/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070810.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 10, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 157 Headlines ACCREDITED HOME: Faces Ala. Litigation Alleging TILA Violations ACCREDITED HOME: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in Calif. ACCREDITED HOME: Faces NAACP Lawsuit in Calif. Over Prime Loans ACCREDITED HOME: Aug. 24 Hearing Set in Lone Star Merger Suit AMERICA ONLINE: High Court Allows Suit Over Secondary Accounts BINZHOU FUTIAN: Faces Suit Over Melamine-Contaminated Gluten CALIFORNIA: Bias Lawsuit Filed Over 2005 Klamath School Closure CANADA: Soldiers’ Lawsuit Over Defoliant Spraying Certified CHICAGO BRIDGE: November Hearings Set for N.Y. Securities Suit COLOSSUS LITIGATION: Ark. Court to Review Settlements Today CONTINENTAL TIRE: Retirees’ Health Care Benefits Suit Certified DENTSPLY INT'L: Cal. Court OKs “Advance” Cement Suit Settlement EVANSTON NORTHWESTERN: Sued Over Inflated Health-Care Prices FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Fla. Court Suggests Securities Suit Dismissal GAS COMPANIES: Faces Mass. Lawsuit Over “Unfair” Gas Prices GATEWAY ELECTRONIC: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit GENZYME CORP: Settles Lawsuits Over Share Exchanges for $64M IRWIN HOME: Dismissal of Calif. FCRA Lawsuit Still Under Appeal IRWIN MORTGAGE: 11th Circuit Mulls Motion to Rehear RESPA Suit IRWIN MORTGAGE: Expects Nixing of Document Preparation Fees Suit IRWIN MORTGAGE: Settlement of Md. Loans Law Violations Suit Ok’d KENNETH COLE: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Credit Card Purchases MICROSOFT CORP: Motion to Junk Wash. "Windows Vista” Suit Denied NATIONAL DEALERS: Accused of Withholding Sales Reps’ Commissions PLAN 9: Recalls E Lights with Circuit Boards Posing Fire Hazard RALEIGH AMERICA: Recalls Bicycles with Forks Prone to Breakage SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Recalls Aerosol Cans at Risk of Exploding UBS FINANCIAL: IL Suit Seeks to Recover Brokers’ Underpayments US POSTAL: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Privacy Act Violations Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Pays $40Mil for Property Damage Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Lawsuits v. Transocean Units Ongoing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Safeco’s Reserves Rise to $11.5M at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Still in Arbitration w/ Equitas ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Settles Lawsuit with ACE Int’l. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Has $29.9M for Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Minerals Tech. Total 26 at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Houston Wire Still Faces Cases in 3 States ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has $232.5M Liabilities at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Inc. Records 26T Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanson PLC Has 3,800 New Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Graham Corp. Continues to Face Injury Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Energy Has $2.8M Cleanup Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Still Faces Claims in Six States ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Ind. Has 8,500 Claimants at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Still Faces 1 Miss. Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bid for S.C. to Review Cleco Suits Denied ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Has $39Mil Liabilities at June ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maremont Corp. Has 40,134 Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Records $7M for Rockwell Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Ampco-Pittsburgh Rise to 9,887 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin’l. Reserves $455.6M at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Reserves $1.35B for Claims at June ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas Has 1,648 Cases with 9,810 Claimants ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Starwood Accrues $1M at June for Abatement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Still Face ASARCO Litigation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RJR Tobacco Continues to Face Whiteley Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parsons Suit v. RJR Tobacco, B&W Stayed ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quaker Chemical Receives $5Mil for Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Ind. Awaits Date of Oral Argument ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Suits v. Pride Int’l. Units Ongoing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Reserves $190.3Mil at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Receives 2,599 New Claims at June ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GlobalSantaFe Units Face Six Suits in Miss. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GlobalSantaFe Unit Pursues Insurance Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Smoker’s Kin Sues 46 Firms in Texas Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Senator Probes EPA on Libby Poisoning ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Penalizes Arizona Schools for Breaches ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Local Sues 65 Companies in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Victims Lose AUD760T in Compensation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd, Units Continue to Face Injury Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Still Deals with N.Y. Pipe Explosion New Securities Fraud Cases LUMINENT MORTGAGE: Faruqi Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing RAIT FINANCIAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit ********* ACCREDITED HOME: Faces Ala. Litigation Alleging TILA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Co. faces several securities fraud class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, alleging violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), according to the company’s Aug. 1, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The suit, “Edwards v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., et al.,” was served to the company on March 2007. It alleges violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) for allegedly failing to disclose title insurance charges and recording fees as part of finance charges. A motion to certify a class has not yet been filed. There has been no ruling on the merits of either the plaintiff’s individual claims or the claims of the putative class. The suit is “Edwards et al v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00160-KD-C,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama under Judge Kristi K. DuBose with referral to Judge William E. Cassady. Representing the plaintiff is: Earl P. Underwood, Esq. P.O. Box 969 Fairhope, AL 36533-0969 Phone: 251-990-5558 Fax: 251-990-0626 E-mail: epunderwood@alalaw.com Representing the company is: Jeffery J. Hartley, Esq. Helmsing, Leach, Herlong, P.O. Box 2767 Mobile, AL 36652 Phone: 251-432-5521 E-mail: jjh@helmsinglaw.com ACCREDITED HOME: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Co. faces several securities fraud class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. In March 2007, the company was served with a class action complaint, entitled, “Atlas v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.” It was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws by the company and certain members of senior management. The company is aware that five similar securities class actions have been filed in the same court. The actions are: -- “Joory v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.,” -- “Pourshafie v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.,” -- “Theda v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.,” -- “City of Brockton Retirement System v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co.,” and -- “Kornfeld v. James A. Konrath, et al.” Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, these cases have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff has been selected. The consolidated, amended complaint is due 21 days after the company’s 2006 audited financial statements are released, and our response to this complaint is due forty-five days after the complaint is filed, according to the company’s Aug. 1, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. -- http://www.accredhome.com-- is a mortgage banking company operating throughout the U.S., and in Canada. The Company originates, finances, securitizes, services and sells non-prime mortgage loans secured by residential real estate. Accredited focuses on borrowers who may not meet conforming underwriting guidelines because of higher loan-to-value ratios, the nature or absence of income documentation, limited credit histories, high levels of consumer debt, or past credit difficulties. It originates loans primarily based upon the borrower's willingness and ability to repay the loan and the adequacy of the collateral. Accredited's wholly owned subsidiary, Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust acquires, holds and manages real estate assets. Its wholly owned Canadian subsidiary, Accredited Home Lenders Canada is a mortgage banking company that originates and finances mortgage loans. In October 2006, the Company completed its merger with Aames Investment Corp. ACCREDITED HOME: Faces NAACP Lawsuit in Calif. Over Prime Loans --------------------------------------------------------------- Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Co. was named defendant in a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned, “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, et al.” The suit was filed in July 2007. It was filed on behalf of itself and its African-American members, alleging that the company and 12 other lenders violated the Fair Housing Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and Civil Rights Act by steering African-American applicants who would otherwise qualify for prime loans into non-prime loans and charging African-American borrowers higher interest rates and fees than similarly situated Caucasians. Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, declaratory and injunctive relief and recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. The suit is “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-00794-AG-AN,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Andrew J. Guilford with referral to Judge Arthur Nakazato. Representing the plaintiffs are: Angela Ciccolo, Esq. NAACP 4805 Mt. Hope Dr. Baltimore, MD 21215 Phone: 410-580-5792 Vic Feazell, Esq. Feazell & Tighe LLP 6300 Bridgepoint Parkway,Suite 220 Austin, TX 78730 Phone: 512-372-8100 - and - Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. Kabateck Brown Kellner 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-217-5000 E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com ACCREDITED HOME: Aug. 24 Hearing Set in Lone Star Merger Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- An Aug. 24, 2007 hearing is set on a motion for preliminary injunction against a plan by Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Co. to merge with affiliates of Lone Star Fund V (U.S.) L.P. The motion was filed in a suit pending the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego. The suits, which were served on the company in June 2007, are captioned: -- “Korsinski v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.,” and -- “Wan v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.” The complaints allege breaches of fiduciary duty by the company and members of its Board of Directors in connection with its entry into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with affiliates of Lone Star Fund V. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, and recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. The plaintiff in the Korsinski matter has voluntarily dismissed his case without prejudice. In the Wan matter, the plaintiff has filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which is scheduled to be heard on Aug. 24, 2007. A motion for class certification has not been filed, according to the company’s Aug. 1, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. -- http://www.accredhome.com-- is a mortgage banking company operating throughout the U.S., and in Canada. The Company originates, finances, securitizes, services and sells non-prime mortgage loans secured by residential real estate. Accredited focuses on borrowers who may not meet conforming underwriting guidelines because of higher loan-to-value ratios, the nature or absence of income documentation, limited credit histories, high levels of consumer debt, or past credit difficulties. It originates loans primarily based upon the borrower's willingness and ability to repay the loan and the adequacy of the collateral. Accredited's wholly owned subsidiary, Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust acquires, holds and manages real estate assets. Its wholly owned Canadian subsidiary, Accredited Home Lenders Canada is a mortgage banking company that originates and finances mortgage loans. In October 2006, the Company completed its merger with Aames Investment Corp. AMERICA ONLINE: High Court Allows Suit Over Secondary Accounts -------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of the state of Washington unanimously ruled in favor of a couple who filed a class action against America Online, Inc., claiming the Internet provider illegally charged them for secondary membership accounts. The case was argued Feb. 28, 2006. The ruling was filed July 12, 2007. The suit was filed by Suzy Dix and Jeffrey R. Smith on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated against ICT Group, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation and America Online, Inc., a Delaware corporation. The plaintiffs are customers of AOL's Internet service. The plaintiffs in this case allege that America Online, Inc. (AOL), unilaterally and wrongfully created and charged them for secondary membership accounts. The plaintiffs brought a putative class suit in Washington courts, alleging, among other things, violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW (CPA). However, the Terms of Service agreement between the plaintiffs and AOL contains a forum selection clause specifying Virginia as the forum for any suits relating to the membership services. Virginia does not allow class actions for suits like plaintiffs' suit. The trial court dismissed the action on the basis that the forum selection clause requires suit to be brought in Virginia. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the forum selection clause is unenforceable because the selected forum does not permit class suits, thus violating public policy underlying the CPA. The high court affirmed the Court of Appeals, but on narrower grounds. An opinion authored by Justice Barbara A. Madsen states: “Although forum selection clauses are prima facie valid, a forum selection clause may be invalid if it violates the public policy of this state. A decision regarding the enforceability of a forum selection clause is evaluated for an abuse of discretion. “If a forum selection clause precludes class actions and thereby significantly impairs Washington citizens' ability to seek relief under the CPA for small-value claims, the clause violates the public policy underlying the CPA's dual enforcement scheme expressed in the attorney general and private rights of action under the act. Because AOL's forum selection clause precludes class actions for small-value CPA claims and there is no feasible alternative avenue for seeking relief on such claims, the forum selection clause is invalid and unenforceable and dismissal was an abuse of discretion. Concurring are Chief Justice Gerry L. Alexander, Justice Tom Chambers, Justice Charles W. Johnson, Justice Susan Owens, Justice Mary E. Fairhurst, Justice Richard B. Sanders, Justice James M. Johnson, and Justice Bobbe J. Bridge. The suit is "Dix v. ICT Group, Inc., Case nos. 77101-4, 03-2-04952-7" on appeal from Spokane Superior Court under Judge Salvatore F. Cozza. Counsel for Petitioners are: James B. King, Esq. 1102 Wa Mutual Finance Ctr. 601 W Main Ave Spokane, WA, 99201-0636 -- and -- Daniel T. Donovan, Esq. John C. O'Quinn, Esq. Eugene F. Assaf, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Web site: http://www.kirkland.com/ 655 Fifthteenth Street Nw Washington, DC, 20005-5793 Counsel for Respondents are: Richard W. Kuhling, Esq. David Laurence Broom, Esq. William John Schroeder, Esq. Gregory C. Hesler, Esq. Paine Hamblen Coffin Brooke & Miller LLP 717 W Sprague Ave Ste 1200 Spokane, WA, 99201-3505 Web site: http://www.painehamblen.com/index.htm -- and -- Michael David Kinkley, Esq. Michael D Kinkley PS 4407 N Division St Ste 914 Spokane, WA, 99207-1660 BINZHOU FUTIAN: Faces Suit Over Melamine-Contaminated Gluten ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Audet & Partners, LLP has filed a class action in California State Superior Court (San Francisco) (Case no.: CGC-07-465924) against Binzhou Futian Biological Technology, Co., Ltd., a company based in Binzhou, China, seeking relief under the laws of the People's Republic of China and California. The complaint seeks damages and other relief arising from injuries to pet owners whose dogs and cats became sick or died from ingesting melamine. As alleged in the complaint, the named plaintiff's cat died due to complications associated with melamine poisoning from pet food. 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. "It's time to hold all companies, regardless of the location of the business, financially and legally accountable for distributing toxic materials into the United States stream of commerce," said lead attorney William M. Audet, managing partner of Audet & Partners, LLP. "Our firm's legal research has revealed that the law in the People's Republic of China actually provides for potential liability for distributing 'impure or fake materials' in products such as dog and cat food," said Attorney Audet. "We intend to argue that the China-based company is liable under both California law and applicable Chinese law." The complaint asserts class-wide claims against Binzhou Futian Biological Technology under the provision of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Rights and Interests of Consumers and under the Consumer Protection provisions of the law of the State of California. As a separate cause of action against the Chinese-based company, the complaint asserts a claim based on law adopted Oct. 31, 1993 by the Fourth Session of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People's Congress. Legal research indicates this may be the first-of-its-kind claim, but as noted by Attorney Audet, "While the claim may be the first of its kind, our client's ability to obtain relief is consistent with well-established law in the United States." For more information, contact: William M. Audet, Esq. Audet & Partners, LLP Phone: 415.982.1776 E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com Website: http://www.Audetlaw.com - and - Traci Stuart Blattel Communications Phone: 415.397.4811 E-mail: traci@blattel.com CALIFORNIA: Bias Lawsuit Filed Over 2005 Klamath School Closure ---------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action was filed June 8, 2007 against Del Norte County Unified School District and the school’s board over a 2005 decision by the district to close the middle school grades of Margaret Keating Elementary School in Klamath, California. The suit was filed on behalf of a purported class of all Native American children living in Del Norte County who would attend grade six, seven and/or eight at Margaret Keating Elementary School in the 2007-2008 and subsequent academic years but for defendants' closure of those grades. Ten minors represented by their mother/legal guardian filed a suit seeking class-action status against: * Del Norte County Unified School District, * Robert Berkowitz, School District board member, * Thomas Cochran, School District board member, * Faith Crist, School District board member, * William Maffett, School District board member, * Jan Moorehouse, School District board member, * William Parker, School District board member, The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief in relation to the June 9, 2005 decision by the Del Norte County United School District to close the middle school grades (six through eight) of Margaret Keating and the reassignment and busing of Margaret Keating middle school students to Cresent Elk Middle School in Crescent city, California, beginning in September 2005. The suit raises these claims of: -- violation of 14th Amendment Equal Protection, which prohibits discrimination against individuals on the basis of race or national origin; -- violation of Title Vi of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits recipients of federal funding from discriminating against individuals on the basis of race or national origin; and -- violation of the California Government Code, which prohibits discrimination against discrimination against individuals on the basis of race or national origin in or under any program or activity conducted, operated or administered by the state or any state agency. The suit is, Case No. C-07-3009 WDB, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division Representing the plaintiffs are: Jory C. Steele, Esq. Alan L. Schlosser, Esq. ACLU Foundation of Northern California Inc. 39 Drumm St. San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 621-2493 Fax: (415) 255-1478 E-mail: jsteele@aclunc.org Donald W. Brown, Esq. Stephen E. George, Esq. Covington & Burling LLP One Front St. San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 591-6000 Fax: (415) 591-6091 E-mail: sgeorge@cov.com CANADA: Soldiers’ Lawsuit Over Defoliant Spraying Certified ----------------------------------------------------------- Justice Leo Barry of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador has certified a lawsuit filed on behalf of thousands of Canadian soldiers exposed to potentially dangerous chemicals while working at a base in New Brunswick, Canada, Anne Kyle of The StarPhoenix reports. On July 12, 2005, the Merchant Law Group, on behalf of Doug Ward launched the class action against the federal government on behalf of soldiers working at CFB Gagetown. Mr. Ward is seeking general, aggravated and punitive damages on behalf of all individuals and their estates who have suffered "or expect to suffer" medical ailments as a result of toxic defoliant spraying at the base between 1956 and 1984 (Class Action Reporter, June 16, 2006). Mr. Ward claims he was stationed in Gagetown for three years starting in 1974. He said he was not provided with special protective gear at the time of his training at the field. Justice Barry’s recent ruling defined those eligible to take part in the suit as "all individuals who were at CFB Gagetown between 1956 and the present and who claim they were exposed to dangerous levels of dioxin or HCB (hexachlorolbenzene) while on the base." The certification order, however, was stayed pending further submissions on what effect the proclamation of the New Brunswick Class Proceedings Act will have on this proceeding. Lawyer Tony Merchant said similar class actions have been launched on behalf of soldiers at CFB Camp Suffield in Alberta and CFB Petawawa in Ontario who were also exposed to chemical toxins during the course of their duties. The suit is “Ward v. A.G. Canada et al, Court File No.: CI060147299.” Representing plaintiffs is: Tony Merchant, Q.C. The Merchant Law Group #501 - 224 Fourth Ave. S. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 5M5 Phone: (888) 567-7777 or (877) 359-7777 E-mail: merchant@merchantlaw.com CHICAGO BRIDGE: November Hearings Set for N.Y. Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York set hearings on a motion seeking class-action status for the consolidated securities fraud suit against Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. and its officers for November 2007. 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. After an initial hearing on the motion for class certification held on May 29, 2007, the Court scheduled another hearing to be held on Nov. 19 to 20, 2007, to resolve factual issues regarding the typicality and adequacy of the proposed class representatives. 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: Catherine A. Torell, Esq. 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 - and - Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com COLOSSUS LITIGATION: Ark. Court to Review Settlements Today ----------------------------------------------------------- Several proposed settlements from Miller County Circuit Court's "Colossus" class action have been reached, Michelle Massey of the Southeast Texas Records reports. In 2005, several class action complaints were filed against insurance companies using or are currently using Computer Science Corp.'s software program “Colossus.” The companies allegedly engage in conspiracies to systematically undervalue bodily injury claim settlements. According to Ms. Massey, plaintiffs' attorneys describe the software as a "cost containment tool" used to "enhance their (the insurance companies) profits at the expense of first party insured." The suit faults the defendants for civil conspiracy, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and fraud. Proposed settlements are in the suits: -- “Hunsucker vs. American Standard Insurance Company” Filed on April 10, the suit accuses defendants are of "lowballing" bodily injury claims through their use of Colossus. A preliminary settlement approval hearing is set for Aug. 10 in the Miller County (Ark.) Circuit with Judge Johnson presiding. Proposed settlement fees include over $52 million for class members and over $27 million for attorney fees and costs. -- “Sweeten vs. American Insurance Company” The proposed class settlement stipulations include $3 million in attorney fees and costs, an incentive fee to plaintiff for $5,000 and supplement UM for eligible class members not to exceed policy limits. The settlement approval hearing is scheduled Aug. 10 with Judge Johnson presiding. -- “Atkinson vs. General Casualty Company of Wisconsin” A proposed settlement states stipulations including $2.7 million for class members and $1.6 for attorney fees and costs. Hearing is scheduled for Aug. 10 with Judge Johnson presiding. -- “Easley vs. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company” The proposed settlement stipulations include $4 million in attorney fees and costs and over $5.9 million to supplement UM cash payment to eligible class members not to exceed policy limits. The settlement approval hearing was scheduled Aug. 6 with Judge Johnson presiding. -- “Johnson vs. Clarendon America Insurance Company” Preliminary settlement stipulations call for $744,418 for class members and $429,901 in attorney fees and costs. Approval hearing was set Aug. 6 in Judge Johnson's court. Settled Miller County Colossus cases include: -- “Gross vs. Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance, Republic Franklin, Insurance and UTICA” Approved on June 22, the total settlement included payments and attorney fees is over $2.7 million. Of that settlement, Judge Johnson awarded plaintiff's attorney $500,000. -- “Hunter vs. American Central Insurance Company” Settlement included an incentive fee to plaintiff for $5,000, $1.8 million to class members and over $1.07 million in attorney fees and costs. -- “Zareboki vs. Hartford Insurance” Approved on Feb. 13, eligible class members will receive over $215 million and plaintiffs' attorney John Goodson was awarded $26 million for attorney fees and costs. While admitting use of the Colossus software, those settling insurance companies continue to deny the plaintiffs' allegations. Originating from the Government Insurance Office of Australia, Colossus was first licensed in the United States in early 1990. The Colossus program is currently licensed to more than 20 insurers. CONTINENTAL TIRE: Retirees’ Health Care Benefits Suit Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jack Zouhary of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued a summary judgment ordering Continental Tire Co. to pay medical premiums for 2,000 retired United Steelworkers who filed a class action against their employer after Continental arbitrarily cut the benefit. On Dec. 13, 2006, United Steelworkers retirees and their union filed the lawsuit against Continental Tire North America, Inc. to force the tire maker to uphold its obligations to thousands of retirees, spouses, and surviving spouses to provide retiree medical benefits throughout retirement (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 26, 2006). The retirees allege Continental Tire breached agreements promising lifetime insurance coverage by announcing that effective on various dates in 2007 it will shift a large part of the cost of retiree medical coverage from the company to the retirees and surviving spouses. Continental Tire's violation of those agreements is actionable under the Labor Management Relations Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The retirees claim the rights to receive retiree medical benefits were earned and vested over decades of service at the tire and rubber facilities of Continental Tire. Rights to retirement benefits were created through collective bargaining between Continental Tire and the Union that had represented the retirees while they were employed. Virtually the same language from these agreements promised lifetime retiree medical benefits for retirees and spouses at Continental Tire facilities, such as plants in Akron, Ohio, Mayfield, Kentucky, Charlotte, North Carolina, Waco, Texas, and Bryan, Ohio. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that their rights to retiree health care benefits provided under agreements and the Group insurance Plan cannot be unilaterally modified or terminated by defendants, a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting such modification or termination, and damages and equitable relief to remedy the reduction in benefits. Earlier, Judge Zouhary told the German-based tire company to fulfill its contractual obligations to the retired workers from plants in Charlotte, N.C.; Mayfield, Ky. and Bryan, Ohio, and is expected ultimately to enter final relief on behalf of 2,000 affected retirees. After learning of the ruling, USW International President Leo W. Gerard said, “The fact that the court issued summary judgment shows just how disgraceful Continental Tire was in abandoning its contractual obligations to American tire builders who gave the company a lifetime of work. “Instead of honoring its commitments, this company callously betrayed the workers while continuing to take advantage of the American tire market –- something they wouldn’t dare to do in Europe.” Over the past five years, Continental began closing its American plants and outsourcing those jobs to factories in places like Brazil and Malaysia while continuing to characterize itself in advertising as an “American Company.” It also slashed health care benefits to retirees that it had agreed to in contracts. Contractually, Continental was obligated to pay approximately $18,000 a year for health care premiums for retirees not yet eligible for Medicare, and $4,200 a year for those old enough to receive Medicare. Instead, Continental summarily decided it would pay $3,000 for everyone, no matter how old or what the circumstance, it was alleged. Mark Cieslikowski, president of USW Local 850 in Charlotte, where 1,080 had worked at the Continental plant in 2005, but where only 160 remain now, said the loss of the insurance coverage devastated retirees. “It was a great benefit we enjoyed for years. But we gave up raises to get that. It was a trade off. We paid for it in a different form. Now the company comes back and takes it away from you,” he said, “I have retirees who have no health care because they could not afford the premiums and because they had pre-existing conditions, they could not buy insurance. If you are a diabetic or you have high blood pressure, lots of companies will not insure you.” USW Executive Vice President Ron Hoover said it is time for Continental to do the right thing and make the payments. “This is an international corporation that has made massive profits throughout this sorry affair. It is time for them to finally stand up and fulfill promises made to workers who labored hard for them over decades and pay those medical premiums now. The USW said the payments should be made even if Continental appeals because the judge’s ruling makes it clear that when a benefit is vested, a company cannot arbitrarily take it away. The USW represents more than 850,000 workers in the U.S. and Canada, including 70,000 in the tire and rubber industry. The suit is "Pringle et al. v. Continental Tire North America, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-02985-DAK," filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under Judge David A. Katz. Representing plaintiffs Maxwell Pringle and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC are: William T. Payne 1007 Mt. Royal Blvd. Pittsburgh, PA 15223 Phone: 412-492-8797 Fax: 412-492-8978 E-mail: wpayne@stargate.net Stephen M. Pincus John E. Stember Stember Feinstein 1705 Allegheny Bldg., 429 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15217 Phone: 412-338-1445 or 412-338-1448 Fax: 412-232-3730 E-mail: spincus@stemberfeinstein.com or jstember@stemberfeinstein.com DENTSPLY INT'L: Cal. Court OKs “Advance” Cement Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- A California court gave final approval to a settlement of a purported class action filed against DENTSPLY International, Inc. with regards to the company's manufacture and sale of Advance cement. On March 27, 2002, a complaint was filed in Alameda County, California (which was transferred to Los Angeles County) by Bruce Glover, DDS alleging, inter alia, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, unfair trade practices and negligent misrepresentation in the company’s manufacture and sale of Advance cement. A Judge entered an Order granting class certification, as an opt-in class. In general, the Class is defined as California dentists who purchased and used Advance cement and were required, because of failures of the cement, to repair or reperform dental procedures for which they were not paid. The Notice of the class action was sent on Feb. 23, 2005 to the approximately 29,000 dentists licensed to practice in California during the relevant period and a total of 166 dentists opted into the class action. The plaintiffs appealed the decision of the Trial Court certifying the class as an opt-in and the Appeals Court held that the case should be converted to an opt-out class. The parties have entered a settlement agreement, which was approved by the Court at a fairness hearing on June 15, 2007. The settlement establishes a procedure by which dentists, who believe they were required to perform dental work because of a problem caused by Advance cement, can submit claims for review and reimbursement of unpaid fees. The Advance cement product was sold from 1994 through 2000 and total sales in the U.S. during that period were approximately $5.2 million. DENTSPLY International Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com-- is a designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of products for the dental market. The Company’s principal dental product categories are dental consumables, dental laboratory products and dental specialty products. The Company conducts its business through three operating segments, all of which were primarily engaged in the design, manufacture and distribution of dental products in three principal categories: dental consumables, dental laboratory products and specialty dental products. EVANSTON NORTHWESTERN: Sued Over Inflated Health-Care Prices ------------------------------------------------------------ Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed Aug. 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, accusing it of monopolizing and fixing prices for health-care services in northern suburbs, at Evanston, Glenbrook and Highland Park Hospitals, reports say. Because of defendant's unlawful conduct, plaintiff Jeffrey Porter allegedly paid artificially inflated prices for healthcare services and, as a result, have suffered antitrust injury to their business or property. The plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of all individuals and entities who purchased healthcare services directly from defendant, its wholly-owned hospitals, predecessors or controlled subsidiaries and affiliates from at least as early as Jan. 1, 2000 to the present. The plaintiff wants the court to rule: (a) whether Evanston Northwestern has exercised monopoly power in the sale of healthcare services in the relevant geographic market; (b) whether the alleged conduct of Evanston Northwestern violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (c) whether the conduct of Evanston Northwestern, as alleged in this complaint, caused injury to the business and property of plaintiff and other members of the class; (d) the effect of Evanston Northwestern's exercise of monopoly power on the prices of healthcare services sold by Evanston Northwestern and its wholly-owned hospitals during the class period; and (e) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by plaintiff and other members of the class. Plaintiff prays as follows: -- that the court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- that the court adjudge that Evanston Northwestern has engaged in unlawful conduct in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2; -- that judgment be entered for plaintiff and members of the class against Evanston Northwestern for three times the amount of damages sustained by plaintiff and the class as allowed by law, together with the costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees; -- that Evanston Northwestern, its wholly-owned hospitals, its affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors, partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be permanently enjoined and restrained from, in any manner continuing or maintaining the unlawful exercise of monopoly power alleged and from adopting or following any practice plan, program or device having a similar purpose or effect; and -- that plaintiff and members of the class have such other, further and different relief as the case may require and the court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. The suit is " Jeffrey Porter et al. v. Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corp., Case No. 07CV4446," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Lefkow/Mag. Judge Denlow. Representing plaintiffs are: Mary Jane Edelstein Fait Adam J. Levitt Theodore B. Bell Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLC 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Phone: (312) 984-0000 Fax: (312) 984-0001 FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Fla. Court Suggests Securities Suit Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued a Report and Recommendation to enter an order denying FARO Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the second amended consolidated securities class action complaint filed against FARO and certain FARO officers. On Dec. 6, 2005, the first of four essentially identical class action securities fraud lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain officers of the Company. On April 19, 2006, the four lawsuits were consolidated, and Kornitzer Capital Management, Inc. was appointed as the lead plaintiff. On May 16, 2006, Kornitzer filed its Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint against the Company and the individual defendants. The Amended Complaint also named Grant Thornton LLP, the Company's independent registered public accounting firm, as an additional defendant. On July 31, 2006, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On Feb. 3, 2007, the Court dismissed the Amended Complaint, without prejudice. As to the Company and the individual defendants, the Court's decision primarily was based on its findings that the Amended Complaint failed to adequately allege: -- scienter (i.e., intentionally fraudulent or severely reckless conduct) with respect to certain claims; and -- that certain supposed misrepresentations or omissions actually caused economic loss. The Court granted Kornitzer leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by Feb. 22, 2007. On Feb. 22, 2007, Kornitzer filed its Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint against the Company, the individual defendants and Grant Thornton LLP. In the Second Amended Complaint, as in the Amended Complaint, Kornitzer seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between April 15, 2004 and March 15, 2006. On behalf of the alleged class, Kornitzer seeks an unspecified amount of damages, premised on allegations that each defendant made misrepresentations and omissions of material fact during the class period in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Among other things, Kornitzer alleges: -- that the Company's reported inventory, gross margins and profits were false and misleading during a portion of the class period because the Company consciously overstated the value of its inventory; -- that the Company misstated during 2005 certain of the selling expenses it had accrued and had expected to incur; -- that certain Asian sales that the Company had reported during the class period had been the product of unlawful payments made in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and that the Company failed to disclose that it was utilizing unlawful means to achieve such sales; and -- that certain of the Company's statements regarding the Company's systems of internal controls had been false and misleading, in light of the above and other circumstances. In May, the company, sought for the dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint in the securities fraud class action pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Class Action Reporter, May 28, 2007). The court has issued a Report and Recommendation to enter an order denying FARO Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the second amended consolidated securities class action. The suit is "Goldberger v. Faro Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:05-cv- 01810-ACC-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District Court of Florida under Judge Anne C. Conway and with referral to Judge David A. Baker. Representing the plaintiffs are: John F. Edgar, Esq. John M. Edgar, Esq. Edgar Law Firm, LLC 4520 Main St., Suite 1650 Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: 816/531-0033 Fax: 816/531-3322 E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com jme@edgarlawfirm.com - and - Patrick A. Klingman, Esq. Karen M. Leser, Esq. James E. Miller, Esq. James C. Shah, Esq. Nathan Zipperian, Esq. Scott R. Shepherd, Esq. Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC Phone: 860-526-1100, 610-891-9880 and 954-943-9191 Fax: 860-526-1120, 610-891-9883 and 954-943-9173 E-mail: pklingman@sfmslaw.com kleser@sfmslaw.com jmiller@sfmslaw.com jshah@classactioncounsel.com nzipperian@classactioncounsel.com sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com Representing the defendants are: Richard S. Davis, Esq. Robert A. Scher, Esq. Foley & Lardner, LLP Phone: (407) 244-3260 and (212) 682-7474 Fax: (407) 648-1743 and (212) 687-2329 E-mail: rdavis@foley.com - and - Daniel A. Casey, Esq. Jeffrey T. Kucera Esq. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham, LLP 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131-2399 Phone: 305-539-3324 and 305-539-3322 Fax: 305-358-7095 E-mail: dcasey@klng.com jkucera@kl.com GAS COMPANIES: Faces Mass. Lawsuit Over “Unfair” Gas Prices ----------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers with the Boston firm of Engel & Schultz filed a class action in Dukes County Superior Court in Massachusetts on behalf of eight plaintiffs against two gas wholesalers and three retailers, Nelson Sigelman of Martha's Vineyard Times reports. Named defendants in the complaint are: -- R.M. Packer Company, -- Drake Petroleum Company, -- Depot Corner gas station and -- Francis J. Paciello, owner of Edgartown Mobil. The 27-page complaint alleges defendants unfairly fixed the price of gasoline, gouged consumers who purchased gasoline and engaged in unfair price gouging in 2005 after hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Named plaintiffs are: -- William White of Oak Bluffs, a former business partner in Tisbury Fuel Services; -- R. Carleen Cordwell of Oak Bluffs; -- Ken Bailey of West Tisbury; -- Nadine Monaco of Oak Bluffs; -- Karen Lodge of Edgartown; -- Joan Kriegstein of Oak Bluffs; and -- Hilary S. Schultz of Edgartown, wife of Mr. Schultz. Filed by Michael Roitman and Stephen Schultz, the lawsuit claims that from Dec. 31, 1999 to last week the "defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize gas prices relating to the delivery of gasoline to the three stations. Because of defendants' unlawful conduct, plaintiffs paid artificially inflated prices for gasoline, and, as a result suffered monetary damages." The lawsuit further claims that Drake made it known that if Mr. Paciello did not keep the price of gasoline at the Edgartown Mobil stations identical or above the prices being charged at the Vineyard Haven stations, "but instead tried to sell gasoline at competitive market prices, ...it would punish and retaliate against the Edgartown Mobil stations by deliberately missing gasoline deliveries in the summer." The lawsuit charges that normal competitive pressures are not allowed to come to bear on the sale of gasoline. It cites specific days on which the price of gasoline at various Cape stations and the down-Island stations differed by as much as 74 cents, according to Mr. Sigelman. According to the lawsuit, significant barriers at both the distributor and station level prevent competition. "Barriers to entry for new distributors include the small size of tanks at many stations, long-term leases with current distributors and size and weight limits for ferry transport. Barriers to entry for new stations include the need to obtain approval of the Martha's Vineyard Commission, which in recent years has repeatedly refused the request of a proposed 'discount' gas station to build a new competitive station in Vineyard Haven," the lawsuit states. Plaintiffs’ counsel is: Engel & Schultz, LLP 125 High Street, Suite 2601 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Phone: (617) 951-9980 Fax: (617) 951-0048 E-mail: mail@engelschultz.com GATEWAY ELECTRONIC: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Gateway Electronic Medical Management Systems, Inc. of Indianapolis is facing a class action filed on July 20, 2007. Plaintiff Robin Sherman alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act. Gateway Electronic Medical Management Systems -- http://www.gemmsnet.com/-- is an Indianapolis-based firm that designs, implements and supports medical information solutions specifically created for cardiovascular specialty medical practices. GEMMS is the nation's first organization to develop and market an Electronic Clinical Information System for cardiology practices. The suit is “Sherman v. Gateway Electronic Medical Management Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-00947-DFH-JMS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under Judge David Frank Hamilton with referral to Jane Magnus-Stinson. Representing the defendant are: Jeffery M. Mallamad, Esq. Christopher R. Taylor, Esq. Bingham Mchale 10 West Market Street Market Tower, Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317)968-5395 (317)968-5395 Fax: (317)236-9907 E-mail: jmallamad@binghammchale.com ctaylor@binghammchale.com Representing the plaintiff is: Ronald E. Weldy, Esq. Abrams & Weldy 2002 Wellesley Blvd. Suite 300 Indianapolis, IN 46219 Phone: (317) 917-4800 Fax: (317) 917-4801 E-mail: weldy@abramsweldy.com GENZYME CORP: Settles Lawsuits Over Share Exchanges for $64M ------------------------------------------------------------- Genzyme Corp. has reached an agreement in principle to settle a class action brought by a group of shareholders following the consolidation of Genzyme's tracking stock structure in 2003. Under the terms of the settlement, Genzyme will pay a total of $64 million to a class of shareholders who held Genzyme Biosurgery stock on May 8, 2003. This settlement will result in the dismissal of the case in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which, in turn, Genzyme believes will result in the dismissal of a related case currently pending in the Massachusetts Superior Court. The terms of the settlement are subject to court approval. Genzyme believes that settling the case at this time is in the best interests of all parties, and continues to believe that its consolidation of the tracking stock structure was done in accordance with the terms of the company's charter, and to the long-term benefit of its shareholders. Case Background Each of the lawsuits is a purported class action on behalf of holders of Biosurgery Stock. The first case, filed in Massachusetts Superior Court in May 2003, alleged a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in our charter and a breach of our board of directors’ fiduciary duties. The plaintiff in this case sought an injunction to adjust the exchange ratio for the tracking stock exchange. The Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety in November 2003. Upon appeal, the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld the dismissal by the Superior Court of the fiduciary duty claim, but reversed the earlier decision to dismiss the implied covenant claim. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has granted our petition for further appellate review of the Appeals Court decision reversing the dismissal of the implied covenant claim. The SJC heard oral arguments on Dec. 4, 2006. A ruling on the appeal is anticipated in the first half of 2007. Two substantially similar cases were filed in Massachusetts Superior Court in August and October 2003. These cases were consolidated in January 2004, and in July 2004, the consolidated case was stayed pending disposition of a fourth case, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in June 2003. This complaint initially alleged violations of federal securities laws, common law fraud, and a breach of the merger agreement with Biomatrix, in addition to the state law claims contained in the other cases. The plaintiffs initially sought an adjustment to the exchange ratio, the rescission of the acquisition of Biomatrix, and unspecified compensatory damages. In December 2005, the plaintiffs in this case filed an amended complaint in which they dropped all of the claims alleged in the initial complaint relating to the initial issuance of Biosurgery Stock and the acquisition of Biomatrix, and narrowed the putative class to include only those individuals who held Biosurgery Stock on May 8, 2003. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and to oppose the class certification. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the amended complaint and certified this case as a class action on behalf of all shareholders who held Biosurgery Stock on May 8, 2003. The company filed a petition asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to review the class certification decision, which has been denied. Genzyme Corp. -- http://www.genzyme.com-- is a biotechnology company. The Company operates in five segments. Renal develops, manufactures and distributes products that treat patients suffering from renal diseases, including chronic renal failure. IRWIN HOME: Dismissal of Calif. FCRA Lawsuit Still Under Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the class action, “Putkowski v. Irwin Home Equity Corp. and Irwin Union Bank and Trust Co.,” are appealing the dismissal of their case against two Irwin Financial Corp. subsidiaries to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The suit was filed on Aug. 12, 2005, alleging the defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by using or obtaining plaintiffs' consumer reports for credit transactions not initiated by plaintiffs and for which they did not receive firm offers of credit. Plaintiffs also allege that the company failed to provide clear and conspicuous disclosures as required by the FCRA. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, statutory damages of $1,000 per each separate violation and punitive damages for alleged willful violations of the FCRA. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Oct. 4, 2005. On Oct. 18, 2005, the company moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. In response to the defendants' motion, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice on Feb. 23, 2006. Plaintiffs filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on April 13, 2006. The company reported no development in the case at its July 31, 2007 Form 10- Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Putkowski v. Irwin Home Equity Corp. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv- 03289-PJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. Representing the plaintiffs are: Douglas Bowdoin, Esq. Douglas Bowdoin, P.A. 255 South Orange Avenue, Suite 800 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: 407-422-0025 Fax: 407-843-2448 E-mail: dbowdoin@bowdoinlaw.com - and - Gail Killefer, Esq. 417 Montgomery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415/362-8640 E-mail: gkillefer@aol.com Representing the company are: Virginia W. Barnhart, Esq. J. Preston Turner of Pope & Hughes, P.A. 29 W. Susquehanna Avenue, Suite 110 Towson, MD 21204 Phone: 410-494-7777 Fax: 410-494-1658 E-mail: virginia.barnhart@popehughes.com jpturner@popehughes.com - and - Tomio B. Narita, Esq. Wineberg Simmonds & Narita 44 Montgomery St., Ste 3880 San Francisco, CA 94104-4811 Phone: (415) 352-2200 Fax: (415) 352-2222 E-mail: tnarita@wsnlaw.com IRWIN MORTGAGE: 11th Circuit Mulls Motion to Rehear RESPA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has yet to rule on plaintiffs’ petition for a rehearing en banc for the purported class action, “Culpepper v. Inland Mortgage Corp.,” Inland Mortgage Corp., now known as Irwin Mortgage Corp., an indirect subsidiary of Irwin Financial Corp., was named as a defendant in the case, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama back in April 1996. Generally, the suit is alleging that Irwin Mortgage’s payment of broker fees to mortgage brokers violated the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. On July 2, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granting summary judgment in favor of Irwin Mortgage, and decertifying the plaintiffs’ class. In its July 2, 2007, decision, and based on the test set forth in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 2001 policy statement on lender payments to mortgage brokers, the court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for Irwin Mortgage because the plaintiffs failed to show that the total compensation Irwin Mortgage paid to the mortgage brokers was unreasonable in light of the services provided. The court of appeals also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in decertifying the plaintiffs’ class because the individualized assessment required in this type of action made class certification inappropriate. On July 13, 2007, plaintiffs filed a petition for a rehearing en banc. The company awaits a decision of the court of appeals on the plaintiffs’ petition, according to the company’s July 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Culpepper, et al. v. Inland Mortgage Corp., Case No. 2:96-cv- 00917-VEH-HGD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins. Representing the plaintiffs are: David R. Donaldson, Esq. David J. Guin, Esq. Tammy McClendon, Esq. Stokes, Donaldson & Guin, LLC Two North Twentieth Bldg., North 20th St., Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: 226-226-2282 Fax: 226-226-2357 E-mail: DavidD@dglawfirm.com davidg@dglawfirm.com tstokes@dglawfirm.com - and - Richard S. Gordon, Esq. Kieron F. Quinn, Esq. Quinn Gordon & Wolf 40 West Chesapeake Avenue, Suite 408 Baltimore, MD 21204-4803 Phone: 1-410-825-2300 Fax: 1-410-825-0066 Representing the company are: David S. Hay, Esq. Janel E. LaBoda, Esq. Alan Hall Maclin, Esq. J. Patrick McDavitt, Esq. Robert J. Pratte, Esq. Margaret K. Savage, Esq. Briggs & Morgan 2200 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 1-612-977-8400 Fax: 1-612-977-8650 - and - Sarah Y. Larson, Esq. Alexander J. Marshall, III, Esq. Cathy S. Wright, Esq. Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC AmSouth Harbert Plaza, Suite 2400, 1901 6th Av. North Birmingham, AL 35203-2618 Phone: 254-1000 Fax: 254-1999 E-mail: slarson@mcglaw.com IRWIN MORTGAGE: Expects Nixing of Document Preparation Fees Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Irwin Mortgage Corp., an indirect subsidiary of Irwin Financial Corp., expects the Marion County, Indiana, Superior Court to dismiss the purported class action, “Silke v. Irwin Mortgage Corporation.” The suit was filed in April 2003. It alleged that Irwin Mortgage charged a document preparation fee in violation of Indiana law for services performed by clerical personnel in completing legal documents related to mortgage loans. On June 18, 2004, the court certified a plaintiff class and held oral argument on cross-motions for summary judgment on April 30, 2007. On May 2, 2007, the Indiana Supreme Court issued an opinion in another case, “Charter One Mortgage Corporation v. Condra,” which held that the preparation of mortgage documents by non-attorneys does not necessarily constitute the practice of law and that a lender’s charging a fee for the preparation does not convert it into the unauthorized practice of law. In light of the Charter One decision, the plaintiffs in Silke delivered to the trial court their proposed Order on Parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment and Entry of Final Judgment in favor of Irwin Mortgage. The company therefore expects the court to dismiss the “Silke” litigation, according to its July 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Irwin Financial Corp. -- http://www.irwinfinancial.com-- provides financial services throughout the U.S. and Canada. The Company focuses primarily on the extension of credit to consumers and small businesses, as well as providing the ongoing servicing of those customer accounts. Through its direct and indirect subsidiaries, Irwin Financial operates three major lines of business: commercial banking, commercial finance and home equity lending. Its direct and indirect major subsidiaries include Irwin Union Bank and Trust Co., a commercial bank, which together with Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B., a federal savings bank, which conducts the Company's commercial banking activities; Irwin Commercial Finance Corp., a commercial finance subsidiary, and Irwin Home Equity Corp., a consumer home equity lending company. IRWIN MORTGAGE: Settlement of Md. Loans Law Violations Suit Ok’d ---------------------------------------------------------------- An arbitrator has approved a settlement reached in a purported class action against subsidiaries of Irwin Mortgage Corp., an indirect subsidiary of Irwin Financial Corp. The suit, “White v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Co. and Irwin Home Equity Corp.,” generally alleges violations of the Maryland Mortgage Lending Laws and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. It was filed on Jan. 5, 2006 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. Plaintiffs alleged that Irwin charged or caused plaintiffs to pay certain fees, costs and other charges that were excessive or illegal under Maryland law in connection with loans made to plaintiffs by Irwin. They sought certification of a class consisting of Maryland residents who received mortgage loans from Irwin secured by real property in the State of Maryland and who claim injury due to Irwin's lending practices. They also sought damages under the Maryland Mortgage Lending Laws and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act for, among other things, relief from further interest payments on their loans, reimbursement of interest, charges, fees and costs already paid, including prepayment penalties paid by the class, and damages of three times the amount of all allegedly excessive or illegal charges paid, plus attorneys' fees, expenses and costs. On Feb. 17, 2006, Irwin filed a notice of removal and removed the case from state to federal court. On March 17, 2006 the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the action back to state court and also filed an amended complaint emphasizing the alleged state law basis for their claims. On April 24, 2006, the plaintiffs initiated an arbitration with the American Arbitration Association, “White v. Irwin Union Bank & Trust, et al.,” on behalf of the same proposed class of persons. On Aug. 11, 2006, the court dismissed the lawsuit and compelled arbitration of the claims asserted on behalf of the class. On Oct. 13, 2006, the parties tentatively agreed to settle this matter solely on behalf of the individual plaintiffs for a nonmaterial amount. The arbitrator approved the settlement agreement, and the American Arbitration Association arbitration was dismissed with prejudice, effective June 6, 2007, thus concluding this matter, according to the company’s July 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Irwin Financial Corp. -- http://www.irwinfinancial.com-- provides financial services throughout the U.S. and Canada. The Company focuses primarily on the extension of credit to consumers and small businesses, as well as providing the ongoing servicing of those customer accounts. Through its direct and indirect subsidiaries, Irwin Financial operates three major lines of business: commercial banking, commercial finance and home equity lending. Its direct and indirect major subsidiaries include Irwin Union Bank and Trust Co., a commercial bank, which together with Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B., a federal savings bank, which conducts the Company's commercial banking activities; Irwin Commercial Finance Corp., a commercial finance subsidiary, and Irwin Home Equity Corp., a consumer home equity lending company. KENNETH COLE: Still Faces Calif. Suit 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. The Company has appointed counsel and is defending the action vigorously, according to the company’s Aug. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. 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 an 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. MICROSOFT CORP: Motion to Junk Wash. "Windows Vista” Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington denied Microsoft Corp.’s attempts to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that the company deceptively marketed its "Windows Vista," The Seattle Times reports. Judge Pechman ruled from the bench in favor of the plaintiff, Dianne Kelley, on two out of four issues raised by Microsoft. She withheld judgment on the other two. Dianne L. Kelley filed the suit on March 29 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Her legal representative in the case is the law firm of Gordon Murray Tilden LLP (Class Action Reporter, July 11, 2007). Prior to the availability of Vista, Microsoft launched a marketing campaign that allowed PC makers to place a sticker on computers alerting potential buyers that they could upgrade to Vista when it became available. Generally, Microsoft defines a PC as "Windows Vista Capable" when it uses "at least" an 800MHz processor, 512 megabytes of RAM, and DirectX 9 compatible graphics card. However, according to the suit, "a large number" of those PCs were only capable of running the Home Basic version of Vista, which lacks many of the features, such as media center, and enhanced graphics, which Microsoft advertises as included in Vista. It was reported that when Microsoft later offered buyers of "Windows Vista Capable" computers free or reduced-price upgrades to Vista, the company offered Home Basic to many customers. Additionally, the suit claims that Bill Gates contributed to the deception by saying on NBC's Today Show, PC users could upgrade to Windows Vista for just $100. Microsoft had sought to have Ms. Kelley's case dismissed on the grounds that she did not have proper standing to bring the case, the report said. But Judge Pechman said that issue will be determined when the parties argue over certification of the case as a class action, meaning it could expand to include anyone who bought a Vista Capable PC under similar circumstances. According to the report, Microsoft argued that Ms. Kelley did not show that the sticker constituted a written warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. But the judge said she would consider arguments on this point and issue a written ruling in the next two weeks. Microsoft also argued that Ms. Kelley did not show a "causal link" between the allegedly deceptive Vista Capable campaign and any damage she suffered -- a requirement for a claim under the Consumer Protection Act, the report states. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs "have pled enough" on this point in case filings so far to allow the case to go forward. She also sided with the plaintiff in allowing the claim of unjust enrichment to go forward. According to court filings, a jury trial is currently scheduled to begin Oct. 27, 2008. The suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Representing the plaintiff is: Gordon Murray Tilden, LLP 1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154 Phone: 206-467-6477 Fax: 206-467-6292 E-mail: office@gmtlaw.com Web site: http://www.gmtlaw.com NATIONAL DEALERS: Accused of Withholding Sales Reps’ Commissions ---------------------------------------------------------------- National Dealers Warranty, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the Circuit Court for St. Louis County in the State of Missouri, Joe Harris of the Courthouse News Service reports. The complaint accuses National Dealers of illegally taking a chunk of new sales representatives’ sales commissions and refuses to pay former employees the commissions they earned. Named plaintiffs John Schwab, Mark Govero and Corey Marietta say National Dealers requires new sales reps to sign a contract authorizing National Dealers to withhold $1,000 from the first month’s commissions in a violation of Missouri law. Plaintiffs claim National Dealers fails to pay former reps their commission within 30 days, also a violation of state law. This action is brought by former employees to recover all sales commissions due and that remain unpaid. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all sales representatives who were or are employed by National Dealers from Jan. 12, 2005 and were paid in whole or in part on a commission basis, and had a portion of their first month's commissions withheld by National Dealers. Plaintiffs want the court to rule: (a) whether National Dealers wrongfully withheld commissions from sales representatives in violation of Section 407.913, R.S.Mo., as a matter of regular business practice; (b) whether National Dealers has failed to pay commissions due to sales representatives within 30 days of the end of their employment, in violation of Section 407.912(3), R.S.Mo.; and (c) whether National Dealers entered into employment agreements providing for the withholding of commissions which are void under Section 407.915(2) R.S.Mo. Plaintiffs pray the court grant the following relief: -- entering an order certifying this action as a plaintiffs' class action and appointing the named plaintiffs as representative of the plaintiffs' primary class; -- entering an order appointing Green Jacobson & Butsch, P.C. as class counsel for the plaintiffs' primary class; -- enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the members of the plaintiffs' primary class, and against defendant for actual damages for commissions earned, but not paid, an amount as if the sales representatives were still earning commissions calculated on an annualized pro-rate basis from the date of termination to the date of payment; -- enter judgment in favor of the named plaintiffs and the members of the plaintiffs' primary class for reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and to require defendant to pay the costs and expenses of class notice and class administration; and -- award plaintiffs' primary class pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs and any further and additional relief as to which it may be entitled. National Dealers is engaged in the business of selling extended automobile warranties by telephone on a nationwide basis. National Dealers generates its business through the use o written advertisements to individual consumers which are distributed by mass mail. It does business as National Dealers Warranty, National Dealer Warranty and United Wholesale Warranty. The suit is "John M. Schwab et al. v. National Dealers Warranty, Inc., Case No. 07CC-C03198," filed in the Circuit Court for St. Louis County in the State of Missouri. Representing plaintiffs are: David T. Butsch James J. Simeri Bradley P. Schneider Green Jacobson & Butsch, P.C. 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 700 Clayton, Missouri 63105 Phone: 314-862-6800 Fax: 314-862-1606 E-mail: butsch@stlouislaw.com PLAN 9: Recalls E Lights with Circuit Boards Posing Fire Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- Plan 9 Inc., of White Salmon, Washington, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 340 E Lights. The company said the circuit board in the lights can overheat, posing a risk of fire. No injuries have been reported. The E Light is a 12-Volt DC light fixture with recessed LEDs typically mounted on the ceiling or under a counter. The recalled light is a flat, white rectangle with three LEDs (in the three-watt model) or six LEDs (in the 6-watt model). These recalled LED lights were manufactured in the United States and are being sold at various recreational vehicle parts retailers nationwide or the Backwoods Solar Electric Systems Web site from February 2006 through May 2007 for between $40 and $60. Pictures of the recalled LED lights: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07258a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07258b.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately turn the power off at the circuit breaker and contact Plan 9 for instructions on returning the product to the firm for a full refund. For additional information, call Plan 9 toll-free at (866) 522-1368 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.E-Light-Recall.com RALEIGH AMERICA: Recalls Bicycles with Forks Prone to Breakage -------------------------------------------------------------- Raleigh America Inc., of Kent, Washington, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1200 units of 2007 Raleigh Cadent Bicycles with Carbonage Carbon Forks. The company said the forks can break during normal use, causing the rider to lose control, fall and suffer serious injuries. Raleigh America has received three reports of forks breaking resulting in injuries including a dislocated shoulder, a concussion and a broken jaw. The recall involves the 2007 Raleigh Cadent 1.0, Cadent 2.0 and Cadent Carbon bicycle models with carbon forks. “Raleigh” is printed on the down tube of the bicycle, and the model name is printed on the top tube. These recalled 2007 Raleigh Cadent bicycles with carbonage carbon forks were manufactured in China and are being sold at Raleigh America dealers nationwide from January 2007 through June 2007 for between $660 and $1930. Pictures of recalled bicycles: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07260a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07260b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07260c.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled bicycles immediately and return them to place of purchase. Raleigh bicycle dealers will replace the forks at no charge. For more information, call Raleigh America toll-free at (888) 805-6396 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.raleighusa.com SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Recalls Aerosol Cans at Risk of Exploding ----------------------------------------------------------- The Sherwin-Williams Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 3,000 Hi-Heat Aerosol Coating Cans. The company said the aerosol cans can over-pressurize and explode, posing a risk of injury to consumers. Sherwin-Williams has received one report of a consumer who suffered serious facial injuries including a broken jaw, broken teeth and nose, split lip, and a shattered eye socket when a can exploded. The recall involves Thermo-Tec Hi-Heat aerosol coating used to color and protect Thermo-Tec automotive exhaust wrap. The part number (#12002) is printed above the UPC, and the date code (#B1815) is written on the bottom of the can. The 11-ounce aerosol can is mostly blue with orange and yellow flames and has an aluminum-colored cap. The can states “HI-HEAT COATING 2000° F” in large white letters on the front of the can. These recalled Hi-Heat Aerosol Coating Cans were manufactured in the United States and are being sold at automotive supply stores, repair shops, and parts suppliers nationwide from August 2005 through June 2007 for about $20. Picture of the recalled Hi-Heat Aerosol Coating Cans: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07259.jpg Consumers are advised not to handle the cans and contact Sherwin-Williams immediately. A representative will be dispatched within 48 hours to safely collect the recalled cans. Consumers will be sent a $15.00 check for each recalled can that is collected. For additional information, call Sherwin-Williams at (888) 304-3769 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.sherwin-williams.com UBS FINANCIAL: IL Suit Seeks to Recover Brokers’ Underpayments -------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago law firm Block & Landsman partnered with Nicholas Iavarone of the Iavarone Law Firm to file a class action seeking to recover underpayments to auction rate securities brokers of UBS Financial Services, Inc. The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit alleges that as a result of an error in UBS' compensation computer system, brokers were not paid the full 25 basis points a year on each $25,000 auction rate security purchased by the brokers' customers. The underpayments allegedly dated back to 1993. Auction rate securities are debt securities, typically issued by a municipality, in which the yield is reset on each payment date via a Dutch auction in which all successful bidders receive the same yield (the lowest yield that results in the sale of the entire amount to be issued). UBS is one of the major participants in the $200 billion dollar auction rate market. "UBS attempted to fit a security sold weekly with compensation based on a yearly percentage," said Alan Block. "The attempt to essentially fit a fixed compensation rate in a rounding commission system resulted in an error which, as a result of the tens of billions of dollars of ARS products sold by UBS, materially under-compensated the brokers." Larry Landsman, another principal of Bock & Landsman said, "We are excited with our partnering with Nick who brings twenty-seven years of experience representing brokers in litigation involving lost compensation, non-compete agreements, defamatory U-5 filings and in regulatory investigations." The suit is “Rosenbach v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv- 03022,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Joan B. Gottschall. Representing plaintiffs are: Alan F. Block Block & Landsman 11 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 251-1144 E-mail: alan@block-landsman.com - and - Nicholas P. Iavarone Iavarone Law Firm, P.C. 209 S. LaSalle Street, #702 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 239-8830 Fax: (866) 554-8350 E-mail: niavarone@iavaronefirm.com Representing defendants are: Steven Thomas Catlett Giselle Marie Perez Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP 191 N. Wacker Drive, 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 499-6000 or (312) 499-6055 E-mail: stevencatlett@Paulhastings.com or giselleperez@paulhastings.com US POSTAL: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Privacy Act Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Postal Service is facing a complaint seeking class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the Western District Court of Washington over alleged misuse of data, Giselle Abramovich of the DM News reports. Named plaintiff, Lance McDermott -- a mechanic for mail-processing equipment at the US Postal Service -- allege in a complaint filed July 30 that the USPS sold his private data and the data of other workers to credit card companies and others without consent. Mr. McDermott claims he received numerous mailings during the past two years from a variety of corporate interests. According to the filing, “The Postal Service is subject to the privacy protection requirements of the Privacy Act. Despite this, the USPS allows private businesses, as part of its Strategic Business Initiatives plan, to access and utilize for profit its employee master file, containing personal, private employee information, including the complete home addresses of all career and non-career, full- and part-time employees.” Plaintiff is seeking class-action status on behalf of all postal workers and wants the USPS to pay back any money it may have made by violating the Privacy Act. According to the report, the USPS teams up with companies such as Nextel, Visa and Sprint to send marketing messages to postal employees. The co- branded credit card, cell phone and life insurance offers feature the Postal Service’s logo. The Postal Service says in its Strategic Business Initiatives plan that such agreements provide value to their employees, the report states. Ms. Abramovich reports that USPS employees can opt out of receiving such offers. However, USPS workers are not given the opportunity to sign consent forms authorizing these types of solicitations. The Privacy Act specifically forbids federal agencies from releasing employee data without permission, Ms. Abramovich states. The Privacy Act says, “No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains.” The suit is “McDermott v. United States Postal Service, Case No. 2:07-cv- 01174-JLR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, under Judge James L. Robart. Representing plaintiffs is: Steve W. Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapira LLP 1301 5th Ave., STE 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Pays $40Mil for Property Damage Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- USG Corp., in the 2007-2nd quarter, made payments totaling about US$40 million for previously settled asbestos property damage claims, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2007. The current estimate of the cost of remaining asbestos property damage settlements that have not been paid, and associated legal fees, is about US$8 million and is included in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2007. Asbestos property damage claims against the debtors are not part of the asbestos trust or the channeling injunction. The Company’s plan of reorganization provided that all settled or otherwise resolved asbestos property damage claims that were timely filed in the Company’s reorganization proceedings will be paid in full. During the Company’s reorganization proceedings, the court entered an order requiring that asbestos property damage claims against the debtors be filed by Jan. 15, 2003. In response to that deadline, about 1,400 asbestos property damage claims were timely filed in the debtors' Chapter 11 proceedings and an additional 70 claims were filed after the deadline. During the Company’s reorganization proceedings, more than 950 claims were disallowed or withdrawn, leaving about 520 claims pending. In 2006, the Company reached agreements to settle all of the remaining asbestos property damage claims filed in its reorganization proceedings, with the exception of one small claim brought by a homeowner. In 2006, the Company made total payments of about US$99 million for these asbestos property damage settlements. In the 2006-2nd quarter, the Company reversed US$27 million of its reserve for asbestos-related claims. At the end of the 2007-1st quarter, the Company’s estimate of the cost of asbestos property damage settlements that had not been paid, and associated legal fees, was about US$48 million and was included in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2007. Chicago-based USG Corp.’s North American Gypsum division manufactures SHEETROCK brand gypsum products and joint compound and DUROCK brand cement board. The Company also manufactures FIBEROCK wall panels, poured gypsum underlayments, and construction plaster products. The Company’s Worldwide Ceilings division offers interior ceiling grid systems and acoustic tile. The Company’s Building Products Distribution division distributes building products through L&W Supply. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Lawsuits v. Transocean Units Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Several of Transocean Inc.’s subsidiaries have been named as co-defendants in several complaints that have been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007. These complaints involve over 700 persons that allege personal injury arising out of asbestos exposure in the course of their employment by some of these defendants between 1965 and 1986. The complaints also name as defendants certain of TODCO's subsidiaries to whom the Company may owe indemnity. Further, the complaints name other unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that allegedly manufactured drilling related products containing asbestos. The complaints allege that the defendant drilling contractors used those asbestos-containing products in offshore drilling operations, land based drilling operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment and assert claims based on negligence and strict liability, and claims authorized under the Jones Act. The plaintiffs seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The Company has not yet been able to conduct extensive discovery or determine the number of plaintiffs that were employed by its subsidiaries or otherwise have any connection with its drilling operations. Houston-based Transocean Inc. provides offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. The Company also provides integrated services. At June 30, 2007, the Company owned, had partial ownership interests in or operated 82 mobile offshore drilling units. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Safeco’s Reserves Rise to $11.5M at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Safeco Corp., in the first six months of 2007, recorded a US$11.5 million increase in asbestos reserves related to its participation in reinsurance pools, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2007. Seattle-based Safeco Corp. sells property and casualty insurance to drivers, homeowners and small- and mid-sized businesses. The Company also sells Surety bonds to contractors and businesses. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Still in Arbitration w/ Equitas ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Navigators Group Inc., since Nov. 22, 2006, has been involved in asbestos- related arbitration with Equitas, a reinsurer participating in excess of loss reinsurance agreements, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007. The Company filed a demand for arbitration in New York against Equitas over unsatisfied loss payment recovery demands that the Company has previously presented to Equitas (the “Equitas Arbitration”). The recovery demands are for the 2005 settlement of two class action lawsuits involving large asbestos claims (together, the “2005 Settled Claims”), which 2005 Settled Claims are being paid through 2007. Equitas has not indicated any dispute with respect to recoveries on related pro rata reinsurance agreements for such 2005 Settled Claims or with respect to excess of loss or pro rata reinsurance for a 2004 Settled Claim. The aggregate amount of excess of loss recoveries due from Equitas for ceded paid and unpaid losses on the 2005 Settled Claims is about US$2.7 million. Based in New York, The Navigators Group Inc. writes specialty lines of insurance and reinsurance. The Company's various subsidiaries write marine, liability, and other lines of business. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Settles Lawsuit with ACE Int’l. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Navigators Group Inc. and INA International Insurance Co. (Ace International), in June 2007, entered into a Settlement and Release Agreement over asbestos-related arbitration, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007. On Nov. 20, 2006, the Company filed a demand for arbitration in New York against Ace International, a reinsurer participating in pro rata reinsurance agreements, over unsatisfied loss payment recovery demands that the Company has previously presented to Ace International (the “Ace International Arbitration”). The recovery demands were for the 2005 Settled Claims and for the 2004 settlement of another class action lawsuit involving a third large asbestos claim (the “2004 Settled Claim” and, together with the 2005 Settled Claims, the “Settled Claims”), which 2004 Settled Claim is being paid over seven years beginning in 2005. The June 2007 agreement provided for: (1) The payment by Ace International to the Company of the full amount of ceded paid losses on the Settled Claims, (2) The agreement by Ace International not to contest future billings on the 2004 Settled Claim, and (3) The withdrawal by the Company of the Ace International Arbitration. Based in New York, The Navigators Group Inc. writes specialty lines of insurance and reinsurance. The Company's various subsidiaries write marine, liability, and other lines of business. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Has $29.9M for Claims at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Navigators Group Inc. reserved a gross of US$29,879,000 for asbestos exposures for the six months ended June 30, 2006, compared with US$37,171,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company reserved a net of US$20,405,000 for asbestos exposures for the six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$21,381,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company’s exposure to asbestos liability principally stems from marine liability insurance written on an occurrence basis during the mid-1980s. The reserves for asbestos exposures at June 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006 are for: (i) 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; (ii) The 2004 settlement of a large claim amounting to 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; (iii) 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 (iv) Attritional asbestos claims that could be expected to occur over time. The ceded asbestos paid and unpaid recoverables were US$20.6 million at June 30, 2007, compared with US$23.5 million at Dec. 31, 2006. During the 2007-2nd quarter, the Company increased its provision for uncollectible reinsurance recoverables for asbestos losses by US$1.6 million. Based in New York, The Navigators Group Inc. writes specialty lines of insurance and reinsurance. The Company's various subsidiaries write marine, liability, and other lines of business. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Minerals Tech. Total 26 at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Minerals Technologies Inc. recorded 26 pending asbestos-related cases in the 2007-2nd quarter, the same as for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007. Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials. To date, one asbestos case has been dismissed. One new asbestos case was filed in the 2007-2nd quarter. The Company has not settled any asbestos lawsuit to date. The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of asbestos and silica cases in 2006 amounted to US$100,000. Costs for the legal defense of these cases in the first half of 2007 were US$34,400. To date, the Company has not been liable to plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and it does not expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits. New York-based Minerals Technologies Inc.’s precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) products brighten and whiten paper, polymers, and teeth. Paper mills are major users of PCC, along with food and pharmaceutical companies, which use it for calcium and as a buffering agent in tablets. PCC products account for about half of the Company’s sales. The Company also sells monolithic and pre-cast refractory products, which are used to coat steel, cement, and glass production surfaces with high-temperature-resistant material. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Houston Wire Still Faces Cases in 3 States ---------------------------------------------------------------- Houston Wire & Cable Co., along with other defendants, continues to face lawsuits in the state courts of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that certain wire and cable which may have contained asbestos caused injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable. These suits are individual personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy. It is not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the wire and cable in question or whether the Company distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any injuries. In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the wire and cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any warranties from the manufacturers of such cable if it were determined that any of the wire or cable that it distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these plaintiffs. In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages associated with these claims that the Company said it believes it could enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate. The Company maintains general liability insurance that has applied to these claims. To date, all costs associated with these claims have been covered by the applicable insurance policies and all defense of these claims has been handled by the applicable insurance companies. Houston Wire & Cable Co., through its wholly owned subsidiaries, HWC Wire & Cable Co., Advantage Wire & Cable, and Cable Management Services Inc., distributes specialty electrical wire and cable to the U.S. electrical distribution market through 11 locations in 10 states throughout the U.S. The Company is headquartered in Houston. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has $232.5M Liabilities at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hercules Inc.’s asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$232.5 million as of June 30, 2007, 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 Aug. 1, 2007. The Company’s long-term asbestos-related liabilities, as of March 31, 2007, amounted to US$230.2 million. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007) The Company’s current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$30 million as of June 30, 2007, compared with US$36.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company’s long-term asbestos-related assets amounted to US$37.6 million as of June 30, 2006, compared with US$87.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. 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 (“products claims”). The Company also faces lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos at facilities formerly or presently owned or operated by the Company (“premises claims”). Wilmington, Del.-based Hercules Inc. manufactures and markets chemical specialties globally for making a variety of products for home, office and industrial markets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Inc. Records 26T Claims at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hercules Inc., as of June 30, 2007, recorded about 26,000 unresolved asbestos- related claims, of which about 950 were premises claims and the rest were product claims. As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded about 26,034 unresolved asbestos- related claims, of which about 980 were premises claims and the rest were products claims. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 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 (“products claims”). The Company also faces lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos at facilities formerly or presently owned or operated by the Company (“premises claims”). There were also about 1,850 unpaid claims which have been settled or are subject to the terms of a settlement agreement. In addition, as of June 30, 2007, there were about 15 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 June 30, 2007, the Company received about 633 new claims. During that same period, the Company settled about US$13.5 million to resolve and defend asbestos matters, including US$7.5 million directly related to settlement payments and about US$6 million for defense costs. The Company’s primary and first level excess insurance policies that provided coverage for these asbestos-related matters exhausted their products limits at or before the end of July 2003. On Nov. 27, 2002, the Company initiated litigation against the solvent excess insurance carriers that provided insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities in a matter captioned Hercules Inc. v. OneBeacon, et al., Civil Action No. 02C-11-237 (SCD), Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County. Beginning in August 2004 and continuing through October 2004, the Company entered into settlements with all of the insurers named in that lawsuit. As a result, the lawsuit was dismissed in November 2004. The Company entered into several settlements with its insurers in 2004. The first settlement involved insurance policies issued by certain underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, and reinsured by Equitas Ltd. and related entities (“Equitas”) (the “First Settlement Agreement”). As part of that settlement, Equitas placed US$67 million into a trust (the “Equitas 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. In addition, the settlement provided that if federal asbestos reform legislation was not enacted into law on or before Jan. 3, 2007, any funds remaining in the Equitas Trust would be available to the Company to pay asbestos-related liabilities or to use for other corporate purposes. Federal asbestos reform legislation was not enacted on or before Jan. 3, 2007. As a result, 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. In addition, 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 (the “Second Settlement Agreement”). 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 (the “Second 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 subsequent to Dec. 31, 2008 may be used by the Company to defend and resolve both asbestos-related claims and non-asbestos related claims. As of June 30, 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$20.9 million. As of June 30, 2007, defense costs and settlement payments for qualifying asbestos products claims of about US$93 million have been credited towards the range of US$330 million to US$370 million. Wilmington, Del.-based Hercules Inc. manufactures and markets chemical specialties globally for making a variety of products for home, office and industrial markets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanson PLC Has 3,800 New Claims at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hanson PLC recorded about 3,800 new asbestos claims filed in the first half of 2007, compared with 2,750 new claims in the first half of 2006, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007. Resolutions for the first half of 2007 were around 4,250, over 90 percent of which were dismissals. Resolutions for the first half of 2006 were around 6,350. Outstanding claimants at the end of June 2007 were about 107,150, a reduction of 450 compared with 107,600 at the end of December 2006. Gross costs in the 2007-1st half, before insurance, amounted to US$28.9 million (US$27.1 million in the 2006-1st half). Net costs after insurance before tax in the 2007-1st half were US$27.5 million (US$24.9 million in the 2006-1st half). Gross costs in the second half of 2007 are expected to be similar to those in the first half. An asbestos provision is maintained for those gross costs considered to be both probable and reliably estimable. At present, this is equivalent to about eight years of gross cost at an average of around US$60 million per annum. The net US$22 million charge for the half year is shown within discontinued operations in the income statement and is equivalent to GBP6.6 million after tax and discounting. The Company’s U.S subsidiaries, which are affected by asbestos claims, intend to settle those cases with proven disease and product identification. Certain of these subsidiaries will continue to litigate and negotiate for additional insurance cover. London-based Hanson PLC operates as a heavy building materials firm. The Company has units devoted to building products and aggregates in the U.S. and the U.K. The Company also has operations in continental Europe, Asia, and Australia. Products include aggregates, asphalt, bricks, concrete products, ready-mixed concrete, and roof tiles. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Graham Corp. Continues to Face Injury Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Graham Corp. has been named as a defendant in certain lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos contained in Company-made products, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007. The Company is a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in these suits. The claims are similar to previous asbestos suits that named the Company as defendant, which either were dismissed when it was shown that the Company had not supplied products to the plaintiffs’ places of work or were settled for minimal amounts below the expected defense costs. Neither the outcome of these suits nor the potential for liability can be determined at this time. Batavia, N.Y.-based Graham Corp. makes vacuum systems, pumps, compressors, and heat exchangers designed to create vacuums, condense steam, or produce heat. The Company sells its equipment to manufacturers in the petroleum, plastics, chemicals, food processing, and other industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Energy Has $2.8M Cleanup Liability ---------------------------------------------------------------- Enbridge Energy Partners LP’s current asbestos and environmental remediation liability amounted to US$2.8 million as of June 30, 2007, compared with US$4.1 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 Aug. 1, 2007. As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded US$2.7 million in current liabilities to address remediation of asbestos-containing materials. (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007) The Company’s long-term A&E remediation liability amounted to US$3.7 million as of June 30, 2007, compared with US$3.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded US$4.1 million in long-term asbestos and environmental liabilities, compared with US$3.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007) The liability is primarily to address remediation of contaminated sites, asbestos-containing materials, management of hazardous waste material disposal, and outstanding air quality measures for certain of the Company’s liquids and natural gas assets. Houston-based Enbridge Energy Partners LP (f/k/a Lakehead Pipe Line Partners) owns the 1,900-mile U.S. portion of the world’s longest liquid petroleum pipeline. When combined with the Canadian segment (owned and operated by Enbridge Inc.), the pipeline system spans some 3,500 miles across North America. Enbridge Energy Management LLC owns an 18 percent stake in the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Still Faces Claims in Six States ---------------------------------------------------------------- A CONSOL Energy Inc. subsidiary, Fairmont Supply Co., continues to face about 25,000 asbestos claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, and New Jersey, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007. Because a small percentage of products manufactured by third parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained asbestos and many of the pending claims are part of mass complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to determine how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or plaintiffs who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied by Fairmont. In addition, while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or contribution in certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of identified products, the availability of such indemnity or contribution is unclear at this time and, in recent years, some of the manufacturers named as defendants in these actions have sought protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws. Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these asbestos cases. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2007, payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases have not been material. Pittsburgh-based CONSOL Energy Inc. has some 4.3 billion tons of proved reserves, mainly in northern and central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin, and produces about 70 million tons of coal annually. The Company also engages in natural gas exploration and production. The Company’s proved reserves total 1.3 trillion cu. ft. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Ind. Has 8,500 Claimants at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cytec Industries Inc. recorded 8,500 asbestos claimants for the six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with 8,600 claimants for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Aug. 1, 2007. Cytec Industries Inc., for the three months ended March 31, 2007, recorded 8,500 claimants in asbestos-related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007) For the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company noted 300 claimants associated with claims closed and 200 claimants associated with claims opened. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 15,800 claimants associated with claims closed and 2,200 claimants associated with claims opened. The aggregate self-insured and insured contingent liability amounted to US$70.3 million as of June 30, 2007, compared with US$72.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. The related insurance recovery receivable for the liability as well as claims for past payments was US$39.9 million at June 30, 2007 and US$40.9 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The asbestos liability included amounted to US$54.2 million at June 30, 2007 and US$54.6 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The insurance receivable related to the liability as well as claims for past payments amounted to US$38.2 million at June 30, 2007 and US$38.1 million at Dec. 31, 2006. West Paterson, N.J.-based Cytec Industries Inc. produces the building-block chemicals from which it makes engineered materials (composites and adhesives for the aerospace industry), specialty chemicals (resins and coatings for metal, plastic, and wood), 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: Diamond Offshore Still Faces 1 Miss. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. continues to be a co-defendant in an asbestos- related lawsuit filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2007. The suit alleges that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing asbestos and, in the Company’s case, allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized aboard its offshore drilling rigs. The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The Company expects to receive complete defense and indemnity from Murphy Exploration & Production Co. under the terms of the Company’s 1992 asset purchase agreement with them. Houston-based Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. is a contract offshore oil and gas driller capable of descending the deep blue to depths of 7,500 feet. The Company has 30 semisubmersibles, 13 jack-up rigs (mobile drilling platforms), and one drillship. Subsidiary Diamond Offshore Team Solutions provides project management and other drilling-related services. Loews Corp. owns about 51 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bid for S.C. to Review Cleco Suits Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Louisiana Supreme Court, on June 15, 2007, denied claimants’ request to review asbestos rulings, which are in favor of Cleco Corp., according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007. The Company has been named as a defendant in two lawsuits by individuals who claimed injury due to asbestos exposure. These two lawsuits were dismissed by the trial court. However, the claimants appealed the trial court’s dismissal. On March 21, 2007, the appeals court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. The claimants filed a request for review of the appeals court decision with the Louisiana Supreme Court. Pineville, La.-based Cleco Corp.’s utility unit, Cleco Power, 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: ArvinMeritor Has $39Mil Liabilities at June ---------------------------------------------------------------- ArvinMeritor Inc.’s long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$39 million at June 30, 2007, compared with US$46 million at Sept. 30, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2007. The Company’s current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$10 million at June 30, 2007, compared with US$11 million at Sept. 30, 2006. The Company’s long-term asbestos-related recoveries amounted to US$27 million at June 30, 2007, compared with US$30 million at Sept. 30, 2006. The Company’s current asbestos-related recoveries amounted to US$7 million at June 30, 2007, compared with US$8 million at Sept. 30, 2006. Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor Inc. is a global supplier of a broad range of integrated systems, modules and components serving light vehicle, commercial truck, trailer and specialty original equipment (OE) manufacturers and certain aftermarkets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maremont Corp. Has 40,134 Claims at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ArvinMeritor Inc.’s subsidiary, Maremont Corp., had about 40,134 pending asbestos-related claims at June 30, 2007 and 51,895 pending claims at Sept. 30, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2007. Maremont, at March 31, 2007, had about 40,125 pending asbestos-related claims. (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2007) Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business. Arvin Industries Inc. acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos- containing products. Although Maremont has been named in these cases, in the cases where actual injury has been alleged very few claimants have established that a Maremont product caused their injuries. Plaintiffs’ lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of hundreds or thousands of claimants, seeking damages against all named defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product. Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor Inc. is a global supplier of a broad range of integrated systems, modules and components serving light vehicle, commercial truck, trailer and specialty original equipment (OE) manufacturers and certain aftermarkets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Records $7M for Rockwell Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- ArvinMeritor Inc. has recorded an insurance receivable related to Rockwell Automation Inc. legacy asbestos-related liabilities of US$7 million at June 30, 2007 and Sept. 30, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2007. The Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell products many years ago. Liability for these claims was transferred to the Company at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business to Meritor Automotive Inc. from Rockwell in 1997. There are thousands of claimants in lawsuits that name the Company, together with many other companies, as defendants. A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of Rockwell’s products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell’s products, and past experience has shown that most of the claimants will never identify any of Rockwell’s products. Historically, the Company has been dismissed from most of these claims with no payment to claimants. Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor Inc. is a global supplier of a broad range of integrated systems, modules and components serving light vehicle, commercial truck, trailer and specialty original equipment (OE) manufacturers and certain aftermarkets. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Ampco-Pittsburgh Rise to 9,887 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp., for the six months ended June 30, 2007, recorded 9,887 open asbestos-related claims filed against it and certain of its subsidiaries, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007. The Company recorded 9,442 open asbestos-related claims filed against it at Dec. 31, 2006, compared with 16,900 claims at Dec. 31, 2005. (Class Action Reporter, March 16, 2007) For the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company noted 535 claims settled or dismissed and paid a gross of US$8,826,000 for settlement and defense. Claims have been asserted against the alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in some products of certain of the Company’s operating subsidiaries (“Asbestos Liability”) and of an inactive Company subsidiary. Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the Company, are defendants (among a number of defendants, typically over 50) in cases filed in various state and federal courts. The Company’s long-term asbestos liability amounted to US$127,873,356 at June 30, 2007 and US$128,014,944 at Dec. 31, 2006. The Company’s current asbestos liability amounted to US$12 million at June 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006. The Company’s long-term asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$102,847,965 at June 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006. The Company’s current asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$11.7 million at June 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006. The Company and certain of its subsidiaries have an arrangement (the “Coverage Arrangement”) with insurers responsible for historical primary and some umbrella insurance coverage for Asbestos Liability (the “Paying Insurers”). The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgement that Howden Buffalo Inc. is entitled to coverage under policies covering Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the historical products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former subsidiary of the Company (the “Products”). The Coverage Arrangement does not provide for any prioritization on access to the applicable policies or monetary cap other than the limits of the policies, and, accordingly, Howden may access the policies at any time for any covered claim arising out of a Product. In general, access by Howden to the policies covering the Products will erode the coverage under the policies available to the Company and the relevant subsidiaries for Asbestos Liability alleged to arise out of not only the Products but also other historical products of the Company and its subsidiaries covered by the applicable policies. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp. operates in two business units. The Company’s forged and cast steel rolls unit makes hardened-steel rolls for the steel and aluminum industries. The air and liquid processing segment includes Buffalo Pumps, Aerofin, and Buffalo Air Handling. The Company is Pittsburgh-based. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin’l. Reserves $455.6M at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Financial Group Inc.’s property and casualty insurance group, at June 30, 2007, recorded US$455.6 million, net of reinsurance recoverables, of asbestos & environmental reserves, according to a Company report, on Form 8- K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007. During the 2007-2nd quarter, the Company completed the previously announced comprehensive study of its asbestos and environmental exposures relating to the run-off operations of its P&C group and its exposures related to former railroad and manufacturing operations and sites. The P&C group's asbestos reserves were increased by US$30.8 million (net of reinsurance). The primary causes of the increase in asbestos reserves were an increase in settlement amounts attributable to mesothelioma claims, the impact of a large case settlement in principle with an installer of material containing asbestos, and continuing uncertainties related to non-product liability exposures. At June 30, 2007, the Company’s three-year survival ratio was 17.4 times paid losses for the asbestos reserves and 11.4 times paid losses for the total A&E reserves. These ratios compare favorably with A.M. Best's most recent report on A&E survival ratios which were nine for asbestos and eight for total industry A&E reserves. In addition, the study encompassed reserves for asbestos and environmental exposures of its former railroad and manufacturing operations. These reserves were increased by US$43 million pre-tax. The increase of US$19 million in asbestos reserves was the result of increasing estimates of the cost of mesothelioma claims partially offset by lower estimated overall claim counts. Cincinnati, Ohio-based American Financial Group Inc., through the operations of the Great American Insurance Group, is engaged primarily in property and casualty insurance, focusing on specialized commercial products for businesses, and in the sale of traditional fixed, indexed and variable annuities and a variety of supplemental insurance products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Reserves $1.35B for Claims at June ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corp.’s reserves for asbestos claims, at June 30, 2007, amounted to US$1.35 billion, net of reinsurance recoverables of US$805 million, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 1, 2007. The Company’s reserves for asbestos claims, at March 31, 2007, amounted to US$1.36 billion, net of insurance recoverables of US$812 million. (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007) At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company’s reserves for asbestos claims amounted to US$1.38 billion, net of reinsurance recoverable of US$823 million. About 63 percent of the total net asbestos and environmental reserves at June 30, 2007 were for incurred but not reported estimated losses. About 67 percent of the total net A&E reserves at Dec. 31, 2006 were for incurred but not reported estimated losses. Based in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corp., through subsidiary Allstate Insurance Co., is a property-liability insurance company with various property-liability and life and investment subsidiaries, including Allstate Life Insurance Co. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas Has 1,648 Cases with 9,810 Claimants ---------------------------------------------------------------- TriMas Corp., as of June 30, 2007, was party to about 1,648 pending asbestos- related cases involving an aggregate of about 9,810 claimants, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2007. These claimants allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of its subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration industries. For the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company noted 287 claims filed, 951 claims dismissed, and 77 claims settled. The average settlement amount per claim was US$10,396 and the total defense costs were US$2,649,341. 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 amount per claim was US$5,613 and the total defense costs were 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. Most of the claims do not specify the amount sought. Of the 9,810 claims pending at June 30, 2007, 172 set forth specific amounts of damages. Of the 172 claims, 148 sought between US$1 million and US$5 million in total damages (which includes compensatory and punitive damages) and 24 sought between US$5 million and US$10 million in total damages (which includes compensatory and punitive damages). Solely with respect to compensatory damages, 153 of the 172 claims sought between US$50,000 and US$600,000 and 19 sought between US$1 million and US$5 million. Solely with respect to punitive damages, 148 of the 172 claims sought between US$1 million and US$2.5 million and 24 sought US$5 million. In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage. Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been about US$4.6 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 its 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. Bloomfield Hills, Mich.-based TriMas Corp. and its 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: Starwood Accrues $1M at June for Abatement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc., in the three months ended June 30, 2007, recorded US$1 million as accrual for asbestos abatement on the Company’s redevelopment of the Sheraton Bal Harbour Beach Resort. In the three months ended June 30, 2007, the Company recorded net restructuring and other special charges of about US$49 million primarily related to the Company’s redevelopment of Bal Harbour. The Company plans to demolish the current hotel and rebuild a St. Regis hotel along with branded residences and fractional units. Bal Harbour was closed for business on July 1, 2007. COMPANY PROFILE Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc. 1111 Westchester Ave. White Plains, N.Y. 10604 Phone: 914-640-8100 Fax: 914-640-8591 http://www.starwoodhotels.com Description: The Company’s principal business is hotels and leisure, which is comprised of a worldwide hospitality network of about 900 full-service hotels, vacation ownership resorts and residential developments primarily serving two markets: luxury and upscale. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Still Face ASARCO Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Southern Copper Corp.’s direct and indirect parent corporations, including Americas Mining Corp. and Grupo Mexico, have from time to time been named parties in various litigations, including asbestos-related, involving Asarco. In August 2002 the U.S. Department of Justice brought a claim alleging fraudulent conveyance in connection with AMC’s then-proposed purchase of the Company from Asarco. That action was settled under a Consent Decree dated Feb. 2, 2003. In March 2003, AMC purchased its interest in SCC from Asarco. In October 2004, AMC, Grupo Mexico, Mexicana de Cobre and other parties, not including the Company, were named in a lawsuit filed in New York State court in connection with alleged asbestos liabilities, which lawsuit claims that AMC’s purchase of the Company from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent conveyance. The lawsuit filed in New York State court was stayed as a result of the Aug. 9, 2005 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by Asarco. On Feb. 2, 2007 a complaint was filed by Asarco, the debtor in possession, alleging many of the matters previously claimed in the New York State lawsuit, including that AMC’s purchase of the Company from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent conveyance. In 2005, certain subsidiaries of Asarco filed bankruptcy petitions in connection with alleged asbestos liabilities. In July 2005, the unionized workers of Asarco commenced a work stoppage. As a result of various factors, including the work stoppage, on Aug. 9, 2005 Asarco filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Corpus Christi, Tex. Asarco’s bankruptcy case is being joined with the bankruptcy cases of its subsidiaries. Asarco’s bankruptcy could result in additional claims being filed against Grupo Mexico and its subsidiaries, including the Company, Minera Mexico or its subsidiaries. With its U.S. headquarters in Phoenix, Southern Copper Corp. mines, smelts, and refines copper at its Toquepala and Cuarjone mines. The Company produces blister copper and copper cathodes at its smelter and refinery in Peru. The Company produces around 1.5 billion pounds of copper annually. That copper is sold in Asia, Europe, and the Americas, where it's used mainly for building, construction, and electronics. Americas Mining Corp., a subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, owns 75 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RJR Tobacco Continues to Face Whiteley Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc.’s subsidiary R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. continues to face a smoking-related asbestos lawsuit, styled Whiteley v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 2, 2007. On March 20, 2000, in Whiteley v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. (a case filed in April 1999 in Superior Court, San Francisco County, Calif.), a jury awarded the plaintiffs US$1.72 million in compensatory damages and US$20 million in punitive damages. RJR Tobacco and Philip Morris 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, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, alleging that use of the defendants’ products, along with exposure to asbestos, caused Mrs. Whiteley to develop lung cancer and ultimately die, and the case name became Whiteley v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. The jury awarded the plaintiff US$2.46 million in compensatory damages jointly against RJR Tobacco and Philip Morris on May 2, 2007, and returned a punitive damages verdict award of US$250,000 against RJR Tobacco on May 9, 2007. RJR Tobacco filed its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial on July 31, 2007, and if necessary, RJR Tobacco will appeal. Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American Inc.’s wholly owned subsidiaries include its operating subsidiaries: R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Lane Ltd., Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc., R. J. Reynolds Global Products Inc., and Conwood Company LLC, Conwood Sales Co. LLC, Scott Tobacco LLC, and Rosswil LLC. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parsons Suit v. RJR Tobacco, B&W Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos related lawsuit, which is pending in a West Virginia court and filed against Reynolds American Inc. subsidiaries: R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Holdings Inc., is currently stayed, according to the Company’s quarterly U.S. Securities and Exchange Report dated Aug. 2, 2007. In Parsons v. AC & S Inc. (a case filed in February 1998 in Circuit Court, Ohio County, W.Va.), the plaintiff sued asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover US$1,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages individually and an unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and punitive damages. The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons’ use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become addicted to tobacco. The case has been stayed pending a final resolution of the plaintiffs’ motion to refer tobacco litigation to the judicial panel on multi-district litigation filed in In Re: Tobacco Litigation in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. On Dec. 26, 2000, three defendants (Nitral Liquidators Inc., Desseaux Corp. of North American and Armstrong World Industries) filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all defendants. Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American Inc.’s wholly owned subsidiaries include its operating subsidiaries: R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Lane Ltd., Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc., R. J. Reynolds Global Products Inc., and Conwood Company LLC, Conwood Sales Co. LLC, Scott Tobacco LLC, and Rosswil LLC. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Quaker Chemical Receives $5Mil for Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Quaker Chemical Corp., 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 Aug. 3, 2007. An inactive Company subsidiary that was acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous 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 early 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. Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected that the subsidiary’s total liability over the next 50 years for these claims is about US$12,700,000 (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. A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, 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 for US$15 million in late 2005 and US$20 million in the 2007- 1st quarter. 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 million, the first of which was received early in the 2007-2nd quarter. Conshohocken, Pa.-based Quaker Chemical Corp. rolls out specialty chemicals for industrial and manufacturing processes. The Company produces rolling lubricants used in making rolled aluminum products and hot- and cold-rolled steel products. The Company also makes corrosion preventives, metal finishing compounds, hydraulic fluids, and machining, grinding, and forming compounds. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Ind. Awaits Date of Oral Argument ---------------------------------------------------------------- PepsiAmericas Inc. states that Cooper Industries LLC’s appeal has been fully briefed by all parties, and Cooper is awaiting scheduling by the appellate court of a date for oral argument, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2007. On May 31, 2005, Cooper filed and later served a lawsuit against the Company, Pneumo Abex LLC, and the Trustee of the Trust (the “Trustee”), captioned Cooper Industries LLC v. PepsiAmericas Inc., et al., Case No. 05 CH 09214 (Cook Cty. Cir. Ct.). The claims involve the Trust and an insurance policy bought by the Company in the 2002-2nd quarter. The 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 LLC, 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. Minneapolis-based PepsiAmericas Inc. is the world’s No. 2 Pepsi bottler. The Company also Dr Pepper, Lipton Iced Teas, Welch's fruit drinks, Schweppes (tonic water, ginger ale), Starbucks Frappuccino, and bottled water. The Company operates in 19 U.S. states (mostly in the Midwest) and holds about 19 percent of the U.S. market for Pepsi products. PepsiCo owns 80 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Suits v. Pride Int’l. Units Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certain subsidiaries of Pride International Inc., since August 2004, have been co-defendants in several asbestos-related complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 2, 2007. Several hundred individuals in these complaints allege that they were employed by some of the named defendants between about 1965 and 1986. Additional suits have been filed since August 2004. The complaints allege that certain drilling contractors used products containing asbestos in offshore drilling operations, land-based drilling operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment. The plaintiffs assert claims based on negligence and strict liability and claims under the Jones Act. The complaints name as defendants numerous other companies that are not affiliated with the Company, including companies that allegedly manufactured drilling related products containing asbestos that are the subject of the complaints. The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Eight individuals of the many plaintiffs in these suits have been identified as allegedly having worked for the Company or one of its affiliates or predecessors. Discovery and investigation is ongoing to determine whether these individuals were employed in the Company’s offshore operations during the alleged period of exposure. Houston-based Pride International Inc. provides contract drilling and related services, operating offshore and on land. The Company provides contract drilling services to oil and natural gas exploration and production companies through the operation and management of 63 offshore rigs and 214 land-based drilling and workover rigs. The Company also has two ultra-deepwater drillships under construction. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Reserves $190.3Mil at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Old Republic International Corp.’s claim reserves for asbestos and environmental matters, at June 30, 2007, amounted to a gross of US$190.3 million and a net of US$153.4 million, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 2, 2007. The Company’s asbestos and environmental claim reserves, at March 31, 2007, amounted to a gross of US$192.8 million and a net of US$154.6 million. (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2007) The Company’s claim reserves for asbestos and environmental, at Dec. 31, 2006, amounted to a gross of US$194.9 million and a net of US$157.8 million. Chicago-based Old Republic International Corp., through subsidiaries covering the U.S. and Canada, is an insurance holding company operating in three primary areas: Old Republic General Insurance, Mortgage Guaranty, and Title Insurance Groups. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Receives 2,599 New Claims at June ---------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife Inc.’s subsidiary Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. received about 2,599 new asbestos-related claims during the six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with 3,886 new claims during the six months ended June 30, 2006. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. received about 1,635 new asbestos-related claims during the three months ended March 31, 2007, compared with 2,220 claims during the three months ended March 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007) Metropolitan Life is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos- related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. The lawsuits principally 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. Since 2002, trial courts in California, Utah, Georgia, New York, Texas, and Ohio have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life. Some courts have denied Metropolitan Life’s motions to dismiss. New York-based MetLife Inc. and its subsidiaries, including Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., provide insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S., Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. The Company offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GlobalSantaFe Units Face Six Suits in Miss. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certain subsidiaries of GlobalSantaFe Corp. still face six asbestos-related lawsuits in Mississippi, five of which are pending in the Circuit Court of Jones County and one of which is pending in the Circuit Court of Jasper County, Miss. Filed in August 2004, these suits allege that certain individuals aboard the Company’s offshore drilling rigs had been exposed to asbestos. These six lawsuits are part of a group of 23 lawsuits filed on behalf of about 800 plaintiffs against a large number of defendants, most of which are not affiliated with the Company. The Company’s subsidiaries have not been named as defendants in any of the other 17 suits. The lawsuits assert claims based on theories of unseaworthiness, negligence, strict liability and its subsidiaries’ status as Jones Act employers and seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. In general, the defendants are alleged to have manufactured, distributed or utilized products containing asbestos. In the case of the Company’s named subsidiaries and that of several other offshore drilling companies named as defendants, the lawsuits allege those defendants allowed such products to be utilized aboard offshore drilling rigs. The Company has not been provided with sufficient information to determine the number of plaintiffs who claim to have been exposed to asbestos aboard its rigs, whether they were employees nor their period of employment, the period of their alleged exposure to asbestos, nor their medical condition. Accordingly, the Company is unable to estimate its potential exposure in these suits. Houston-based GlobalSantaFe Corp. is a worldwide offshore oil and gas drilling contractor, owning or operating an active fleet of 59 marine drilling rigs. As of June 30, 2007, the Company’s fleet included 43 cantilevered jackup rigs, 11 semisubmersibles, three drillships, and two additional semisubmersible rigs it operates for third parties under a joint venture agreement. On July 21, 2007, the Company entered into an agreement and plan of merger with Transocean Inc. and Transocean Worldwide Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GlobalSantaFe Unit Pursues Insurance Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A GlobalSantaFe Corp. subsidiary continues to be involved in an asbestos-related insurance lawsuit filed against its insurance underwriters in the Superior Court of San Francisco County, Calif., according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2007. Filed in February 2004, the suit seeks a declaration as to its rights to insurance coverage and the proper allocation among its insurers of liability for claims payments in order to assist in the future management and disposition of certain claims. The subsidiary’s three primary insurers had historically paid settlement and defense costs for the subsidiary. One of these insurers was nearing insolvency and claimed exhaustion of its coverage limits, but following negotiations agreed to make a cash payment in exchange for a release of all further liability for the subsidiary’s asbestos liabilities. Both of the subsidiary’s other primary insurers have entered into settlement agreements with the subsidiary that will provide for limited additional funding of asbestos liabilities and attorneys’ fees and costs associated. The insurance coverage in question relates to suits filed against the subsidiary arising out of its involvement in the design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its operations discontinued in 1989. The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. As of June 30, 2007, the subsidiary had been named as a defendant in about 4,300 lawsuits, the first of which was filed in 1990, and a substantial number of which are currently pending. The Company said it believes that as of Jan. 1, 2007, from US$40 million to US$45 million had been expended to resolve claims (including both attorneys’ fees and expenses, and settlement costs), with the subsidiary having expended US$4 million of that amount due to insurance deductible obligations, all of which have now been satisfied. The same subsidiary was a defendant in a lawsuit filed against it by Union Oil Company of California in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill. That lawsuit arose out of claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos at a refinery owned by Union and constructed by the Company’s subsidiary. Union has alleged that the subsidiary was required to defend and indemnify it under the terms of contracts entered into for the construction of the refinery. The Company was also named as a defendant in the pending litigation. The parties settled that lawsuit in June 2007, with the Company’s subsidiary having agreed to pay an amount from funds previously received from insurance underwriters, and with no contribution from the Company. Houston-based GlobalSantaFe Corp. is a worldwide offshore oil and gas drilling contractor, owning or operating an active fleet of 59 marine drilling rigs. As of June 30, 2007, the Company’s fleet included 43 cantilevered jackup rigs, 11 semisubmersibles, three drillships, and two additional semisubmersible rigs it operates for third parties under a joint venture agreement. On July 21, 2007, the Company entered into an agreement and plan of merger with Transocean Inc. and Transocean Worldwide Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Smoker’s Kin Sues 46 Firms in Texas Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The family of Elbert Traver filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against the A.O. Smith Corp. and 45 other major companies with the Orange County District Court in Texas on Aug. 2, 2007. Provost Umphrey attorney Bryan Blevins represents Mr. Traver’s wife Carol and his daughter, Jackie Spears. Mr. Blevins and his clients claim the companies conspired to manufacture and distribute asbestos-containing products, maliciously and purposely inflicting Mr. Traver with lung cancer. Mr. Traver had already sued and received a claim for his "non-malignant asbestos-related disease with one or more of the defendants," the suit said. But now his family is seeking compensation for a "different malignant asbestos-related disease." Medical documents attached to the suit say Mr. Traver, a former smoker, was first exposed to asbestos in 1942. He was an industrial carpenter, welder and laborer for various refineries and plants. Mr. Traver died on Aug. 10, 2005. The suit names corporations from aerospace giant Lockheed Martin Corp. to iron supplier Zurn Industries Inc. for manufacturing and distributing asbestos laced products. The petition says the defendants entangled in Mr. Traver’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. Traver and Mrs. Spears will sue for Mr. Traver’s alleged wrongful death and his 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. D070-375.c has been assigned to the 260th Judicial District. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Senator Probes EPA on Libby Poisoning ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, could subpoena the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over why asbestos poisoning in Libby, Mont., was not declared a public health emergency, Associated Press reports. Sen. Baucus has requested five-year-old documents from the EPA, detailing deliberations over whether it would declare such an emergency. Sen. Baucus says the declaration would have led to more extensive cleanup and health protections for the town. On Aug. 6, 2007, during a visit to Libby, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said he would get the documents to Sen. Baucus by the end of August 2007. Libby is home to the now-closed W.R. Grace & Co. vermiculite mine. The vermiculite was used in various household products. It also contained tremolite asbestos, which is blamed by some health authorities for killing about 200 people, and sickening one of every eight people in Libby. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Penalizes Arizona Schools for Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fined seven Tucson, Ariz., charter school operators a combined total of US$67,240 for Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act violations, according to an EPA press release dated Aug. 6, 2007. In May 2006, EPA inspectors discovered the school operators all failed to conduct inspections to determine if asbestos-containing material was present in school buildings and failed to develop asbestos management plans. Accredited inspectors later found asbestos in six of the schools. All of the schools have since taken necessary actions to comply with the law. Nathan Lau, Associate Director for the Communities and Ecosystems Division in EPA’s Pacific Southwest region, said, “Asbestos in schools has the potential for endangering the health of students, teachers, and others, including maintenance workers.” The schools are: -- Pima Partnership School: The operator Pima Prevention Partnership Inc. was fined US$12,600. -- Transformational Learning Center: The operator TLC Charter Schools Inc. was fined US$12,600. -- Alternative Computerized Education Charter High School: The operator Tucson Youth Development Inc. was fined US$12,600. -- Tucson Urban League Academy: The operator Tucson Urban League Inc. was fined US$11,300. Asbestos was discovered at all four schools during inspections. Each school now has a management plan including the location of the asbestos and how the school will properly manage the asbestos to reduce the risk of exposure. -- City High School: The operator of the school, Tucson Small School Project Inc., was fined US$8,800. During an inspection, the inspector found asbestos materials, including an area of damaged acoustic ceiling plaster which needed removal. The school has since implemented a management plan and removed the damaged asbestos- containing building material. -- Toltecali Academy, Calli Ollin Academy, and Hiaki High School: The operator of these schools, Calli Ollin Academy, was fined US$7,300. During an inspection of Calli Ollin Academy, the inspector found asbestos materials, including about three linear feet of damaged pipe insulation. The school has since implemented a management plan and removed the damaged asbestos material for Calli Ollin Academy. Toltecali Academy was constructed in 2002 and a letter from the builder of the school confirmed that no asbestos containing building material was used in construction of the school. A management plan for the school has since been prepared. Asbestos was not found during an inspection of Hiaki High School, but the inspection was not conducted prior to operating the school. The school operator also failed to maintain an asbestos management plan, and has since developed a plan and has records available showing no asbestos was found at Hiaki. -- Southside Community School: The operator, Aprender Tucson, will pay a cash penalty of US$1,453, after subtracting the EPA approved costs of complying with the law from a US$2,040 fine. After the EPA’s inspection, the school operator obtained written confirmation from the builder of the school that no asbestos was used in construction, but failed to maintain an asbestos management plan. The school now has an asbestos management plan and records available showing no asbestos was used in the construction of the school. Each school is allowed to subtract properly documented costs of complying with the regulations from the penalty amount. Federal law requires schools to conduct an initial inspection using accredited inspectors to determine if asbestos-containing building material is present and develop a management plan to address the asbestos materials found in the school buildings. Schools are also required to appoint a designated person who is trained to oversee asbestos activities and ensure compliance with federal regulations. Finally, schools must conduct periodic surveillance and re-inspections, properly train the maintenance and custodial staff, and maintain records in the management plan. Local education agencies must keep an updated copy of the management plan in its administrative office and at the school which must be made available for inspection by parents, teachers, and the general public. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Local Sues 65 Companies in Ill. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The estate of John Thyssen, on July 31, 2007, filed an asbestos suit against 65 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., claiming he was exposed to asbestos while employed as an electrician from 1940 to 1983. The suit brought by Mr. Thyssen’s son, Jeffrey, states that Mr. Thyssen resided in Massachusetts. Some of the defendants include Bondex Inc., DaimlerChrysler Corp., DuPont Chemical and Energy Operations, Ford Motor Co., General Electric Co., The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., John Crane Inc., Monsanto Co., Riley Stoker, and Union Carbide Corp. The younger Mr. Thyssen claims that during the course of his father's employment and during home and automotive repairs, his father he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers emanating from certain products he was working with and around. The complaint states, “The plaintiff's exposure and inhalation, ingestion or absorption of the asbestos fibers was completely foreseeable and could or should have been anticipated by the defendants." The suit claims the defendants knew or should have known that the asbestos fibers contained in their products had a toxic, poisonous and highly deleterious effect upon the health of people. According to the elder Mr. Thyssen, he first became aware that he suffered from mesothelioma on Sept. 20, 2006. He alleges that the defendants included asbestos in their products even when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide any or adequate instructions concerning the safe methods of working with and around asbestos. The younger Mr. Thyssen claims that the defendants failed to require and advise employees including his father of hygiene practices designed to reduce or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home. As a result of the alleged negligence, the younger Mr. Thyssen claims his father was exposed to fibers containing asbestos. He developed a disease caused only by asbestos which has disabled and disfigured him, the complaint states. The complaint states that the elder Mr. Thyssen also suffers "great physical pain and mental anguish, and also will be hindered and prevented from pursuing his normal course of employment, thereby losing large sums of money." The suit seeks at least US$500,000 in damages for negligence, willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of evidence among other allegations. Nicholas Angelides of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill. represents the Thyssen case. Case No. 07 L 687 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Victims Lose AUD760T in Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Two Australian asbestos victims have been stripped of more than AUD760,000 in compensation after the West Australia Court of Appeal ruled on Aug. 2, 2007 that they were not entitled to the money, The West Australian reports. Jazz musician Dennis Moss, 79 years old, had been awarded AUD255,000 after claiming his mesothelioma was caused by asbestos fibers he inhaled while carrying out do-it-yourself jobs around the house. However, the Appeals Court found there was doubt whether this had exposed him to enough asbestos to cause the disease. David Hannell, 64 years old, who died of mesothelioma in June 2007, had also argued that he inhaled the fibers during backyard projects. However, the Court of Appeal ruled that Mr. Hannell was not entitled to the compensation because the company that produced the asbestos cement products had not breached a duty of care to him. The Court said even if Amaca Pty Ltd. had warning notices on its products, Mr. Hannell may not have seen them because the items were already installed at the house when he bought it. Mr. Hannell and Mr. Moss, who both came to West Australia in the 1980s, claimed they had contracted the disease while doing DIY jobs, including cutting asbestos fences and sanding eaves. Amaca discontinued the manufacture of asbestos cement products in the 1980s. On Aug. 2, 2007, Chief Justice Wayne Martin, Justice Carmel McLure and Justice Christopher Steytler agreed that because the products were already installed at the men’s northern suburbs homes when they bought them, any warning labels may have already been removed. A judgment summary said that Mr. Moss and Mr. Hannell’s cases differed from many previous asbestos cases because the levels of exposure involved in their domestic situations were much lower than those experienced by people in asbestos mining or who regularly worked with asbestos products. Payment to Mr. Hannell and Mr. Moss had been withheld pending the outcome of the appeal. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd, Units Continue to Face Injury Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison Inc. states that asbestos suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts against its Utilities (Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities Inc.) and many other defendants. In the suits, a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars. In 2006, Con Edison of New York estimated that its aggregate undiscounted potential liability for these suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15 years is US$10 million. In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or are claiming workers’ compensation benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. Under its current rate agreements, Con Edison of New York is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers’ compensation claims. The Company’s accrued liability for asbestos suits amounted to US$10 million at June 30, 2007, the same as for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. Con Edison of New York’s accrued liability for asbestos suits amounted to US$10 million at June 30, 2007, the same as for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. New York-based Consolidated Edison Inc. has two regulated utility subsidiaries: Con Edison of New York and Orange and Rockland Utilities Inc. Con Edison of New York provides electric service and gas service in New York City and Westchester County. O&R provides electric service in southeastern New York and adjacent areas of northern New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania and gas service in southeastern New York and adjacent areas of eastern Pennsylvania. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Still Deals with N.Y. Pipe Explosion ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison Inc. continues to respond to a July 2007 incident, in which a Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured for reasons that have not yet been determined. It has been reported that one person died and others were injured as a result of the incident. Debris from the incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos. The response to the incident has required the closing of several buildings and streets for various periods, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 2, 2007. The Company has notified its insurers of the incident and said it believes that the policies currently in force will cover most of the Company’s costs, which could be substantial, to satisfy its liability to others in connection with the incident. New York-based Consolidated Edison Inc. has two regulated utility subsidiaries: Con Edison of New York and Orange and Rockland Utilities Inc. Con Edison of New York provides electric service and gas service in New York City and Westchester County. O&R provides electric service in southeastern New York and adjacent areas of northern New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania and gas service in southeastern New York and adjacent areas of eastern Pennsylvania. New Securities Fraud Cases LUMINENT MORTGAGE: Faruqi Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP announces that a class action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. securities between July 24, 2007 and August 6, 2007, inclusive. The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and misleading press releases and SEC filings regarding Luminent's financial results and business prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Luminent failed to disclose: (i) the Company was not sufficiently liquid; (ii) the Company's financial statements and reports were not prepared in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules; and (iii) that defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that the Company had ample liquidity and that the dividend payments were secure. As a result, the price of the Company's common stock was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. On August 6, 2007, however, defendants shocked the market when they announced that the Company was cancelling the payment of its dividend. In response to the announcement, Luminent's share price dropped to a low of $3.75 on August 6, 2007 before trading was halted. It then opened on August 7, 2007 at $0.50, representing a drop of over 85%. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and all other individual and institutional investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Luminent securities between July 24, 2007 through August 6, 2007, excluding defendants and their affiliates. Interested parties may move the court no later than October 8, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Shane Rowley, Esq. Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. Richard Schwartz, Esq. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: Srowley@faruqilaw.com or Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com or Rschwartz@faruqilaw.com RAIT FINANCIAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all common stock purchasers of RAIT Financial Trust from January 10, 2007 to July 31, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges RAIT and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company had acquired inherently risky loans and financing instruments; (2) that American Home Mortgage's ("AHM") payments on these loans and financing instruments were in jeopardy due to AHM's business practices; (3) that if AHM failed to make payments on its loans and financing instruments, the Company would suffer a net exposure of $95 million; and (4) that the Company had failed to adequately reserve for the risk of nonpayment by AHM. On July 31, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it announced that AHM had failed to make its trust preferred financing payment to the Company, in stark contrast to earlier statements. The Company also disclosed for the first time that it had a net equity exposure to AHM of approximately $95 million, or $1.56 per share of book value, which resulted from trust preferred financing provided to AHM in 2005. On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $5.72 per share, or 35.5 percent, to close on July 31, 2007 at $10.36 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Shares of the Company's stock continued to decline the following day, losing an additional $0.54 per share, or 5.2 percent, to close on August 1, 2007 at $9.82 per share, also on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than October 1, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. RAIT is a specialty finance company that provides a comprehensive set of debt financing options to the real estate industry. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, Editors. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *