffs overtime pay for hours worked within the meaning of the New York Labor Law Article 19, Sections 650 et. seq. and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations, 12 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 142. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, pray for the following relief: -- that, at the earliest possible time, the plaintiffs be allowed to give notice of this collective action, or that the court issue such notice, to all persons who are presently, or have at any time during the three years immediately preceding the filing of this suit, up through and including the date of this court's issuance of court-supervise notice, been employed by the defendant Citigroup as a "Specialist." The notice shall inform them that this civil action has been field, of the nature of the action, and of their right to join this lawsuit; -- certification of this action as a class action; -- designation of the plaintiffs as class representatives; -- unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq. and the supporting United States Department of Labor regulations; -- overtime wages pursuant to N.Y. Lab. Law Article 19, Sections 650 et. seq., and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations, plus pre-judgment interest; -- an injunction enjoining defendant from violating the foregoing laws and regulations in the future; -- attorneys' fees and costs of the action; and -- such other relief as the court shall deem just and proper. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ed4 The suit is "Smith et al. v. Citigroup Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv- 01791-JG-RML," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge John Gleeson, with referral to Judge Robert M. Levy. Representing plaintiffs is: Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Outten & Golden LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-245-1000 Fax: 212-977-4005 E-mail: jar@outtengolden.com COCA-COLA: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Securities Suit in Ga. ------------------------------------------------------------ Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., and several current and former officers and directors are seeking the dismissal of a purported securities fraud class action filed against them in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The suit, "In re Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action File No. 1:06-CV-0275-TWT," was originally filed as "Argento Trading Co., et al, vs. Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. et al." on Feb. 7, 2006. It alleges that the company engaged in "channel stuffing" with customers. In addition, the suit raises certain insider trading claims. On Feb. 7, 2007, the court dismissed the case, but with the plaintiffs being given the right to file an amended complaint - filed an amended complaint on March 12, 2007. On April 16, 2007, the company filed a renewed motion to dismiss this lawsuit, according to the company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2007. The suit is "Argento Trading Co. L.P. v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00275-TWT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. Representing the plaintiffs are Lauren S. Antonino, James M. Evangelista and Stuart Jay Guber of Motley Rice, LLC, Phone: 404-664-9168 and 404-881-9199, E-mail: lantonino@motleyrice.com, jevangelista@motleyrice.com and sguber@motleyrice.com. COOPER LIGHTING: Recalls Emergency Lights With Faulty Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Lighting Inc. of Houston, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling about 3,200 units of Contractor's Choice FasTest High Capacity Emergency Lighting Units. According to the company, a circuit board in the light could malfunction, preventing the lights from illuminating in the event of a power failure. This could result in a failure to provide adequate lighting to guide building occupants to an exit in the event of an emergency. Cooper has not received any incident or injury reports. This action involves the CC7NCSD Contractor's Choice FasTestT High Capacity Emergency Lighting Unit, an emergency light installed in commercial buildings. The recalled lights have one of the following model numbers written on the inside of the removable front cover: CC7NCSD CC7NCSD0 CC7NCSD0BK CC7NCSD0TDM CC7NCSD1MRT CC7NCSD208SM CC7NCSD214 CC7NCSD216 CC7NCSD216TDM CC7NCSD219 CC7NCSD245 CC7NCSD279SM CC7NCSD279SMBK CC7NCSD279SMSQ CC7NCSD279SMTDM CC7NCSD279SMV CC7NCSD270TM CC7NCSD279V CC7NCSD208SMSQ CC7NCSDAV CC7NCSDSQ CC7NCSDBK CC7NCSDMRT CC7NCSDMRT2142TDM CC7NCSDMRT2142V CC7NCSDMRTV CC7NCSDSQ245 CC7NCSDMRT2142 CC7NCSDSQTDM CC7NCSDTDM CC7NCSD208SMSQ Only products with date codes between 12-2005 and 03-2007 are subject to the recall. The date code appears on the circuit board next to the battery pack and is depicted as MM-YYYY-WW. For example, a product manufactured in the third week of August would have the date code "08-2006-03." These emergency lights were manufactured in China and were being sold at authorized distributors nationwide from February 2006 through March 2007 for about $200. Authorized distributors resell and install the lights for commercial end users in facilities such as hotels and office buildings. Cooper Lighting is contacting customers directly and is providing a free replacement product. Photo: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07546.html For additional information, contact Cooper Lighting at (800) 954-7228, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, or go to the firm's Web site at http://www.cooperlighting.com CRUM & FORSTER: RICO, Antitrust Claims Dismissed in N.J. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed with prejudice Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and antitrust claims against Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. The company and U.S. Fire, among numerous other insurance company and insurance broker defendants, have been named as defendants in a class action filed by policyholders alleging, among other things, that the defendants used contingent commission structure to deprive policyholders of free competition in the market for insurance. Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class consisting of all persons who between Aug. 26, 1994 and the date of the class certification engaged the services of any one of the broker defendants and who entered into or renewed a contract of insurance with one of the insurer defendants. In October 2006, the court partially granted defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, subject to plaintiffs' filing an amended statement of their case. Plaintiffs thereafter filed their "supplemental statement of particularity" and amended case statement. In response, defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss. In April 2007, the plaintiff's RICO and antitrust claims again were dismissed without prejudice. Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. -- http://www.cfins.com-- through its eight subsidiaries, offers an array of property/casualty insurance products to businesses, including management liability, automobile, and workers' compensation coverage. CUTERA INC: Paskowitz Expands Class Period in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Paskowitz & Associates will amend its class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to assert a new, longer Class Period from Jan. 31, 2007 through May 7, 2007. The law firm filed its original April 18 complaint on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock and other securities of Cutera, Inc. (NASDAQ: CUTR) from Jan. 31, 2007 through April 4, 2007. The complaint accuses Cutera and certain of its top officers and directors of violating the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements and omissions assuring the investing public that increased sales efforts and other corporate developments would lead to extraordinary growth in the first quarter of 2007, and for the entire year (Class Action Reporter, April 20, 2007). Specifically, Cutera asserted on Jan. 31, 2007 that these positive factors would lead to 25% revenue growth for the first quarter of 2007 and for the full year, 33% growth in net income for the first quarter of 2007, and 25% growth in net income for the full year. This announcement was followed shortly thereafter by unusually large stock sales by Cutera's chief executive, defendant Kevin P. Connors and Cutera's chief financial officer, defendant Robert J. Santilli. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Connors has a history of making stock sales at high prices just prior to the release of adverse corporate news. On April 5, 2007 defendants shocked the market by announcing that revenues and earnings for the first quarter of 2007 would not increase 25%, as stated just weeks before, but rather would materially decrease. Defendants offered no cogent explanation for this reversal. On this news, Cutera shares dropped $11.72 per share on extraordinary trading volume of 7.2 million shares. But on May 7, 2007, after the close of trading, Cutera announced, "The unsuccessful implementation of our junior sales program, unusually high sales employee turnover, and disappointing results from PSS and other national accounts," and it forecast fiscal second quarter and 2007 sales below expectations. None of these adverse developments were adequately disclosed on April 4, 2007 when, in announcing disappointing results, Mr. Connors stated, "This quarter's shortfall was due primarily to lower than expected productivity levels of our recent sales expansion. We are implementing specific initiatives to address this matter and remain confident in our ability to increase our revenue growth." On May 8, 2007, Cutera shares closed at $23.40, down $5.84, on heavy volume. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 18, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq. Paskowitz & Associates 767 Third Avenue, 35th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-486-6798 Fax: 212-751-3175 E-mail: classattorney@aol.com DVA RENAL: Continues to Face Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc. remains a defendant in a class action filed in the Superior Court of California, alleging violations of the state's labor laws. In June 2004, DVA Renal was served with a complaint filed in the Superior Court of California by one of its former employees that worked for its California acute services program. The complaint, which is styled as a class action, alleges, among other things, that DVA Renal failed to provide overtime wages, defined rest periods and meal periods, or compensation in lieu of such provisions and failed to comply with certain other California labor code requirements. DVA Renal is formerly Gambro Healthcare, Inc. DaVita, Inc. acquired it in 2005. DaVita, Inc. reported no development in the matter its May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. DaVita, Inc. -- http://www.davita.com/-- is a provider of dialysis services in the U.S. for patients suffering from chronic kidney failure, also known as end-stage renal disease. The company also provides acute inpatient dialysis services in approximately 770 hospitals and related laboratory services. DVA RENAL: Patients Seek Arbitration in Dismissed La. Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff in a purported class action against DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc. filed a demand to compel class arbitration in the case, which was previously dismissed by U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana back in March. DVA Renal is formerly known as Gambro Healthcare, Inc. It is now a subsidiary of DaVita, Inc. On Aug. 8, 2005, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana filed a complaint against Gambro AB, DVA Renal and related entities. The plaintiff sought to bring its claims as a class action on behalf of itself and all entities that paid any of the defendants for health care goods and services from on or about January 1991 through at least December 2004. The complaint alleged, among other things, damages resulting from facts and circumstances underlying DVA Renal's December 2004 settlement agreement with the Department of Justice and certain agencies of the U.S. Government. In March 2006, the case was dismissed and the plaintiff was compelled to seek arbitration to resolve the matter. In August 2006, the plaintiff proceeded with a demand to compel arbitration. In March 2006, the case was dismissed and the plaintiff was compelled to seek arbitration to resolve the matter. In November 2006, the plaintiff filed a demand for class arbitration against the company and DVA Renal Healthcare. DaVita, Inc. reported no development in the matter in its May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The suit is "Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Co. v. Gambro A B, et al., Case No. 6:05-cv-01450-TLM-CMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana under Judge Tucker L. Melancon with referral to Judge C. Michael Hill. Representing the plaintiff is: -- Greg Murphy, Esq. Morain & Murphy 6555 Perkins Rd., Ste. 200 Baton Rouge, LA 70808 Phone: 225-767-7151 Fax: 225-767-8995 E-mail: greg@mandmlawfirm.com Representing the company is: G. William Jarman, Esq. Kean Miller, et al. P.O. Box 3513 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 Phone: 225-387-0999 Fax: 225-388-9133 EBAY INC: Calif. Court Orders Consolidation of Antitrust Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered the consolidation of two purported antitrust class actions that were filed against eBay, Inc. in April 2007, Ina Steiner of AuctionBytes.com reports. In consolidating the cases, "The court finds that, "Malone v. eBay Inc., Case No. 07-01882-JF," and "Farmer, et al. v. Ebay, Inc., Case No. C-07-02209," are related actions and such cases are hereby consolidated into "Malone v. eBay Inc.," and are referred to herein as the consolidated action." The consolidated case is now know by the caption, "In Re eBay Seller Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5:07-cv-01882-JF," and is pending before Judge Jeremy Fogel. "Malone" Litigation Background According to an earlier report by AuctionBytes.com, "Malone" is an antitrust class action that was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas but has been refilled in California, where eBay is headquartered (Class Action Reporter April 10, 2007). The suit generally accuses eBay of illegally tying and steering customers to use its wholly owned subsidiary, PayPal, Inc., to monopolize payments and unjustly enriches itself. The original complaint alleges "sellers are forced to accept a payment procedure that imposes upon them the obligation to pay needless and supracompetitive fees to defendant." The suit contends, "sellers are forced to accept eBay's payment process as a condition of being able to use the eBay auction process." Lead plaintiff in the suit is Michael Malone of Texas, who sold a pair of Sansui SP-2000 speakers on eBay for $200 in December 2005. Mr. Malone is representing all customer sellers of eBay who are and have been required to honor all payment methods encompassed by PayPal in respect of sales and purchases on eBay.com since 2002. Specifically, the suit alleges: (1) eBay leverages its monopoly in the on-line auction market by requiring that sellers utilize an on-line payment system that imposes needless and supracompetitive fees on them; (2) eBay has economic power in the on-line auction market sufficient to restrain competition in respect of payment methods; (3) eBay's coercion has achieved or has the dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power in the market for on-line payment systems for use in on-line auctions; and (4) the amount of commerce is substantial. Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises, include: (a) the definition of the relevant product and geographic markets; (b) whether defendant has sufficient economic power in the tying market to restrain appreciably competition in the tied product market; (c) whether defendant uses coercion in the market for on- line auctions to monopolize (or attempt to monopolize) the market for on-line payment systems for use in on- line auctions; (d) whether the amount of commerce affected is substantial; (e) antitrust impact; and (f) whether the practices are ongoing. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other members of the class, prays for judgment as follows: -- declaring this action to be a proper class action pursuant to rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the class, defined herein, declaring plaintiff to be an adequate representative of that class, declaring plaintiff's counsel to counsel to the class; -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period eBay illegally monopolized and maintained a monopoly in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2; -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period eBay illegally attempted to monopolize a market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2; -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period eBay engaged in unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2; -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period eBay violated California Business and Profession Code Section 16720 et seq.; -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period eBay violated California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.; -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period eBay was unjustly enriched; -- awarding judgment against eBay, in an amount to be proved at trial, treble the amount of damages suffered by the members of the class to their business and property interests, plus attorneys' fees, costs, and interest as allowable by law, for eBay's violations of the Sherman Act and applicable California law; -- enjoining eBay from continuing with its anticompetitive behavior (including the tie and the monopoly maintenance of the on-line payment services market) in violation of the Sherman Act; -- granting plaintiff and the other members of the class such other relief that the court may consider necessary or appropriate to restore competitive conditions in the markets affected by eBay's unlawful conduct; and -- granting such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. "Farmer" Litigation Background "Farmer" is a class-action complaint filed on April 23, 2007 by Ann Farmer and Todd Van Pelt. It alleges that eBay possesses monopoly power in the online auction market, estimating it controls over 90 percent of the market in part due to the "network effect," according to a report by Ina Steiner of AuctionBytes.com. The complaint goes on to cite eBay's alleged anti-competitive activities, saying the company acquires its competitors; forces sellers to use PayPal; and blocks competitor Google from online auctions. It alleges that, as a result, actual and potential competition has been restrained and that eBay sellers who accept PayPal "have paid or are likely to pay artificially inflated and supra competitive fees." A copy of the "Malone" complaint filed in Texas is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1b41 The consolidated suit is "In Re eBay Seller Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5:07-cv-01882-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge Richard Seeborg. Representing the plaintiffs is: Michael McShane, Esq. Audet & Partners LLP 221 Main Street, Suite 1460 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-568-2555 Fax: 415-568-2556 E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com Representing the defendants is: Thomas Patrick Brown, Esq. O'Melveny & Myers LLP Embarcadero Center West, 275 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-3305 Phone: (415) 984-8947 E-mail: tbrown@omm.com FAMILY SERVICES: Employee Files FLSA Violations Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ Family Services of Westchester, Inc. is named defendant in a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging Labor Code violations. Plaintiff Sheron Jenkins, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and further former employees of Family Services, alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, they are: (1) entitled to unpaid wages from defendants for work performed for which they received no compensation at all as well as for overtiem for which they did not receive overtime premium pay, as required by law; and (2) entitled to liquidated damages. Plaintiffs further complained that they are entitled to back wages from defendants for worked performed for which they received no compensation at all as well as for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay, as required by New York Labor Law. Plaintiff seeks to prosecute her FLSA claims as a collective action on behalf of all persons who are or were formerly employed by defendants at any time since May 4, 2004 to the entry of judgment in this case, who were non-exempt employees within the meaning of the FLSA and who were not paid for hours that they worked and did receive compensation at rates not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises, include: (a) whether defendants employed the Collective Action Members within the meaning of the FLSA; (b) what proof of hours worked is sufficient where the employer fails in its duty to maintain records; (c) whether defendants failed to pay the Collective Action Members for hours which they worked and received no compensation as well as overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, in violation of the FLSA and the regulations promulgated thereunder; (d) whether defendants' violations of the FLSA are willful as that term is used within the context of the FLSA; (e) whether defendants are liable for all damages claimed hereunder, including but not limited to compensatory, punitive and statutory damages, interest, costs and disbursements and attorneys' fees; and (f) whether defendants should be enjoined from such violations of the FLSA in the future. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the court grant the following relief: -- certification of this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (3) on behalf of the members of the class and appointing plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel to represent the class; -- designation of this action as a collective action on behalf of the Collective Action Members and prompt issuance of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section (216)(b) to all similarly situated members of an FLSA Opt-In-Class, apprising them of the pendency of this action and permitting them to assert timely FLSA claims in this action by filing individual Consents to Sue pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and appointing plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel to represent the Collective Action Members. -- a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful under the FLSA and the New York Labor Law; -- an injunction against the defendants and their officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives and any such and all persons acting in concert with them, as provided by law, from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, policies and patterns set forth herein; -- an award of unpaid wages and unpaid overtime compensation due under the FLSA and the New York Labor Law; -- an award of liquidated and/or punitive damages as a result of the defendants' willful failure to pay wages and overtime compensation and illegal termination of plaintiff pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216 and the New York Labor Law Section 663(1); -- an award of prejudgment and post judgment interest; -- an award of costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees; and -- such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ed8 The suit is "Jenkins v. Family Services of Westchester, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-03585-PKC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge P. Kevin Castel. Representing plaintiffs are: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Berger & Gottlieb 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212)-228-9795 Fax: (212)-982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com - and - William Coudert Rand, Esq. Law Office of William Coudert Rand 711 Third Avenue, Suite 1505 New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-286-1425 Fax: 212-599-7909 E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com FEDEX GROUND: Driver Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Mass. ----------------------------------------------------------- Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. is named in a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging Labor Code violations. Plaintiff Genaro Vargas brought this action on May 8, 2007 on behalf of current and former pickup and delivery drivers for FedEx Ground and FedEx Home Delivery who have been eligible for overtime but have been deprived of such pay based upon their misclassification as independent contractors. FedEx Ground has misclassified thousands of pick-up and delivery drivers across the country as independent contractors. Many of these drivers are eligible for overtime pay, as they fall under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Under this exception, created Aug. 10, 2005, trucks weighing less than 10,001 pounds are no longer defined to be "motor private cariers," 49 U.S.C. Section 13105, and their drivers are thus entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA. Mr. Vargas brings this class action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated FedEx Ground and Home Delivery drivers who, since Aug. 10, 2005, have been truck drivers weighing less than 10,001 pounds in those states that have adopted the federal Motor Carrier Act Exemption and thus are eligible for overtime under state law. Plaintiffs request that the court enter the following relief: -- certification of this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- certification of subclasses of FedEx Ground drivers who performed work in states for which subclasses may contribute to the manageability of this litigation; -- restitution for all overtime pay owed to class members; -- statutory enhancement of damages as allowed by law; and -- any other relief to which the plaintiffs and class members may be entitled. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ecb The suit is "Vargas v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10876-RGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under Judge Richard G. Stearns. Representing plaintiffs are: Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Esq. Pyle, Rome Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C. 18 Tremont Street, Suite 500 Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-367-7200 Fax: 617-367-4820 E-mail: harold@prle.com or sliss@prle.com HORACE MANN: Customer Files Calif. Lawsuit Over Claims Valuation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Horace Mann Mutual Insurance Co. and Audatex, d/b/a Autosource Valuation, faces a purported class action alleging claims valuation fraud in California court. Julie Ashley filed the suit in the Superior Court of California County of Sacramento on April 26, 2007 under Case No. 07AS01906, alleging that Horace Mann uses co-defendant Audatex to find cheap, out-of-state vehicles to use as a fraudulent source of claims values. Ms. Ashley claims that Horace Mann charged her top prices to insure her car, then made a "lowball," non-negotiable offer after she totaled it. Among other things, Ms. Ashley claims that Horace Mann provided her with a cooked-up list of 15 allegedly "comparable vehicles," only two of which were accompanied by VIN numbers, which is in violation of California law. She also claims that Horace Mann has "a pattern and practice of using Audatex dba Autosource Valuation to create false and fraudulent claims valuation." The defendants are accused of breach of contract; common counts of fraud, and intentional tort; violations of Insurance Code; violations of Business & Professions Code; violations of Fair Claims Settlement Regulations; and violations of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. The document also revealed that plaintiff seeks damages of $250,000,000.00 as well as punitive and exemplary damages. A copy of the court document is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1ed6 For more details, contact plaintiff's attorney: Robert C. Lorbeer 35 Pebble River Cir Sacramento, CA 95831 Phone: (916) 391-4777 HSBC BANK: Settles "Puterman" Pension Fraud Litigation in Fla. -------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Bank USA settled a federal class action by former investors of the now-closed Pension Fund of America, which was shutdown two years ago on fraud allegations, Jane Bussey of The MiaimiHerald.com reports. The suit is "Puterman, et al. v. Lehman Brothers, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-21169-KMM," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 28, 2005. It was over a scheme that resulted to thousands of Latin American investors losing money. The report by Jane Bussey of The MiaimiHerald.com stated that HSBC agreed to turn over some $12.8 million in investors' money that was still on deposit in Pension Fund accounts at the bank, along with $10.5 million. The Securities and Exchange Commission shut down Pension Fund of America in March 2005, alleging that the two South Florida financiers who ran the funds duped investors by misrepresenting fees and costs in order to pocket much of the proceeds upfront. In February, the two financiers, Robert de la Riva and Luis M. Cornide agreed to surrender the bulk of their property in order to end fraud allegations pending against them. The HSBC money, combined with funds that attorneys expect to recover from sales of homes owned by Messrs. de la Riva and Cornide, will allow attorneys to pay out anywhere between $23 million and $25 million to a group of 3,400 Latin Americans, a court motion obtained by The MiaimiHerald.com stated. U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore must still approve the settlement. Investors poured some $127 million into Pension Fund, which offered life insurance and investments in mutual funds with names such as Liberty Trust and Capital Trust. Lawyers estimate that some $67 million is still owed to individual and institutional investors, including the Guatemalan Institute for Military Social Security. Victor M. Diaz, attorney for the class-action plaintiffs, told The MiaimiHerald.com that he had spoken with a few investors who were anxious to be reimbursed. Despite the settlement, the class action is still pending against other banks and brokerage firms that handled Pension Fund of America accounts. They include: -- Lehman Brothers, Inc.; -- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.; -- Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.; -- SunTrust Bank, Inc.; and -- Oliva Investment Group, Inc. These remains defendants have filed two motions to dismiss the complaint. The suit is "Puterman, et al. v. Lehman Brothers, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-21169-KMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Representing the plaintiffs is: Victor Manuel Diaz, Jr., Esq. Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg et al City National Bank Building 25 W Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130-1780 Phone: 305-358-2800 Fax: 305-358-2382 E-mail: Vdiaz@podhurst.com Representing HSBC is: Scott Allan Cole, Esq. Cole Scott & Kissane 1390 Brickell Avenue, 3rd Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-350-5346 Fax: (305) 373-2294 E-mail: SAC@csklegal.com JANSSEN-ORTHO: Sued in Canada Over Lethal Content of Tylenol 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Rochon Genova LLP commenced a class action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on April 30, 2007 on behalf of infants who ingested potentially lethal components of Tylenol 3 through their mothers' breast milk. The defendants named in the lawsuit are: * Janssen-Ortho Inc., and * Johnson & Johnson Corp., one of the world's most broadly based manufacturers of health care products. The claim alleges that the Defendants knew or ought to have known of the serious risks to infants related to the use of Tylenol 3 by nursing mothers, but failed to warn them of those risks. It is further alleged that the Defendants failed to perform adequate tests on their product and ignored available medical and scientific information which demonstrated that codeine and morphine (as a metabolite of codeine) are excreted through breast milk, exposing nursing infants to the risk of serious adverse effects including lethargy, poor feeding, constipation, irritability, stupor, bradycardia, respiratory depression, apnea, cyanosis and death. "The claim emphasizes that the Defendants have a responsibility to inform women that Tylenol 3 is potentially lethal to breastfed infants", said Joel P. Rochon, a partner at Rochon Genova LLP. Rani Jamieson is one of the proposed representative plaintiffs, whose son, Tariq, died at just 12 days old. His cause of death was found to be a result of complications from morphine/codeine intoxication caused by ingesting Rani's breast milk after she had used Tylenol 3 at or below a therapeutic dosage. "This terrible tragedy should never have occurred and I am determined to see that this does not happen to other children," Ms. Jamieson said. She is hoping that this lawsuit will promote "awareness and change" in the conduct of pharmaceutical companies. "Bottom line," she says, "based on everything I have seen, physicians and consumers should have been warned that Tylenol 3 should not be used by nursing mothers under any circumstance." The allegations raised in the claim have not yet been proven in court. For more information, contact: Joel P. Rochon, Esq. Rochon Genova LLP 121 Richmond St. W., Suite 900 Toronto, Ontario M5H 2K1 Phone:(416) 363-1867 or 1 (866) 881-2292 (Toll Free) Fax:(416) 363-0263 Website: http://www.rochongenova.com/contact.aspx KEANE INC: Agrees to Settle Lawsuit Over Disposal to Caritor ------------------------------------------------------------ Keane, Inc. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of two purported class actions: -- "Susan Nichols v. John F. Keane, et al.," which was filed on February 13, 2007 in Massachusetts Superior Court and amended on April 20, 2007; and -- "Henry C. Blaufox v. John F. Keane, Sr., et al.," which was filed on February 14, 2007 in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts and amended on April 18, 2007. Keane has entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated Feb. 6, 2007 by and among Keane, Caritor and Renaissance Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Caritor, providing for the acquisition of Keane by Caritor. The "Blaufox v. Keane et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10278- PBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Patti B. Saris -- seeks to bring derivative and direct claims on behalf of Keane and a class of Keane's shareholders, against certain of Keane's present and former directors and executive officers (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 21, 2007). Keane Inc. shareholder Susan Nichols, initiated the second purported class action in Massachusetts Superior Court, alleging that Keane's directors breached fiduciary duties in connection with the recently announced proposed acquisition of Keane by Caritor Inc. Both suits purport to bring claims for monetary and equitable relief under the federal securities laws and state law, allegedly arising out of Keane's past stock option practices and the proposed acquisition of Keane by Caritor Inc. The recent MOU outlines certain elements of a settlement that will require final court approval that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable. As acknowledged in the MOU, Keane has now provided and distributed to Keane's shareholders supplemental proxy disclosures requested by plaintiffs further explaining the financial terms and circumstances leading up to the proposed merger between Keane, Caritor, Inc. and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Caritor, Inc. and the vote by Keane's shareholders thereon. The proposed settlement provides, among other things, that any cash payments for alleged mispricing of options disgorged to Keane or its successor from current or former officers, directors or employees as a result of an order of or settlement with a prosecutorial or regulatory authority or such legal proceedings for disgorgement, if any, as Keane or its successor may choose to pursue shall be transferred after receipt of such payments to Keane's shareholders who were shareholders of record on the date of the consummation of the proposed merger. Any amounts distributed to such Keane shareholders would be reduced by specified offsets for reimbursement of Keane's and Caritor's out-of-pocket costs and expenses and any attorney's fees and expenses awarded to plaintiffs' counsel. The settlement will also include a dismissal of the class actions with prejudice and a release of all claims by the plaintiffs. The MOU contains no admission of wrongdoing. However, given the potential cost and burden of continued litigation, Keane believes the settlement is in its best interests and the best interests of its shareholders. Representing plaintiffs are: Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. Adam M. Stewart, Esq. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP 53 State Street, 37th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-439-3939 Fax: 617-439-0134 E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com or astewart@shulaw.com KENNETH COLE: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Credit Card Purchases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. is facing a purported class action filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego on April 17, 2007. The putative class action alleges that the company's policies and practices regarding the request of personal information during credit card purchases violate the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. The complaint seeks civil penalties, injunctive relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. -- http://www.kennethcole.com/-- designs, sources and markets a range of fashion footwear and handbags. Through license agreements, the company designs and markets apparel and accessories under its Kenneth Cole New York, Kenneth Cole Reaction, Unlisted and Tribeca brand names. In addition, Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. through a license agreement has the rights to use the Bongo trademark for footwear, as well as Gentle Souls for footwear under a trademark. MAYFIELD DAIRY: Recalls Ice Cream on Undeclared Peanut Content -------------------------------------------------------------- Mayfield Dairy Farms of Athens, Tenn., with the knowledge of the Tennessee Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, is voluntarily recalling 1.75-quart cartons of Mayfield Turtle Tracks ice cream with a code date of 4/11/08 and a UPC code of 75243-20120. The recall was initiated because the affected product contains peanuts, which are not listed on the label. Some individuals with allergies to peanuts run the risk of a serious reaction if they consume this product. The firm has not received any reports on allergic reactions. Only 1.75-quart cartons with a code date of 4/11/08 and plant code of 47225 are involved in the recall. Consumers should look for this information on the side of the lid of the carton. The UPC code is 75243-20120. No other Mayfield Dairy Farms products are involved in this recall. The recalled product was produced at the Mayfield Dairy Farms plant in Athens, Tennessee and distributed to retail stores in Tennessee, Northwestern Georgia, Northern Alabama and Southeastern Kentucky. The company apologizes for any inconvenience to its customers. Consumers who purchased the product may return it to where it is was purchased for a full refund or exchange. Consumers with questions can contact the company at 800-629-3435. MULTIPLEX GROUP: Presents Arguments on Falsity of Investor Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Judge Raymond Antony Finkelstein has reserved a decision on whether to dismiss an investors' suit filed against Multiplex Group over the company's problematic Wembly Stadium project in London, according to Maurice Dunlevy of The Australian. The judge recently heard arguments by Lawyers for Multiplex recently argued before the judge that the suit contravened the Federal Court of Australia Act. Tom Bathurst QC said the suit filed by Maurice Blackburn Cashman on behalf of 45 shareholders was not in the interest of claimants because it tied them to Maurice Blackburn Cashman. It also did not have opt-out provisions that would allow them to choose to discontinue their claim. Mr. Bathurst said a substantial amount of any award would go to both the claimants' lawyers and a separate funder of the action. The suit claims shareholders were victims of Multiplex's failure to keep the market properly informed about problems it was having with the $1 billion project and the likely impact those problems would have on the company's profits. It alleges Multiplex was behind schedule and had incurred cost overruns by August 2004, but did not announce the project would be making a loss until May 2005. In September 2002, Multiplex won a contract to rebuild Wembley Stadium. Cost blowouts and problems with contractors delayed construction and caused hundreds of millions in losses. Maurice Blackburn on the Net: http://www.mauriceblackburncashman.com.au ONEOK INC: Faces Energy Trading Lawsuit by Heartland Hospital ------------------------------------------------------------- A new energy trading class action was filed against Oneok Inc., ONEOK Energy Marketing and Trading Co., L.P. (renamed ONEOK Energy Services Co., L.P.), and Kansas Gas Marketing Co. as well as 19 other defendants. The suit is "Heartland Regional Medical Center, et al. v. ONEOK, Inc., et al." filed in the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Missouri, in March 2007. The action is alleged to be brought pursuant to the Missouri Antitrust Law on behalf of all persons and entities in the State of Missouri who made direct purchases of natural gas during the period from Jan. 1, 2000, through Oct. 31, 2002. The petition alleges that the defendants falsely reported natural gas prices and engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate the energy trading market in violation of the Missouri Antitrust Law. The plaintiffs seek treble damages. SARA LEE: Meat Plant Employees File FLSA Violations Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Sara Lee Corp. is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee alleging Labor Code violations. Lead plaintiffs -- Kenneth Sisk, Terrence Ward, Theorda Randle and William Binder -- bring this lawsuit as a representative action against Sara Lee pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated current and former production and support employees of Sara Lee's meat processing facilities in Newbern, Tenn. and West Point, Miss. for unpaid wages and unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint alleges Sara Lee has failed to pay Plaintiffs their minimum hourly rate of pay for all hours of work they performed in addition to overtime as required by federal law. The alleged uncompensated time includes, but is not limited to, time spent preparing, donning, doffing, obtaining and sanitizing sanitary and safety equipment, obtaining tools, equipment and supplies necessary for the performance of their work, "working" steels and all other activities in connection with these job functions, and walking between work sites after the first compensable work activity and before the last compensable work activity. These alleged unpaid work activities took place before and after paid time, and during both paid breaks and unpaid lunch breaks. The suit claims that at all times relevant to this Complaint, upon information and belief, Sara Lee has only paid certain employees at its Newbern, and West Point meat processing facilities 10 minutes per day or less for "equipment cleaning" time, despite the fact that Plaintiffs spend as much as 30 minutes or more per day performing uncompensated work activities as described in this Complaint. Under Sara Lee's wage compensation system, Plaintiffs and Class members who are production employees are paid only during the time that they are present on the actual production assembly line under a system known as "gang time" or "line time." Sara Lee also requires its employees to be present and working at the production line for periods after their "gang time" (i.e. the time when they stop getting paid) but they are not paid for that time. Plaintiffs pray for the following relief against Sara Lee: -- that this Court permits this action to go forward as a representative action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and approves notice of this action to all other similarly situated employees and former employees at Sara Lee's Newbern, TN and West Point, MS meat processing facilities; -- that this Court Order an accounting of lost wages for Plaintiffs; -- that this Court enjoin Defendant Sara Lee from continuing to commit unlawful practices related to wages; and -- that this Court award lost overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ecc The suit is "Sisk et al. v. Sara Lee Corp., Case No. 1:07-cv- 01095-JDT-sta," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District Court of Tennessee, under Judge James D. Todd, with referral to Judge S. Thomas Anderson. Representing plaintiffs is: Michael Hamilton, Esq. Provost Umphrey, LLP-Nashville 2002 Richard Jones Road, C-103 Nashville, TN 37215 Phone: 615-242-0199 Fax: 615-256-5922 E-mail: mhamilton@provostumphrey.com SHARPCUTS INC: Stylist Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------ Sharpcuts Inc. is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging Labor Code violations. Plaintiff Rhonda McLendon bring this action for unpaid overtime compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Plaintiff was an hourly paid stylist and performed related activities for Sharpcuts in, among others, Duval County, Florida. The complaint alleges Sharpcuts failed to comply with 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-209, because plaintiff performed services for defendant for which no provisions were made by defendants to properly pay plaintiffs for those hours worked in excess of 40 within a work week. Plaintiff claims that during her employment, she was not paid time and one-half her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per work week during one or more work weeks. Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated employees, demand judgment against defendants for: -- the payment of all overtime hours at one and one-half the regular rate of pay for the hours worked by them for which defendant did not properly compensate them; -- payment of minimum wage for all hours worked by plaintiff for which defendants did not properly compensate her; -- liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred; -- declaratory relief; and -- for such other relief and further relief the court deems just and proper. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ece The suit is "McClendon v. Sharpcuts Inc. et al., Case No. 3:07- cv-00378-TJC-TEM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge Timothy J. Corrigan, with referral to Judge Thomas E. Morris. Representing plaintiffs is: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. Morgan & Morgan, PA 20 N Orange Ave - Ste 1600 PO Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: 407/420-1414 Fax: 407/423-7928 E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com TOBACCO LITIGATION: Philip Morris Argues Transfer of "Watson" ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court heard in April arguments by Philip Morris Co. to move a suit filed in Arkansas from state to federal court, Mark H. Anderson of MarketWatch reports. A ruling is expected before July, the report said. The suit was filed by two Little Rock women, Lisa Watson and Loretta Lawson in 2003 in Pulaski County Circuit Court in Arkansas. But Philip Morris asked to transfer the case to federal court on grounds it involved the Federal Trade Commission, which regulates cigarette testing and advertising requirements. The suit filed by the women alleged Philip Morris, now known as Altria Group Inc., falsely advertised its Marlboro and Cambridge brands as "light" cigarettes. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis agreed with the transfer of the case to the federal court, prompting the plaintiffs to appeal the ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court. The suit is "Watson v. Philip Morris, Case No. 05-1284." The plaintiffs are asking the court to certify the case as class action. The plaintiffs' lawyer is: Steven E. Cauley, P.A. Cypress Plaza Suite 218 2200 Rodney Parham Rd Little Rock, AR 72212-4155 Fax: (501) 312-8505 TOBACCO LITIGATION: Ill. Lawyer Back in Court to Revive "Price" --------------------------------------------------------------- St. Louis (Ill.) attorney Stephen Tillery argued in court early in May to reinstate a $10.1 billion judgment against Philip Morris Co. because new evidence has emerged in a separate tobacco case now before the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Tillery initially won on the claim that the company defrauded Illinois customers regarding the tar and nicotine content of its Marlboro Lights. The award included $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages with $1.8 billion in attorneys fees. But in 2005, the state Supreme Court reversed a Madison County judge's decision and dismissed the case on ground that the Federal Trade Commission had authorized the "light" label of the cigarettes. After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Mr. Tillery's appeal, Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas G. Byron dismissed the claim in December 2006. In recent developments, Mr. Tillery presented new arguments before the court basing on testimony and briefs filed by the U.S. solicitor general in the suit, "Watson v. Philip Morris," now pending before the U.S. high court, that the trade commission never approved or ordered tobacco companies to label their products. The Philip Morris party believes the case is closed and the trial court has any authority to consider Mr. Tillery's arguments. After Judge Byron dismissed the claim, Mr. Tillery asked the judge to reverse himself. Judge Byron said he would not reverse himself, but would formally ask the 5th District Appellate Court to determine whether he is allowed to hear Mr. Tillery's pleadings. The suit is "Sharon Price and Michael Fruth, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, No. 00-L-112," filed under Judge Nicholas Byron. Class counsel is Stephen Tillery of Korein Tillery, Mail: 10 Executive Woods Court, Belleville, IL 62226, Phone: (618) 277- 1180, Fax: (618) 222-6939 E-mail: contact@koreintillery.com. Lawyers for the company are: (1) James R. Thompson, George C. Lombardi, Jeffrey M. Wagner, Julie A. Bauer and Stuart Altschuler of Winston & Strawn LLP, 35 West Wacker Drive, Chicago IL 60601- 9703, Phone: 312-558-5600 (2) Michele Odorizzi, Joel D. Bertocchi, Michael K. Forde of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, 190 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60603-3441, Phone: 312-782-0600 (3) Larry Hepler, Beth A. Bauer of Burroughs, Hepler, Broom, Macdonald, Hebrank & True, LLP, 103 West Vandalia Street, Suite 300, Post Office Box 510, Edwardsville, IL 62025-0510 Phone: 618-656-0184 (4) Kevin M. Forde, Kevin M. Forde, Ltd., 111 West Washington Street, Suite 1100, Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-641-1441 TREMONT TOWING: Faces Fair Labor Standards Act Violations Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Tremont Towing, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging Labor Code violations. This action is brought on behalf of all weekly paid and/or salaried employees and/or former employees of Tremont Towing who are and who were subject to the payroll practices and procedures and who were not paid time and one-half of their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked beginning on or after May 2004. Plaintiffs Alfred Johnson and Edwin F. Gonzalez, former employees of Tremont Towing, bring this action for compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Plaintiffs allege that in the course of their employment, plaintiffs worked the number of hours required of them but was not paid time and one-half of their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 during a work week. Plaintiffs demand judgment against defendants for: -- the wages and overtime payments due them for hours worked by them for which they have not been properly compensated; -- liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees; -- costs of suit; and -- for all proper relief including prejudmgent interest. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ed1 The suit is "Johnson v. Tremont Towing, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21207-JLK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge James Lawrence King. Representing plaintiffs is: Charles Harold Bechert, III, Esq. 750 E Sample Road Pompano Beach, FL 33064 Phone: 954-941-8363 Fax: 941-8337 E-mail: Tripchb@aol.com UNITED STATES: TSA Faces Suit Over Missing Employee Records ----------------------------------------------------------- The American Federation of Government Employees, representing employees throughout the Department of Homeland Security, including the Transportation Security Administration, filed a class action against the TSA. The TSA, a unit of the Homeland Security Department, announced last week that an external hard drive containing archived employment records was missing. The missing data included names, social security numbers, dates of birth, and payroll and bank account information for some 100,000 employees. In "AFGE, et al. v. Kip Hawley and TSA," AFGE claims that by failing to establish safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of personnel records, TSA violated both the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) and the Privacy Act of 1974. The ATSA explicitly mandates the TSA administrator to "ensure the adequacy of security measures at airports," and the Privacy Act directs that every federal agency have in place a security system to prevent unauthorized release of personal records. "TSA's reckless behavior is clearly in violation of the law," AFGE National President John Gage said. "TSA must be held liable for this wanton disregard for employee privacy." In the lawsuit, AFGE asks that TSA be ordered to create new security procedures consistent with the ATSA and the Privacy Act, specifically electronically monitoring any mobile equipment that stores personnel data and encrypting personnel data. "The maintenance and safeguarding of personnel data is vital to the protection of security at our nation's airports," Mr. Gage added. "If the stolen information were to fall into the wrong hands, false identity badges easily could be created in order to gain access to secure areas. This is the Department of Homeland Security we are talking about. The American people look to DHS for security and protection. A DHS agency that cannot even shield its own employee data is not reassuring." AFGE also asks for TSA to grant administrative leave to Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) who request it in order to protect against or correct identity theft or financial disruption caused by this incident, and that no retaliation occurs against such employees who take said time off. Additionally, AFGE asks the court to grant judgment for all actual damages incurred as a result of TSA's Privacy Act violations. AFGE Locals 1, 1234 and 777, and TSOs Joseph Jones, Janette Nagel, Cris Soulia and Don Thomas are named as plaintiffs in the case. The three locals represent TSOs across the nation. AFGE has been the only union to represent TSOs since the agency's inception, and recently was instrumental in getting collective bargaining language passed in both the Senate and House. AFGE is the largest federal employee union representing 600,000 workers in the federal government and the government of the District of Columbia, including the largest constituency of DHS employees. For more information, contact: Emily Ryan American Federation of Government Employees Phone: +1-202-639-6421 * Chinese Exporters of Melamine-Contaminated Gluten Face Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chinese authorities have detained the managers of two companies that exported contaminated wheat gluten used in Menu Foods Inc.'s pet food that spawned an outbreak of pet illnesses and deaths across North America, The Mississauga News reports. According to Louie Rosella of The Mississauga News, China's government body responsible for overseeing food safety local said, police had already brought charges against managers of Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Co. Ltd. and Binzhou Futian Biology Technology Co. Ltd., but their names and the details of the charges have not been released. Reports say the companies added melamine to the wheat gluten in a bid to meet the contractual demand for the amount of protein in the products. It said doing so was against regulations. Melamine, a non-toxic chemical used in fertilizer and plastics, was identified as a contaminant by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March. The statement alleges the companies broke the law only when they mislabeled the exported products to avoid inspection. On March 17, 2007, Menu Foods issued a North American-wide recall of 48 brands of dog food and 42 brands of cat food in response to reported deaths of cats and dogs in the U.S. The nationwide recall includes popular brands such as Iams, Nutro, and Eukanuba and private-label brands sold by retailers Wal-Mart, Safeway, Petsmart, and others. Veterinary professionals estimate thousands of pets across the nation will die of kidney failure or become very sick with similar symptoms as a result of consuming the contaminated products. To see complete list of recalled products: http://www.menufoods.com/recall Menu Foods is facing several federal class actions in the U.S. and Canada. Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. TriMas Corp. Drop to 1,650 in 1Q07 ---------------------------------------------------------------- TriMas Corp., as of March 31, 2007, was a party to about 1,650 pending asbestos-related cases involving an aggregate of about 10,229 claimants, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2007. The claimants allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly used in gaskets, both encapsulated and otherwise, made or distributed by certain Company subsidiaries for use in the petrochemical refining and exploration industries. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company was a party to about 1,708 pending asbestos-related cases involving an aggregate of about 10,551 claimants. (Class Action Reporter, April 13, 2007) For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company noted 125 claims filed, 417 claims dismissed, and 30 claims settled. The average settlement per claim amounted to US$20,958 and total defense costs amounted to US$1,258,145. For the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 3,766 claims filed, 12,508 claims dismissed, and 123 claims settled. The average settlement per claim amounted to US$5,613 and total defense costs amounted to US$4,895,104. In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers prior to acquisition. The Company said it believes that many of its pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were distributed or used. Of the 10,229 claims pending at March 31, 2007, 156 set forth specific amounts of damages. Out of the 156 claims, 128 sought between US$1 million and US$5 million in total damages, which includes compensatory and punitive damages, and 28 sought between US$5 million and US$10 million in total damages, which includes compensatory and punitive damages. With respect to compensatory damages, 135 of the 156 claims sought between US$50,000 and US$600,000 and 21 sought between US$1 million and US$5 million. Solely with respect to punitive damages, 128 of the 156 claims sought between US$1 million and US$2.5 million and 28 sought US$5 million. Total settlement costs, exclusive of defense costs, for all those cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been about US$4.4 million. All relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in nature. To date, about 50 percent of the Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos litigation have been covered by the Company's primary insurance. Effective Feb. 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. Headquartered in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., TriMas Corp. and its consolidated subsidiaries manufacture products for commercial, industrial, and consumer markets. The Company is engaged in five business segments: Packaging Systems, Energy Products, Industrial Specialties, RV & Trailer Products, and Recreational Accessories. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has 26,034 Pending Claims in 1Q07 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hercules Inc., as of March 31, 2007, recorded about 26,034 unresolved asbestos-related claims, of which about 980 were premises claims and the rest were products claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2007. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded about 26,045 unresolved asbestos-related claims, of which about 980 were premises claims and the rest were products claims. (Class Action Reporter, April 13, 2007) The Company faces asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits and claims, which arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products, which were sold by one of the Company's former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market. The Company also faces suits alleging exposure to asbestos at facilities formerly or presently owned or operated by the Company. There were also about 1,900 unpaid claims, which have been settled or are subject to the terms of a settlement agreement. As of March 31, 2007, there were about 528 claims which have either been dismissed without payment or are in the process of being dismissed without payment, but with plaintiffs retaining the right to re-file should they be able to establish exposure to an asbestos-containing product for which the Company bears liability. Between Jan. 1, 2007 and March 31, 2007, the Company received about 323 new claims. During that same period, the Company spent about US5.6 million to resolve and defend asbestos matters, including US$3.4 million in settlement payments and about US$2.2 million for defense costs. Headquartered in Wilmington, Del., Hercules Inc. makes and markets specialty chemicals and related services for business, consumer, and industrial applications. The Company's principal products are chemicals, water-soluble polymers, and specialty resins. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $230.2M Liabilities in 1Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hercules Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities, as of March 31, 2007, amounted to US$230.2 million, compared with US$233.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2007. As of March 31, 2007, the Company's current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$36.4 million, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006. As of March 31, 2007, the Company's non-current asbestos-related assets amounted to US$41.9 million, compared with US$87.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company entered into several settlements with its insurers in 2004. The first such settlement involved insurance policies issued by certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London, and reinsured by Equitas Ltd. and related entities. As part of that settlement, Equitas placed US$67 million into a trust set up to reimburse the Company for a portion of the costs it incurred to defend and resolve certain asbestos claims. In exchange, the Company released the underwriters from past, present and future claims under those policies, agreed to the cancellation of those policies, and agreed to indemnify the underwriters from any claims asserted under those policies. On Jan. 4, 2007, the Company received as a lump sum distribution about US$41.3 million, an amount representing a complete liquidation of the remaining balance of the Equitas Trust, including accrued interest, and the Equitas Trust has been terminated. Effective Oct. 8, 2004, the Company entered into a comprehensive confidential settlement agreement with respect to certain insurance policies issued by various insurance companies operating in the London insurance market, and by one insurance company located in the United States. Under the terms of the Second Settlement Agreement, the participating insurers agreed to place a total of about US$102.2 million into a trust, with such amount to be paid over a four- year period commencing in January 2005 and ending in 2008. In exchange, the Company released the insurers from past, present and future claims under those policies, agreed to the cancellation of those policies, and agreed to indemnify the insurers from any claims asserted under those policies. Any funds remaining in the Second Trust after Dec. 31, 2008 may be used by the Company to defend and resolve both asbestos- related claims and non-asbestos related claims. As of March 31, 2007, about US$85.1 million of the US$102.2 million had been placed into the Second Trust, and the Second Trust had a balance of about US$25.4 million. Effective Oct. 13, 2004, the Company reached a confidential settlement agreement with the balance of its solvent excess insurers whereby a significant portion of the costs incurred by the Company with respect to future asbestos product liability claims will be reimbursed. As of March 31, 2007, defense costs and settlement payments for qualifying asbestos products claims of about US$87 million have been credited towards the range of US$330 million to US$370 million. Headquartered in Wilmington, Del., Hercules Inc. makes and markets specialty chemicals and related services for business, consumer, and industrial applications. The Company's principal products are chemicals, water-soluble polymers, and specialty resins. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has $41.3M from Reversion of Trust ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hercules Inc., in January 2007, received US$41.3 million of funds from the reversion of one of the trusts established in 2004 related to the settlement with asbestos claim insurers, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2007. During 2007, the Company projects reimbursements from the remaining trust to average US$31 million, which will be used to fund a substantial portion of the related estimated asbestos claims for the year. The Company also projects about US$9 million in defense costs and legal fees to be paid and incurred during the year. The combined cash impact of the trust liquidation and projected reimbursements from the remaining trust should result in a positive net cash inflow related to asbestos litigation matters during 2007. However, subsequent to 2007 and upon liquidation of the remaining trust, the Company will be required to fund its asbestos settlements and related defense costs and legal fees from its cash from operations and other available financial resources until its excess insurance policies are triggered based on cumulative asbestos-related expenditures. Headquartered in Wilmington, Del., Hercules Inc. makes and markets specialty chemicals and related services for business, consumer, and industrial applications. The Company's principal products are chemicals, water-soluble polymers, and specialty resins. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $1.392B Liabilities in 1Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federal-Mogul Corp.'s asbestos-related liabilities, as of March 31, 2007, amounted to US$1.392 billion, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2007. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$1.391 billion. As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded US$860.1 million asbestos-related insurance recoverable. (Class Action Reporter, April 27, 2007) Headquartered in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. makes components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. The Company's products include chassis and engine parts, pistons, and sealing systems sold under brand names like Federal-Mogul, Glyco, and Signal-Stat. The Company has manufacturing and distribution facilities in the Americas and Europe. The Company also distributes auto parts to aftermarket customers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Still Deals w/ Fel-Pro Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federal-Mogul Corp. still faces asbestos-related claims regarding its Fel-Pro subsidiary, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2007. Before Restructuring Proceedings, the Company was sued in its own name as a defendant in multiple lawsuits filed by claimants alleging injury from exposure to asbestos due to its ownership of certain assets involved in gasket making. As of its Oct. 1, 2001 Petition Date, the Company faced about 61,500 pre-petition pending claims. Over 40,000 of these claims were transferred to a federal court, where, before the Restructuring Proceedings, they were pending. Before the Restructuring Proceedings, the Company's Fel-Pro subsidiary also was named as a defendant in product liability cases involving asbestos, primarily involving gasket or packing products. Fel-Pro faced about 34,000 pending claims as of the Petition Date. Over 32,000 of these claims were transferred to a federal court, where, before the Restructuring Proceedings, they were pending. All claims alleging exposure to the products of the Company and of Fel-Pro have been stayed as a result of the Restructuring Proceedings. Headquartered in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. makes components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. The Company's products include chassis and engine parts, pistons, and sealing systems sold under brand names like Federal-Mogul, Glyco, and Signal-Stat. The Company has manufacturing and distribution facilities in the Americas and Europe. The Company also distributes auto parts to aftermarket customers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $701M Recoverable for T&N ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federal-Mogul Corp., as of March 31, 2007, recorded an asbestos- related insurance recoverable of US$701 million for it U.K. subsidiary, T&N Ltd., and two U.S. subsidiaries, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2007. As of March 31, 2007, the US$701 million insurance recoverable asset includes an exchange rate premium of about US$87 million. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded a US$699 million asbestos-related insurance recoverable for the T&N Companies. (Class Action Reporter, March 2, 2007). The T&N Companies face court actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos or asbestos- containing products. T&N Ltd. is also subject to asbestos-disease litigation, to a lesser extent, in the U.K. and France. As of the Company's Oct. 1, 2001 Petition Date, T&N Ltd. faced about 115,000 pending personal injury claims. The two U.S. subsidiaries faced about 199,000 pending personal injury claims. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2000, the Company increased its estimate of asbestos-related liability for the T&N Companies by US$751 million and recorded a related insurance recoverable asset of US$577 million. The liability, about US$1.2 billion as of March 31, 2007, represented the Company's estimate prior to the Restructuring Proceedings for claims currently pending and those that were reasonably estimated to be asserted and paid through 2012. T&N Ltd., f/k/a T&N plc, during the year ended Dec. 31, 1996, purchased for itself and its then defined global subsidiaries a GBP500 million layer of insurance which will be triggered should the aggregate costs of claims made or brought after June 30, 1996, where the exposure occurred prior to that date, exceed GBP690 million. The Company, during the year ended Dec. 31, 2000, concluded that the aggregate cost of the claims filed after June 30, 1996 would exceed the trigger point and recorded an insurance recoverable asset under the T&N policy of US$577 million. One of the three reinsurers, European International Reinsurance Company Ltd., in December 2001, filed suit in a London, England court to challenge the validity of its insurance contract with the T&N Companies. As a result of this suit, a claim was made against the broker (Sedgwick) that assisted in procuring this policy for breach of its duties as a broker. This trial commenced in October 2003. The parties were able to reach a settlement before the conclusion of the trial. As a result of this settlement, the Company recorded a US$38.9 million asbestos charge during 2003. Under the terms of the settlement, EIR would be liable for 65.5 percent of its one-third share of the reinsurance policy. By separate agreement, Sedgwick agreed to be liable for an extra 17.25 percent of the EIR share of the reinsurance policy. T&N Ltd. has also agreed to indemnify the insurer for sums paid under the policy for which the insurer is liable to T&N Ltd. for which the insurer has no recovery from the reinsurers or Sedgwick. A motion seeking the Bankruptcy Court's approval of the settlement was filed on March 1, 2004. After this motion, the other two reinsurers, Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG and Centre Reinsurance International Co., a subsidiary of the Zurich Financial Services Group, notified the Company of their belief that the settlements with EIR and Sedgwick may breach one or more provisions of the reinsurance agreement. The parties were unable to resolve the issues raised by the two reinsurers and this prompted the U.K. Administrators to file an action in the High Court seeking a declaration that the settlements with EIR and Sedgwick do not breach provisions of the reinsurance agreement. A hearing was conducted during July 2005 and judgment was handed down on Dec. 21, 2005. The High Court held that the settlements did not breach the reinsurance agreement. Munich Re and CRIC have not appealed the judgment. As a result, the motion seeking the Bankruptcy Court's approval was renoticed and the Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement in November 2006. The Company has reviewed the financial viability and legal obligations of the three reinsurance companies involved and has concluded that there is little risk that the reinsurers will not be able to meet their obligations under the policy based upon their financial condition. The U.S. claims costs applied against this policy are converted at a fixed exchange rate of US$1.69/GBP. Headquartered in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. makes components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. The Company's products include chassis and engine parts, pistons, and sealing systems sold under brand names like Federal-Mogul, Glyco, and Signal-Stat. The Company has manufacturing and distribution facilities in the Americas and Europe. The Company also distributes auto parts to aftermarket customers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abex & Wagner Liability Remains at $213.6M ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federal-Mogul Corp.'s asbestos-related liability for its Abex and Wagner businesses, as of March 31, 2007, amounted to US$213.6 million, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2007. The liability, comprised of US$129.5 million in Abex liabilities and US$84.1 million in Wagner liabilities, represented the Company's estimate prior to the Restructuring Proceedings for claims currently pending and those which were reasonably estimated to be asserted and paid through 2012. Two Company businesses formerly owned by Cooper Industries LLC, historically known as Abex and Wagner, face court actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. These claims mainly involve vehicle safety and performance products. As of the Company's Oct. 1, 2001 Petition Date, Abex had about 66,000 pending claims and Wagner had about 33,000 pending claims. The liability of the Company with respect to claims alleging exposure to Wagner products arises from the 1998 stock purchase from Cooper of the corporate successor by merger to Wagner Electric Co. The purchased entity is now a wholly owned Company unit and a Debtor in the Restructuring Proceedings. The liability of the Company with respect to claims alleging exposure to Abex products arises from a contractual liability entered into in 1994 by the predecessor to the Company whose stock the Company purchased in 1998. Under that contract and before the Restructuring Proceedings, the Company, through the relevant subsidiary, was liable for certain indemnity and defense payments incurred on behalf of an entity known as Pneumo Abex Corp., the successor in interest to Abex Corp. Effective as of the Petition Date, the Company has ceased making such payments and is currently considering whether to accept or reject the 1994 contractual liability. As of the Petition Date, pending asbestos litigation of Abex, as to the Company, and Wagner is stayed, and no party may take action to pursue or collect on those asbestos claims absent specific authorization of the Bankruptcy Court. The Abex insurance recoverable was US$111.9 million as of March 31, 2007. Wagner also maintained product liability insurance coverage for some of the time that it manufactured products that contained asbestos. This coverage is shared with other third-party companies. The Wagner insurance recoverable was US$47.6 million as of March 31, 2007. Headquartered in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corp. makes components for cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. The Company's products include chassis and engine parts, pistons, and sealing systems sold under brand names like Federal-Mogul, Glyco, and Signal-Stat. The Company has manufacturing and distribution facilities in the Americas and Europe. The Company also distributes auto parts to aftermarket customers. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial for Sempra Cleanup Case Set for June ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sempra Energy says that a trial in an asbestos-related cleanup matter filed against it, subsidiary San Diego Gas & Electric Co., and two employees is scheduled for June 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2007. The County of San Diego filed and then withdrew litigation against the Company and SDG&E that sought unspecified civil penalties for alleged violations of environmental standards applicable to the abatement, handling and disposal of asbestos- containing materials during the 2001 dismantlement of a natural gas storage facility. In November 2006, a federal court dismissed all charges against SDG&E and two employees in a federal criminal indictment charging them with having violated these standards and for related charges of conspiracy and having made false statements to governmental authorities. On Feb. 12, 2007, the court granted the federal government's motion for reconsideration with respect to the false statement count. On Feb. 27, 2007, the San Diego U.S. Attorney's Office re- indicted the previously dismissed case against SDG&E, its employees and contractors. Headquartered in San Diego, Sempra Energy distributes natural gas to some 5.6 million customers and electricity to 1.4 million customers through its Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) utilities. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Cytec Ind. Drop to 8,500 in 1Q07 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cytec Industries Inc., for the three months ended March 31, 2007, recorded 8,500 claimants in asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2007. The significant decline in the number of claimants in 2006 reflects disposition of a large number of unwarranted filings in Mississippi made immediately prior to the institution of tort reform legislation in that state effective Jan. 1, 2003. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had 8,600 claimants in asbestos-related lawsuits, compared with 22,200 claimants for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, April 13, 2007) At March 31, 2007, the Company's asbestos-related liability amounted to US$54.3 million, compared with US$54.6 million at Dec. 31, 2006. At March 31, 2007, the Company's asbestos-related insurance receivable amounted to US$38.2 million, compared with US$38.1 million at Dec. 31, 2006. Headquartered in West Paterson, N.J., Cytec Industries Inc. produces the building-block chemicals from which it makes engineered materials, specialty chemicals, and additives used in treating water and in industrial processes. The Company also sells its building-block chemicals -- acrylonitrile, melamine, and sulfuric acid -- to third parties. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Records 1,178 Cases in 1Q07 ---------------------------------------------------------------- CH Energy Group Inc., as of March 31, 2007, recorded 1,178 pending asbestos-related cases filed against subsidiary Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2007. Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,975 have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 150 cases. Central Hudson is unable to assess the validity of the remaining asbestos lawsuits. Accordingly, it cannot determine the ultimate liability relating to these cases. Central Hudson, as of Jan. 15, 2007, faced 1,165 pending asbestos-related cases filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 16, 2007) Headquartered in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., CH Energy Group Inc., through subsidiary Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., provides electricity to 367,000 customers in eight counties of New York State's Mid-Hudson River Valley, and delivers natural gas and electricity in a 2,600-square-mile service territory that extends from New York City to Albany. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants Seek Review of Cleco Corp. Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Asbestos claimants, on April 19, 2007, filed a request for review of an appeals court decision over the dismissal of two asbestos lawsuits against Cleco Corp., according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2007. The Company has been named as a defendant by individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos while working at sites in central Louisiana. Most of the claimants were workers who participated in the construction of various generation facilities, and some of the claimants had worked at Company- owned locations. With two exceptions, all filed, asbestos-related suits have been settled. The trial court dismissed the two remaining suits. However, the claimants appealed the trial court's dismissal. On March 21, 2007, the appeals court affirmed the trial court's dismissal. On April 19, 2007, the claimants filed the review with the Louisiana Supreme Court. Based in Pineville, La., Cleco Corp., through Cleco Power LLC, generates, transmits, and distributes electricity to 268,000 residential and business customers in 104 communities in Louisiana. Cleco Power has a generating capacity of more than 1,350 MW from its interests in fossil-fueled power plants. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Reserves $3.926B for Claims in 1Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies Inc.'s net asbestos-related reserves, at and for the three months ended March 31, 2007, amounted to US$3.926 billion, compared with US$4.280 billion at and for the three months ended March 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2007. Effective Feb. 26, 2007, The St. Paul Travelers Companies Inc. amended its articles of incorporation to change its name to The Travelers Companies Inc. and amended its bylaws to reflect the name change. St. Paul Travelers Companies Inc., at and for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, recorded a net of US$4.051 billion asbestos- related reserves, compared with a net of US$4.364 billion at and for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, March 9, 2007) Net asbestos losses and expenses paid in the first three months of 2007 were US$125 million, compared with US$84 million in the same period of 2006. The increase in paid losses in the 2007-1st quarter was primarily the result of installment payments on settlements reached in prior years. As a result, about 63 percent of total net paid losses in the first three months of 2007, 44 percent in the first three months of 2006, related to policyholders with whom the Company has entered into settlement agreements limiting the Company's liability. Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., The Travelers Companies Inc., offers personal insurance and commercial property-casualty insurance. The Company provides commercial auto, property, workers' compensation, marine, and general and financial liability coverage to companies in North America and the U.K. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Chicago Bridge Increase to 1,942 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., as of March 31, 2007, recorded about 1,942 pending asbestos-related claims filed against it, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2007. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company faced 1,918 pending asbestos- related claims filed against it, compared with 1,934 claims as of Sept. 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, March 16, 2007) As of March 31, 2007, the Company has been named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,574 plaintiffs, and of those claims, about 2,632 have been closed through dismissals or settlements. The Company faces lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work it may have performed at various locations. The Company has never made, distributed, or supplied asbestos products. As of March 31, 2007, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount per claim of about US$1,000. With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, the Company cannot identify a population of potential claimants with sufficient certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of liability, if any. At March 31, 2007, the Company had accrued US900,000 for liability and related expenses. Headquartered in Hoofddorp, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. is an engineering, procurement, and construction company, specializing in projects for customers that produce, process, store and distribute the world's natural resources. The Company operates in more than 60 locations and with about 12,000 employees. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Liability Remains at $18.7M in 1Q07 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corp.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities, as of April 1, 2007, amounted to US$18,694,000, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2007. As of April 1, 2007, the Company's current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$4,244,000, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006. As of April 1, 2007, the Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance receivables amounted to US$18,503,000, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006. As of April 1, 2007, the Company's current asbestos-related insurance receivables amounted to US$4,244,000, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006. Headquartered in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corp. develops and makes high-performance specialty materials, which serve a diverse range of markets including: portable communication devices, communication infrastructure, consumer products, computer and office equipment, ground transportation, and aerospace and defense. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Reserves $37.18M for Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Navigators Group Inc., for the three months ended March 31, 2007, had US$37,178,000 as gross loss and loss adjustment expenses reserves for its asbestos exposures, compared with US$37,171,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 3007. For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company had US$21,635,000 as net loss and LAE reserves for its asbestos exposures, compared with US$21,381,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company's exposure to asbestos liability stems from marine liability insurance written on an occurrence basis during the mid-1980s. The reserves for asbestos exposures at March 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006 are for: -- The 2005-4th quarter settlements of two large claims aggregating about US$28 million for excess insurance policy limits exposed to class action suits against two insureds involved in the manufacturing or distribution of asbestos products, each settlement is being paid over a two year period that started in 2006; -- The 2004 settlement of a large claim about US$25 million exposed to a class action suit which settlement is being paid over a seven year period that started in June 2005; -- Other insureds not directly involved in the manufacturing or distribution of asbestos products, but that have more than incidental asbestos exposure for their purchase or use of products that contained asbestos; and -- Attritional asbestos claims that could be expected to occur over time. At March 31, 2007, ceded asbestos paid and unpaid losses recoverable were US$21.2 million of which US$11.4 million were due from Equitas and US$1.6 million were due from Ace International. In November 2006, the Company filed arbitration demands against Equitas and Ace International for paid losses recoverable on settled asbestos claims. The average ceded paid and unpaid recoverable amounts relating to those arbitrations are US$2.7 million for Equitas and US$1.6 million for Ace International. Headquartered in New York, The Navigators Group Inc.'s subsidiaries write marine, liability, and other lines of business. Navigators Insurance and Navigators Corporate Underwriters write ocean and marine insurance. The Navigators Agencies are involved in professional liability, especially directors and officers coverage. Navigators Specialty provides general liability for contractors. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Continue to Face 6,000 Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- CIRCOR International Inc. continues to be named as a defendant in product liability actions brought on behalf of individuals who seek compensation for their alleged exposure to airborne asbestos fibers. In particular, Company subsidiaries, Leslie, Spence, and Hoke, collectively have been named as defendants or third-party defendants in open asbestos related cases brought on behalf of about 6,000 claimants. In some instances, the Company also has been named individually and as successor in interest to one or more of these units. These cases have anywhere from 25 to 400 defendants and seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages against all defendants in the aggregate. However, the complaints filed on behalf of claimants who do seek specified compensatory and punitive damages seek millions or tens of millions of dollars in damages against the aggregate of defendants. Of about 6,000 plaintiffs whose claims remain open, all but about 900 have brought their claims in Mississippi. Over the past two years, the Mississippi the courts have rendered decisions and the state legislature has passed legislation aimed at curbing certain abusive practices by plaintiff attorneys under which large numbers of unrelated plaintiffs would be grouped in the same case against hundreds of defendants. As a result of these changes, many of these "mass filings" have been dismissed and the number of Mississippi claimants against Company subsidiaries is now about 5,200 whereas it previously had been as high as 21,000. The remaining claims have been brought in the state courts of about 25 different states with California, Texas, New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut having the most significant percentage of the claims. Any components containing asbestos formerly used in Leslie, Spence and Hoke products were entirely internal to the product and, the Company said it believes, would not give rise to ambient asbestos dust during normal operation or during normal inspection and repair procedures. To date, the Company's insurers have been paying most of the costs associated with the defense and settlement of these actions, particular with respect to Spence and Hoke for which insurance has paid all defense and settlement costs to date. With regard to Leslie, the Company's current cost sharing understanding with Leslie's insurers results in Leslie being responsible for 29 percent of its defense and settlement costs. Based in Burlington, Mass., CIRCOR International Inc. makes instrumentation and fluid regulation products, including precision valves, tube and pipe fittings, and regulators for hydraulic, pneumatic, cryogenic, and steam systems. The Company sells its products, through about 1,900 distributors, to more than 11,000 aerospace, energy, chemical, pharmaceutical, and industrial customers in nearly 100 countries worldwide. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Faces 490 Cases W/ 7,000 Plaintiffs ---------------------------------------------------------------- NL Industries Inc. faces about 490 pending asbestos-related cases, involving a total of about 7,000 plaintiffs and their spouses, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2007. The Company faced about 500 pending asbestos-related cases, involving a total of about 10,400 plaintiffs and their spouses. (Class Action Reporter, March 30, 2007) The Company has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure to products made by former Company operations with asbestos, silica, or mixed dust. The claims of about 3,300 former plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed from Ohio State Courts. The Company does not expect these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for asbestos- related claims. At March 31, 2007, the Company has accrued US$2.4 million for recovery of lead pigment and asbestos litigation costs which was collected in April 2007. Headquartered in Dallas, NL Industries Inc., through minority owned subsidiary, Kronos Worlwide Inc., supplies titanium dioxide (TiO2), which maximizes the whiteness, opacity, and brightness of paints, plastics, paper, fibers, and ceramics. Valhi Inc. owns 83 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro's Liability Drops to $466.8M in 1Q07 ---------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liability, as of March 31, 2007, amounted to US$466.8 million, compared with US$479.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press release filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2007. As of March 31, 2007, the Company's current asbestos-related liability amounted to US$80.2 million, compared with US$88.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. As of March 31, 2007, the Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$376.4 million, compared with US$396.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. As of March 31, 2007, the Company's current asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$60.8 million, compared with US$71.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. New asbestos claims continue to be filed at historically low rates in 2007. In the 2007-1st quarter, 1,900 new claims were filed, a decline of about 35 percent, compared with the 2006- 1stt quarter, and a level consistent with the final three quarters of 2006. During the 2007-1st quarter, the Company recorded asbestos- related expenses of US$12.9 million, consisting of payments of US$6.1 million for legal fees and other expenses and a non-cash charge of US$6.8 million to update management's 10-year estimate of the asbestos liability of its subsidiaries. At the end of the 2007-1st quarter, the total recorded liability for current and future claims was US$547 million, while US$437.2 million of solvent insurance remained available for the payment of asbestos claims and expenses. Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., EnPro Industries Inc. produces sealing products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings, compressor systems, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other engineered products for use in critical applications by industries worldwide. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Pays $3M for Claims, Expenses in 1Q07 ---------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries Inc.'s payments for asbestos claims and expenses, net of insurance receipts, were US$3 million in the 2007-1st quarter, compared with US$21.4 million in the 2006-1st quarter, according to a Company press release filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2007. Net cash outflows declined because settlement payments and legal fees were lower while collections of insurance were higher because of receipts in connection with an insurance settlement reached in 2006. Net income in the 2007-1st quarter was US$12.3 million, or US$0.56 a share, a decline from 2006, when net income was US$14.8 million, or US$0.69 a share. However, net income in 2007 was reduced by asbestos-related expenses of US$12.9 million, before tax, compared with US$4.9 million, before tax, a year ago. Expenses increased in 2007 because the Company's asbestos insurance is now fully allocated to settled and estimated future claims. As a result, all legal expenses associated with asbestos as well as non-cash adjustments required to maintain a 10-year estimate of the asbestos liability are now recorded as charges to income. Before asbestos-related expenses and other selected items, income in the 2007-1st quarter was US$21 million, or US$0.95 a share, a 12 percent improvement over the 2006-1st quarter, when income was US$18.2 million, or US$0.85 a share. Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., EnPro Industries Inc. produces sealing products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings, compressor systems, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other engineered products for use in critical applications by industries worldwide. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Records $341M Losses in 1Q07 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crum & Forster Holdings Corp., for the three months ended March 31, 2007, recorded US$341,031,000 as net unpaid loss and allocated loss adjustment expenses, compared with US$367,183,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2007. For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded US$429,596,000 as gross unpaid losses and ALAE, compared with US$461,078,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2006. Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Crum & Forster Holdings Corp., through its subsidiaries, offers commercial property and casualty insurance distributed through an independent producer force located across the U.S. The Company is 100 percent owned by Fairfax Inc., which is owned by Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Records $159M for Liabilities in 1Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Co., as of March 31, 2007, recorded US$159 million for asbestos/respirator mask liabilities, compared with US$181 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2007. The Company's asbestos/respirator mask receivables, as of March 31, 2007, amounted to US$365 million, compared with US$380 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. As of March 31, 2007, the Company is a named co-defendant in lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent about 14,500 individual claimants, a decrease from about 40,200 individual claimants with actions pending at March 31, 2006. Most of the suits and claims resolved by and pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts found in products made by other defendants or generally in the workplace. The remaining claimants generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products made by the Company, which are often unspecified, and by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises. Many of the resolved suits and claims involved unimpaired claimants who were recruited by plaintiffs' lawyers through mass chest x-ray screenings. The Company experienced a significant decline in the number of claims filed in 2006 and through the 2007-1st quarter from prior years by apparently unimpaired claimants. Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Co. has six operating segments: display and graphics; health care; safety, security, and protection; electro and communications; industrial and transportation; and consumer and office. Brands include Scotchgard fabric protectors, Post-it Notes, Scotch-Brite scouring products, and Scotch tapes. Sales outside the U.S. account for about two-thirds of the Company's sales. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Accrues $194M for Claims in 1Q07 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings Inc.'s subsidiary Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., as of March 31, 2007, accrued US$194 million for pending and future asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2007. The accrual balance of US$194 million includes US$115 million for unasserted claims and US$6 million for committed settlements that will be paid over time. As of Dec. 31, 2006, Crown Cork accrued US$198 million for pending and future asbestos-related claims. (Class Action Reporter, April 13, 2007) During the three months ended March 31, 2007, Crown Cork received about 1,000 new claims, settled or dismissed about 1,000 claims for a total of US$2 million and had about 79,000 claims outstanding at the end of the period. Crown Cork faces lawsuits filed throughout the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These claims arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963. About 90 days after the stock purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork. Before 1998, the amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became self-insured. In April 2007, the State of Georgia enacted legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities under state law of companies like Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been involved with asbestos. The new legislation, which applies to future and, with the exception of Georgia and South Carolina, pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market value of the predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for inflation. Historically (1977-2006), Crown Cork estimates that about one- quarter of all asbestos-related claims made against it have been asserted by claimants who claim first exposure to asbestos after 1964. The Company seeks to reduce its asbestos-related costs through prudent case management. Asbestos-related payments were US$26 for the full year of 2006 and US$4 for the first three months of 2007. The Company expects to pay about US$25 for the full year of 2007. Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings Inc. produces consumer packaging. The Company's product portfolio includes aerosol cans and a wide variety of metal caps, crowns, and closures, as well as specialty packaging like decorative novelty containers and industrial paint cans. The Company also makes can making equipment and replacement parts. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Receives 1,635 New Claims in 1Q07 ---------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., during the three months ended March 31, 2007, received about 1,635 new asbestos-related claims, compared with 2,220 claims during the three months ended March 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2007. Metropolitan Life faces asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. The suits have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of Metropolitan Life's employees during the period from the 1920s through about the 1950s and allege that Metropolitan Life learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life have included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with asbestos. As reported in the 2006 Annual Report filed with the SEC, Metropolitan Life received about 7,870 asbestos-related claims in 2006. During 1998, Metropolitan Life paid US$878 million in premiums for excess insurance policies for asbestos-related claims. The excess insurance policies for asbestos-related claims provide for recovery of losses up to US$1.5 billion, which is in excess of a $400 million self-insured retention. The foregone loss reimbursements were about US$51.6 million with respect to claims for the period of 2002 through 2005 and about US$5.5 million with respect to 2006 claims and are estimated, as of March 31, 2007, to be about US$75.2 million in the aggregate, including future years. Headquartered in New York, MetLife Inc. and its subsidiaries, including Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., provides insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. The Company offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products and services to corporations and other institutions. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper's Appeal Briefing to be Heard in '07 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Briefing of Cooper Industries LLC's appeal, over an asbestos- related insurance action filed against PepsiAmericas Inc. and other parties, is expected to take place during the first half of fiscal year 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2007. On May 31, 2005, Cooper filed and later served a lawsuit against the Company, Pneumo Abex LLC, and the Trustee of the Trust, captioned Cooper Industries LLC v. PepsiAmericas Inc., et al., Case No. 05 CH 09214 (Cook Cty. Cir. Ct.). In the 2002-2nd quarter, the Company bought insurance coverage related to sites owned and operated or impacted by Pneumo Abex and its units. The trust, which was established in 2000 with the proceeds from an insurance settlement, bought insurance coverage and funded coverage for remedial and other costs related to the sites owned and operated or impacted by Pneumo Abex and its units. Cooper asserts that it was entitled to access US$34 million that previously was in the Trust and that was used to purchase the insurance policy. Cooper claims that Trust funds should have been distributed for underlying Pneumo Abex asbestos claims indemnified by Cooper. Cooper complains that it was deprived of access to money in the Trust because of the Trustee's decision to use the Trust funds to purchase the insurance policy. Pneumo Abex, the corporate successor to the Company's prior subsidiary, has been dismissed from the suit. During the 2006-2nd quarter, the Trustee's motion to dismiss, in which the Company had joined, was granted and three counts against the Company based on the use of Trust funds were dismissed with prejudice, as were all counts against the Trustee, on the grounds that Cooper lacks standing to pursue these counts because it is not a beneficiary under the Trust. The Company then filed a separate motion to dismiss the remaining counts against it. The Company's motion was granted during the 2006-3rd quarter and all remaining counts against the Company were dismissed with prejudice. Cooper subsequently filed a notice of appeal with regard to all rulings by the court dismissing the counts against the Company and the Trustee. Headquartered in Minneapolis, PepsiAmericas Inc. operates as a Pepsi bottler. The Company also distributes Dr Pepper, Lipton Iced Teas, Welch's fruit drinks, Schweppes, Starbucks Frappuccino, and bottled water. The Company operates in 19 U.S. states and holds about 19 percent of the U.S. market for Pepsi products. PepsiCo Inc. owns about 44 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Action v. RJR Tobacco Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., continues to face a smoking-related asbestos lawsuit filed by Leonard Whiteley for his deceased wife, Leslie, in California court, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2007. On March 20, 2000, in Whiteley v. Raybestos-Manhattan Inc. (a case filed in April 1999, and pending in Superior Court, San Francisco County, Calif.), a jury awarded Mr. Whiteley US$1.72 million in compensatory damages and US$20 million in punitive damages. RJR Tobacco and Philip Morris Inc. were each assigned US$10 million of the punitive damages award. The defendants appealed the final judgment to the California Court of Appeals. On April 7, 2004, the court of appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. On April 28, 2006, Mr. Whiteley filed a consolidated amended complaint for survival/loss of consortium/wrongful death. Mr. Whiteley alleged that use of the defendants' products, along with exposure to asbestos, caused Mrs. Whiteley to develop lung cancer and ultimately die. With the filing of the consolidated complaint, the case name became Whiteley v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Jury selection began on Jan. 22, 2007. Opening statements occurred on Feb. 26, 2007. On May 2, 2007, the jury awarded Mr. Whiteley US$2.46 million in compensatory damages jointly against RJR Tobacco and Philip Morris. The jury also found that Mr. Whiteley is potentially entitled to punitive damages against RJR Tobacco. According to the SEC filing dated May 4, 2007, the jury will return on May 7, 2007, to hear argument and consider the amount of punitive damages to be awarded, if any. As of the date of this filing, no final judgment has been entered in this case. Headquartered in Winston-Salem, N.C., Reynolds American Inc. was created to combine the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of Brown & Williamson Holdings Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of British American Tobacco p.l.c., with R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc. (RJR). RJR is now a Company subsidiary. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT Corp. Engages in Calif., N.Y. Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Corp. is involved in two asbestos-related actions: Cannon Electric Inc. et al. v. Ace Property & Casualty Co. et al. Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, CA., Case No. BC 290354, and Pacific Employers Insurance Co. et al., v. ITT Industries Inc., et al., Supreme Court, County of New York, N.Y., Case No. 03600463. The parties in both cases are seeking an appropriate allocation of responsibility for the Company's historic asbestos liability exposure among its insurers. The California action is filed in the same venue where the Company's environmental insurance recovery litigation has been pending since 1991. The New York action has been stayed in favor of the California suit. ITT and ACE and Nationwide Indemnity have successfully resolved the matter and the Company is working with other parties in the suit to resolve the matter as to those insurers. In addition, Utica National and Company subsidiary Goulds Pumps Inc. have negotiated a coverage-in-place agreement to allocate the Goulds' asbestos liabilities between insurance policies issued by Utica and those issued by others. The terms of the settlement will provide the Company with substantial coverage from Utica for asbestos liabilities. The Company will continue to seek coverage from its other insurers for these liabilities. The Company and Goulds have been joined as defendants with numerous other industrial companies in product liability suits alleging injury due to asbestos. These claims stem from products sold before 1985 that contained a part made by a third party, e.g., a gasket, which allegedly contained asbestos. The asbestos was encapsulated in the gasket or other material and was non-friable. In certain other cases, it is alleged that former ITT companies were distributors for other manufacturers' products that may have contained asbestos. Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate any injury or do not identify any ITT or Goulds product as a source of asbestos exposure. During 2006, the Company and Goulds resolved about 8,200 claims, 16,000 in 2005, and 4,200 in 2004. Nearly all of these claims were dismissed, with settlement on a small percentage of claims. The average amount of settlement per plaintiff has been nominal and substantially all defense and settlement costs have been covered by insurance. Headquartered in White Plains, N.Y., ITT Corp. has three segments: defense electronics, fluid technology, and motion and flow control. The Company also provides repair and maintenance services for the products it makes. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Receives $23M for Claims in 1Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- Halliburton Co., in the 2007-1st quarter, received about US$23 million cash for asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2007. Several Company subsidiaries, particularly DII Industries and Kellogg Brown & Root, had been named as defendants in asbestos- and silica-related lawsuits. Effective Dec. 31, 2004, the Company resolved all open and future claims in the prepackaged Chapter 11 proceedings of DII Industries, Kellogg Brown & Root, and the Company's other affected subsidiaries, which were filed on Dec. 16, 2003, when the plan of reorganization became final and nonappealable. During 2004, the Company settled insurance disputes with substantially all the insurance companies for asbestos- and silica-related claims and all other claims under the applicable insurance policies and terminated all the applicable insurance policies. Under the terms of its insurance settlements, the Company would receive cash proceeds with a nominal amount of about US$1.5 billion and with a then present value of about US$1.4 billion for the Company's asbestos- and silica-related insurance receivables. Under the terms of the settlement agreements, the Company will receive cash payments of the remaining amounts, totaling US$238 million at March 31, 2007, or US$218 million on a present value basis, in several installments through 2010. Of the $218 million recorded at March 31, 2007, US$39 million was classified as current. Under the insurance settlements entered into as part of the resolution of its Chapter 11 proceedings, the Company has agreed to indemnify its insurers under certain historic general liability insurance policies in certain situations. At March 31, 2007, the Company has not recorded any liability associated with these indemnifications. Headquartered in Houston, Halliburton Co.'s Energy Services Group provides production optimization, drilling evaluation, fluid services, and oilfield drilling software and consulting. The Company works in oilfields from the North Sea to the Middle East as well as in Southeast Asia and Africa. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quaker Chem. Receives $5M for Claims in 2Q ---------------------------------------------------------------- Quaker Chemical Corp., early in the 2007-2nd quarter, received US$5 million, as initial settlement for asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2007. An inactive Company subsidiary acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos, and is a defendant in lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other than the proceeds from insurance settlements received in 2005 and in the 2007-2nd quarter. To date, most of these claims have been disposed of without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against the subsidiary. It is projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for these claims is about US$12.7 million, excluding costs of defense. Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in certain of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued against the Company, and the Company has not contributed to the defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary. These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the aggregate limits of the policies. An insurer that is now insolvent provided a significant portion of this primary insurance coverage, and the other primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary has challenged the applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response to this challenge, two of these carriers entered into separate settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in late 2005 for US$15 million and in the 2007-1st quarter for US$20 million. The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement are structured to be received over a four-year period with annual installments of US$5,000,000, the first of which was received early in the 2007-2nd quarter. Headquartered in Conshohocken, Pa., Quaker Chemical Corp. develops, produces, and markets chemical specialty products and a provides chemical management services for various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications around the globe, with significant sales to the steel and automotive industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. CBS Corp. Drop to 72,510 in 1Q07 ---------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Corp.'s pending asbestos-related claims, as of March 31, 2007, dropped to about 72,510, from about 73,310 as of Dec. 31, 2006 and about 98,300 as of March 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2007. The Company faces lawsuits claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred from exposure caused by various products made by Westinghouse, a predecessor, before the 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is named as one of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases. In most asbestos suits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos- containing insulating material in turbines sold for power- generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial ships. Of the claims pending as of March 31, 2007, about 48,690 were pending in state courts, 21,150 in federal courts and, additionally, about 2,670 were third party claims pending in state courts. During the 2007-1st quarter, the Company received about 1,450 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket about 2,250 claims. The Company's total costs for 2006 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were about US$5.7 million, compared with US$37.2 million in 2005. Headquartered in N.Y., CBS Corp. is comprised of the following segments: Television (CBS Television, comprised of the CBS Network, television stations and its television production and syndication operations; Showtime Networks; and CSTV Networks), Radio (CBS Radio), Outdoor (CBS Outdoor) and Publishing (Simon & Schuster). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Has 158 Pending Claims in 1Q07 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corp., as of April 1, 2007, recorded about 158 pending asbestos-related claims filed against, compared with 148 pending claims at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2007. The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi. The Company did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos. Rather, the Company made some limited products, which had asbestos. Those products were provided to industrial users. The Company stopped making these products in 1987. Cases involving the Company typically name 50-300 defendants, although some cases have had as few as one and as many as 833 defendants. The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these claims. In the 2007-1st quarter, the Company was able to have about nine claims dismissed and settled three claims. For the full year 2006, about 77 claims were dismissed and 16 were settled. The Company's insurance carriers have paid most of the costs, including the costs associated with the small number of cases that have been settled. Those settlements totaled about US$300,000 in the 2007-1st quarter and US$5.1 million in all of 2006. To date, the Company's primary insurance carriers have provided for substantially all of the settlement and defense costs associated with its asbestos-related claims. However, as claims continued, the Company and its primary insurance carriers determined that it would be appropriate to enter into a cost sharing agreement to clearly define the cost sharing relationship among such carriers and the Company. A definitive cost sharing agreement was finalized on Sept. 28, 2006. Under the definitive agreement, the primary insurance carriers will continue to pay essentially all resolution and defense costs associated with these claims until the coverage is exhausted. Headquartered in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corp. develops and makes high-performance specialty materials, which serve a diverse range of markets including: portable communication devices, communication infrastructure, consumer products, computer and office equipment, ground transportation, and aerospace and defense. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden CDT Notes 33 Cases for Trial in 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Belden CDT Inc. says that it is a party to asbestos-related personal injury cases, 33 of which are set for trial in 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2007. At April 30, 2007, the Company was aware of about 152 cases. The Company recorded 24 asbestos-related personal injury suits set for trial during 2007. (Class Action Reporter, March 16, 2007) The Company faces legal proceedings and administrative actions that are incidental to its operations in which the claimant alleges injury from exposure to heat-resistant asbestos fiber, generally contained in a small number of products made by the Company's predecessors. Electricians have filed most of these cases, primarily in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory, special and punitive damages. Through April 30, 2007, the Company has been dismissed, or reached agreement to be dismissed, in about 187 similar cases without any going to trial, and with only 12 of these involving any payment to the claimant. The Company has insurance that it says it believes should cover a significant portion of any defense or settlement costs borne by the Company in these types of cases. Headquartered in St. Louis, Belden CDT Inc. makes cable and wire products for use in the broadcasting, computer, entertainment, security, instrumentation, and networking industries. Company products include fiber optic, coaxial, and multi-conductor cables, as well as lead and hookup wire and connectivity and management products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Worldwide Incurs $1M Unindemnified Cost ---------------------------------------------------------------- M&F Worldwide Corp., as of March 31, 2007, incurred or expected to incur about US$1 million of unindemnified asbestos-related costs, as to which it either has received or expects to receive about US$800,000 in insurance reimbursements. The Company is indemnified by third parties with respect to certain of its contingent liabilities, like certain asbestos and environmental matters. In 1995, the Company, two subsidiaries, and a subsidiary of Mafco Consolidated Group Inc. entered into a transfer agreement. Under the Transfer Agreement, Pneumo Abex Corp., then a Company subsidiary, retained the assets and liabilities relating to the Company's former Abex NWL Aerospace Division, as well as certain contingent liabilities and the related assets, including its historical insurance and indemnification arrangements. Pneumo Abex transferred substantially all of its other assets and liabilities to an MCG subsidiary. The Transfer Agreement requires the MCG subsidiary to undertake certain administrative and funding obligations with respect to certain categories of asbestos-related claims and other liabilities, including environmental claims, retained by Pneumo Abex. Before 1988, a former Pneumo Abex subsidiary made certain asbestos-containing friction products. Pneumo Abex has been named, typically along with 10 to as many as 100 or more other companies, as a defendant in various personal injury suits claiming damages relating to exposure to asbestos. Under indemnification agreements, PepsiAmericas Inc. has ultimate responsibility for all the remaining asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through August 1998 and for certain asbestos-related claims asserted. In connection with the sale by Pneumo Abex in December 1994 of its Friction Products Division, a subsidiary of Cooper Industries Inc., now Cooper Industries LLC, assumed responsibility for substantially all asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after August 1998 and not indemnified by the PepsiAmericas. Federal-Mogul Corp. purchased the Cooper subsidiary in October 1998. In October 2001, the Cooper subsidiary filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and stopped performing its indemnity obligations to the Company. Performance of the Cooper subsidiary's indemnity obligation is guaranteed by Cooper Industries. Since the bankruptcy filing of the Cooper subsidiary, Cooper Industries has been fulfilling the Cooper subsidiary's indemnity obligations to the extent that they are no longer being performed by the Cooper subsidiary. In November 2006, the Company entered into a series of agreements with the Cooper subsidiary, Cooper Industries and others that proposed a settlement of the Company's claims against the Cooper subsidiary relating to its indemnity as part of the bankruptcy reorganization of the Cooper subsidiary. Pneumo Abex's former subsidiary maintained product liability insurance covering substantially all of the period during which asbestos-containing products were manufactured. The subsidiary commenced litigation in 1982 against a portion of these insurers in order to confirm the availability of this coverage. As a result of settlements in that litigation, other coverage agreements with other carriers and payments by PepsiAmericas, the Cooper subsidiary and Cooper Industries under their indemnities, Pneumo Abex is receiving reimbursement each month for substantially all of its monthly expenditures for asbestos- related claims. Headquartered in New York, M&F Worldwide Corp.'s Mafco Worldwide flavorings firm makes licorice extract. The Company's primary flavoring brand is Magnasweet, but the Company also sells Right Dress, gardening mulch that is a byproduct of processing licorice root. The Company has expanded into the security printing business through its acquisition of Clarke American Checks from Honeywell. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Action Filed v. 69 Companies in W.Va. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Morris, through Pittsburgh attorney David Chervenick, sued 69 companies in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed on behalf of Sandra Ellen Phares, on April 20, 2007 in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Ms. Morris is the administratix of Ms. Phares' estate. The suit claims Ms. Phares was made ill by asbestos-containing dust her father brought home from work with him. Ms. Phares is the daughter of Richard Phares, who worked at Union Carbide Corp. in Institute, W.Va., South Charleston, W.Va., and Marietta, Ohio. The suit claims Ms. Phares was exposed to asbestos dust by being in the same household as her father, riding in the family vehicles, and being involved with the laundry. She then contracted asbestosis and mesothelioma. In the 14-count action, Ms. Morris claims Ms. Phares died from her lung diseases. The suit says the companies were all negligent in some way by producing, manufacturing, selling or using asbestos-related products. Ms. Morris seeks compensation for the damages Ms. Phares suffered. Kanawha Circuit Court case number 07-C-786 will be assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Contractor Fined for CAA Violations in Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Hale, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., was convicted and sentenced on May 7, 2007 over criminal violations of the Clean Air Act asbestos regulations resulting from the 2006 planned renovation of the Highland House West apartment complex in Wilton Manors, Fla., into condominiums, LawFuel.com reports. R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Ricky Langlois, Special Agent in Charge, Environmental Protection Agency, Criminal Investigation Division, Miami Field Office, and Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne, announced the ruling. Mr. Hale pleaded guilty and was sentenced before U.S. District Court Judge William P. Dimitrouleas, in Fort Lauderdale, for failing to provide notification required by the CAA Work Practice Standards, regarding his intention to engage in renovation and other activities, prior to removal of regulated asbestos containing material. Mr. Hale, at the time was co-manager and a 50 percent ownership participant in Rockland Properties LLC, which purchased the Highland House West for re-development. The federal CAA regulates the emission of hazardous air pollutants, including asbestos. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants include work practice standards that are binding on all persons engaged in demolition and renovation work who own, lease, operate, control, or supervise demolition or renovation operations at facilities with a requisite amount of asbestos present. The detailed work practices are designed to limit risks to human health and the environment associated with asbestos by detailing acceptable removal and disposal procedures, as well as mandating special training for workers conducting the removal, and the use of protective gear and air quality monitoring systems during the process. According to court records, Rockland Properties acquired the Highland House West project in July 2005 with the intention of redeveloping the 14-unit building into condominiums. A similar project, in an adjacent 24-unit building, had been initiated by Rockland in February 2002. Asbestos was discovered in "popcorn" ceiling material in the 24- unit building in about March 2005, and Mr. Hale actually paid for the removal of the asbestos containing material. A Phase I Environmental Assessment was conducted on the Highland House West units in July 2005, but was inadequate to satisfy the CAA requirement for a thorough asbestos survey. In fact, 12 units were later found by the Broward County Environmental Protection Department Asbestos Coordinator to have regulated asbestos containing material in the popcorn surface of their ceilings. Mr. Hale hired painters to scrape the material from the ceilings as part of the renovation project, with some of the material being improperly placed in open dumpsters on-site. Judge Dimitrouleas sentenced Mr. Hale to a one year term of probation and ordered him to pay a US$50,000 criminal fine. In addition, Mr. Hale must complete a training program in the proper identification and handling of solid and hazardous substances and wastes, including asbestos, within 90 days of his sentencing. Mr. Acosta commended the investigative efforts of the EPA and the Broward County Sheriff's Office. Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Jodi A. Mazer prosecuted the case. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Assigns Experts to Israel for Training ---------------------------------------------------------------- A team of asbestos experts coordinated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has returned from an asbestos mission in Israel, according to an EPA press release dated May 8, 2007. EPA risk expert Chuck Nace and asbestos inspector David Eppler traveled to Tel Aviv to conduct a workshop for the Ministry of the Environment, U.S. State Department, and local non- governmental organizations in Israel. The goal of the visit and workshop was to help the Israeli government address severe asbestos contamination in certain areas of the country. Regional Administrator Alan J. Steinberg said, "This trip was an opportunity for the EPA to use its technical knowledge and experience to help Israel avoid environmental problems that could potentially harm local residents. This mission gave our experts the opportunity to learn from and share with our Israeli colleagues." To better understand Israel's asbestos problems, Mr. Nace and Mr. Eppler first traveled to Nahariyya, a town in northern Israel close to the Lebanese border. Nahariyya is home to a former cement manufacturing plant that operated between 1952 and 1997. The plant produced cement products that contained asbestos, and these products were then used as construction materials throughout Israel, and waste products were used as fill material in the surrounding community. After returning from Nahariyya, the EPA experts gave a two-day technical asbestos workshop attended by Israeli governmental and non-governmental environmental professionals covering a variety of important topics. During the workshop, EPA gave an overview of the U.S. government's asbestos responsibilities; survey and sampling methods for asbestos in soil, air, and solid materials; and discussed the U.S.'s asbestos response in Libby, Mont., including how the U.S. government determined the need for cleanup, set cleanup goals, addressed asbestos within buildings, and involved the affected community. As a result of the EPA visit, EPA and the Israeli government have agreed to on-going collaboration. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Smoker's Wife Sues 43 Firms in Texas Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Louis Delafosse's widow, Lula Delafosse, sued A.O. Smith Corp. and 42 other major corporations, for distributing products with asbestos throughout Jefferson County, on May 2, 2007 in the Jefferson County District Court, The Southeast Texas Record reports. This is the fifth case of its kind in the last two months. Attorney Bryan Blevins of Provost Umphrey will represent Mrs. Delafosse. Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd Judicial District, will preside over the case. The suit names corporations from aerospace giant Lockheed Martin Corp. to iron supplier Zurn Industries Inc. for manufacturing and distributing asbestos laced products. The suit stated that Mr. Delafosse, a lung cancer patient, was about 87 years of age when he passed away. Medical records attached to the suit state Mr. Delafosse, a World War II veteran, had significant occupational exposure to asbestos, probably while working at John Dallinger Steel Inc. from 1941 to 1942 and 1955 to 1983. The document also says Mr. Delafosse was an avid cigar smoker. The petition says the 43 defendants entangled in Mr. Delafosse's suit were negligent, failing to adequately test their asbestos- laced products before flooding the market with dangerous goods. In addition, the petition faults Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Corp. (3M Corp.) and American Optical Corp. for producing defective masks that failed to "provide respiratory protection." Mrs. Delafosse sues for physical pain and suffering in the past and future, mental anguish in the past and future, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, disfigurement in the past and future, physical impairment in the past and future, and past and future medical expenses. Case No. E179-226 does not state why Mr. Delafosse did not sue while he was alive. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Manuals Can Be Used in Trials, Judge Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------- N.Y. Supreme Court Justice Karen S. Smith, on March 5, 2007, ruled that training manuals from Ford Co., and other companies, can be submitted at trial as admissions of Ford that its asbestos-containing brakes are hazardous and can cause cancer, according to a Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP press release dated May 7, 2007. This ruling was handed down in case #05/115887 CARLOS CEPEDA v. AC&S INC., et al., filed at the Supreme Court in New York County, a case involving some complex asbestos litigation filed in New York City by Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP. The Ford training manuals' references to the asbestos hazards contradict Ford's litigation position that asbestos-containing brakes are safe. Before the ruling was issued, Ford argued the its training manuals should not be admitted into evidence at trial because the warnings, with regard to the dangers of asbestoses containing brakes and asbestos-containing brake parts, were involuntarily included solely to meet the requirements of the Occupation Safety and Health Administration. Justice Smith rejected this argument in light of the fact that Ford disseminated its training materials to the public at large, whereas the OSHA requirements were only applicable to the employer-employee setting. Furthermore, Justice Smith observed that the warnings contained in Ford's training manuals, in many respects, exceeded the relevant OSHA requirements. Justice Smith also noted that nowhere in Ford's training materials does it state that its warning about asbestos- containing brake parts have been given solely for the purposes of complying with government regulations. The training materials at issue are part of Ford's nationwide training program for independent Ford dealership employees, vocational instructors, and automotive students. Ford offers its training materials to these groups as well as the public at large through the sale of publications, videos, and web-based training. In these materials, whenever Ford addresses asbestos in brakes, it warns of the asbestos hazards to health and often warns that asbestos from brakes can cause diseases including cancer. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrician's Kin Settles $2.3M W/ 6 Firms ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Baron & Budd P.C. announces a US$2.3 million settlement reached with six defendants on behalf of the family of electrician Charlie Piazza who died from workplace exposure to asbestos, according to Baron & Budd press release dated May 4, 2007. The settlement was reached on April 27, 2007, one day before opening statements in Judge Charlotte Woodlard's San Francisco Superior Court. Mr. Piazza was exposed to asbestos products made by Houston- based Union Carbide Corp.; Atlanta-based Georgia-Pacific Corp.; San Carlos, Calif.- based Kelly-Moore Paint Co. Inc.; Orange, Calif.-based Hamilton Materials Inc.; Oakland, Calif.-based Kaiser Gypsum Co. Inc.; and Valley Forge, Penn.-based CertainTeed Corp. The settlement for the family of Mr. Piazza of Santa Clara, Calif., was negotiated by attorney Eric Brown from Baron & Budd's Beverly Hills office, Patrick DeBlase, a partner in Beverly Hills' Kiesel, Boucher & Larson LLP, and Anthony Vieira of Los Angeles' Law Offices of Anthony E. Vieira. Mr. Piazza followed his father's footsteps by working as an electrician and construction subcontractor in the Santa Clara area for more than 40 years. He was the sole provider for his wife, Patsy, and their minor grandson. In March 2005, Mr. Piazza went to the doctor after experiencing a variety of health problems that were diagnosed as symptoms of mesothelioma, a deadly cancer of the lining of the lungs caused by asbestos exposure. He died in May 2005 at the age of 62, less than six weeks after his diagnosis. Attorneys for Mr. Piazza's family were prepared to show jurors how Mr. Piazza was exposed to various asbestos products made by the defendant companies from 1964 to 1995. Documents in the case showed that the defendants knew about the dangers of asbestos for years, but failed to protect Mr. Piazza from being exposed and failed to warn him about the deadly side effects of his exposure. ASBESTOS LITGATION: A.O. Smith, 42 Firms Sued in Texas on May 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elaine and Elizabeth Gros, the executrix of the Andrew Gros estate, sued the A.O. Smith Corp. and 42 other major corporations, for distributing products with asbestos throughout Jefferson County, on May 1, 2007 with the Jefferson County District Court, The Southeast Texas Record reports. Attorney Bryan Blevins of Provost Umphrey will represent Mr. Gros' family. This is the fourth case of its kind filed by Blevins in 30 days. Elaine and Elizabeth Gros blame an assortment of corporations, like aerospace giant Lockheed Martin Corp. and iron supplier Zurn Industries Inc., for manufacturing and distributing asbestos laced products. Judge Bob Wortham, 58th Judicial District, will preside over Case No. A179-219. Medical records attached to the suit state Mr. Gros had significant occupational exposure to asbestos, probably while working as carpenter and a petrochemical superintendent beginning in 1949. The document also says Mr. Gros was a "heavy" cigarette smoker. The petition says the 43 defendants entangled in Mr. Gros' suit were negligent, failing to adequately test their asbestos-laced products before flooding the market with dangerous goods. In addition, the petition faults Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Corp. (3M Corp.) and American Optical Corp. for producing defective masks that failed to "provide respiratory protection." The Gros family is suing for physical pain and suffering in the past and future, mental anguish in the past and future, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, disfigurement in the past and future, physical impairment in the past and future, and past and future medical expenses. ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, and Mary Grace Durana, Editors. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *