/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070817.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 17, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 162 Headlines ACRES GAMING: Discovery Still Ongoing in Nev. Merger Litigation ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: "Aucoin" Appeal Withdrawn; Case Closed AT&T INC: Nov. Trial Set for Retirees Suit over Phone Concession CERTEGY CHECK: Faces Suit in Cal. Over Customer Info Disclosure CHIQUITA BRANDS: Faces Tort Violations Suits in Several States CHIQUITA BRANDS: Settles Banana Antitrust Litigation in Florida CITIGROUP GLOBAL: "Disher" Lawsuit Remanded to Ill. State Court COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Del. Court Dismisses Claims in Khanna Suit DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Files Motion to Dismiss Trubyte Lawsuit DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Calif. Cavitron Suit Appealed DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron DVA RENAL: Continues to Face Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif. DVA RENAL: Patients Seek Arbitration in Dismissed La. Lawsuit EASTERN ILLINI: Recalls Junction Boxes Due to Fire Hazard EXPEDIA INC: Faces Mo. Suit Over City Hotel Accommodations Tax EXPEDIA INC: Court Grants Ohio City’s Request to Withdraw Case EXPEDIA INC: Wash. Court Extends Response Deadline in Tax Suit FAIR ISAAC: Ga. CROA Litigation Settlement Approval Appealed FORMATION INC: Recalls Coke Drinking Glasses that Easily Break IMAGITAS INC: MDL Panel Consolidates Fla. DPPA Violations Suits KBR INC: Still Faces Miscalculation Claim in Iraq Overtime Suit MICHIGAN: Certification of Suit Over Warren Tree Policy Upheld MONKEY JOE’S: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Inaccurate Product Labels MONSANTO CO: Accused of Herbicide Monopoly in Tex. Lawsuit PLAZA SQUARE: Missouri Apartment Faces Lawsuit by Tenants QUIZNOS SUB: Franchisees Sue Over Alleged Fraudulent Scheme RYLAND GROUP: $1.2M Tex. Securities Suit Deal Gets Initial Okay WARNER CHILCOTT: Settles Ovcon Direct Purchasers Suit for $10M Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Ind. Expenses Total $13M at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Open Cases v. EnPro Ind. Remain at 160,500 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Has $2.4M Collateral on Appeal Bonds ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Has $405M Reserve for Future Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro’s Liability Totals $527.4M at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Has $329M Net Unpaid Losses ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Face Cases w/ 6,100 Claimants ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Has 4,592 Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Corp. Records 72,890 Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint, Units Still Face Injury Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Records 1,181 Cases at June ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Has 26 Cases Set For Trial in 2007 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Still Has 3rd-Party Injury Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. American Standard Drop to 102,653 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Discovery on ASD Suit Still Extended to Nov ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liggett Group Faces 2 Third-Party Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dalmine Records 53 Pending Claims at June ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Liability Stays at $18.7M at July 1 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Records 161 Pending Claims at July 1 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pepco Still Faces 180 Cases in Md. Courts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hearing on Quigley Statement Held Last July ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Has 470 Cases with 7,000 Plaintiffs ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Still Faces 3rd-Party Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argonaut’s A&E Loss Reserves Total $148.1M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex Int’l. Still Faces Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Still Involved in Grace Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stay in Grace Action Still Extended to Oct. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Cases v. RBS Global Increase to 650 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global’s Falk Unit Faces Over 140 Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Has 6,700 Zurn Suits at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Product Suits v. Mine Safety Rise to 250 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MeadWestvaco Still Has 350 Suits at June 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McDermott Units Face Antoine Action in Tex. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, Subsidiaries Face Suits in 28 States ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Motors Still Faces Exposure Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exide’s French Unit to Pay $300T for Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Ind. Has 31,637 Abex Claims at June ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int’l. Has 18,813 Claims at July 27 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brandon Drying Has 9,023 Claims at July 27 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Continues to Face Mt. Vernon Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Morgen Lawsuit in U.S.’s Favor ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Ransom’s Motion in McFaul Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tex. Court Reverses Ruling in Alcoa’s Favor ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Last Day of Filing v. ACandS Set on Oct. 5 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposed Texas Locals Show Signs of Illness ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Supreme Court Junks 57 Injury Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illinois Ex-Councilman Sentenced to 15 Mos. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texas Couple Sues 39 Firms in W.Va. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Court Dismisses Claim in Todd’s Favor ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Joint Case Filed v. Vimasco in W.Va. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace’s Expert Estimates $385M for Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Expert Estimates Grace Liability at $7.9B ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Urges for Celotex Document Production ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Disallows 3 Damage Claims v. Grace New Securities Fraud Cases ARCHSTONE-SMITH: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in Colo. LUMINENT MORTGAGE: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Rosen Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit QIAO XING: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. RADIAN GROUP: Lerach Coughlin Files Pa. Securities Fraud Lawsuit ********* ACRES GAMING: Discovery Still Ongoing in Nev. Merger Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed against Acres Gaming Inc. over an allegation that the company and its directors breached fiduciary duties to stockholders in connection with the approval of a merger between Acres and International Game Technology, Inc. In June 2003, a class action was filed in Clark County, Nevada, District Court against Acres and its directors, entitled, "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming Inc., et al." Defendants named in the suit are: -- Floyd W. Glisson, -- Todd L. Bice, -- Roger B. Hammock, -- Richard Furash, -- David R. Willensky, -- Robert W. Brown, and -- Ronald G. Bennett The complaint alleged that Acres directors breached their fiduciary duties to their stockholders in connection with the approval of the merger transaction between Acres and International Game and sought to enjoin and/or void the merger agreement among other forms of relief. On Sept. 19, 2003, the court denied plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent Acres stockholders from voting on the merger. On Sept. 24, 2003, plaintiff petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to vacate the denial of the TRO and to enjoin Acres from holding its stockholder vote on the merger. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition on Sept. 25, 2003. On Nov. 5, 2003, the plaintiff amended his complaint to recover damages. On Dec. 23, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's second amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. On May 7, 2004, the court issued an order denying defendants' motion to dismiss. Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on Sept. 9, 2004. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on Sept. 14, 2004. On March 15, 2006, the court issued an order denying defendants motion to dismiss the third complaint. On April 7, 2006, defendant filed a Notice of Removal to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to state court, which was granted by an order dated Aug. 15, 2006. On Nov. 30, 2006, the case was transferred to business court and discovery continues. International Game Technology, Inc. reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 3, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming, Inc., et al, Case no. P03-A- 470016-C," filed in Clark County Nevada District Court under Judge Michelle Leavitt. Representing the defendants: Paul R. Hejmanowski, Esq. Lionel Sawyer & Collins 1700 Bank America Plaza, 300 S. Fourth Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: (702) 383-8880 Fax: (702) 383-8845 ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: "Aucoin" Appeal Withdrawn; Case Closed ------------------------------------------------------------ Parties in the consolidated securities class action, "In re: Alliancebernstein Mutual Funds Excessive Fee Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv- 04885-SWK," submitted a fully executed Stipulation Withdrawing Appeal, which resulted in the final termination of the case. The suit, which was originally pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, names as defendants: -- AllianceBernstein L.P., -- AllianceBernstein Holding L.P., -- AllianceBernstein Corp. -- AXA Financial Corp., -- Alliance Bernstein Investment Research and Management, Inc., -- certain current and former directors of the U.S. Funds, and -- unnamed Doe defendants. The Aucoin Complaint alleges, among other things: -- that certain of the defendants improperly authorized the payment of excessive commissions and other fees from U.S. Fund assets to broker-dealers in exchange for preferential marketing services; -- that certain of the defendants misrepresented and omitted from registration statements and other reports material facts concerning such payments; and -- that certain defendants caused such conduct as control persons of other defendants. The Aucoin Complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections 34(b), 36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act, Sections 206 and 215 of the Advisers Act, breach of common law fiduciary duties, and aiding and abetting breaches of common law fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and punitive damages, rescission of their contracts with AllianceBernstein, including recovery of all fees paid to AllianceBernstein pursuant to such contracts, an accounting of all U.S. Fund-related fees, commissions and soft dollar payments, and restitution of all unlawfully or discriminatorily obtained fees and expenses. Since June 22, 2004, nine additional lawsuits making factual allegations substantially similar to those in the first suit were filed against the company and certain other defendants. All nine of the lawsuits were brought as class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York assert claims substantially identical to the Aucoin Complaint. They were brought on behalf of shareholders of AllianceBernstein Funds. On Feb. 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint that asserted claims substantially similar to the lawsuits referred above. On April 14, 2005, defendants moved to dismiss the Aucoin Consolidated Amended Complaint. On Oct. 19, 2005, the District Court dismissed each of the claims set forth in the Aucoin Consolidated Amended Complaint, except for plaintiff's claim under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act. In January 2006, the District Court granted defendants' motion for reconsideration and dismissed the remaining claim under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act. Plaintiffs have moved for leave to amend their consolidated complaint. On May 31, 2006, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to file their amended complaint. On July 5, 2006, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, which was subsequently withdrawn subject to plaintiffs’ right to reinstate it at a later date. On June 30, 2007, plaintiffs’ time to file an appeal expired. On July 11, 2007, the parties submitted a fully executed Stipulation Withdrawing Appeal to the court, resulting in a final termination of the case, according to the Alliancebernstein Holding L.P.'s Aug. 3, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "In re: Alliancebernstein Mutual Funds Excessive Fee Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-04885-SWK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shirley Wohl Kram. Representing the plaintiffs are: Kim Elaine Levy, Esq. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Phone: 212-594-5300 Fax: 212-868-1229 E-mail: klevy@milberg.com - and - Marshall N. Perkins, Esq. The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt St., Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: (410) 332-0030 Representing the company are: Mark Holland, Esq. Mark Adam Kirsch, Esq. Clifford Chance US, LLP 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019-6131 Phone: (212)-878-8432 Fax: (212)-878-8375 E-mail: mark.holland@cliffordchance.com mark.kirsch@cliffordchance.com AT&T INC: Nov. Trial Set for Retirees Suit over Phone Concession ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Nov. 26, 2007 trial is set for the case, "Stoffels v. SBC Communications, Inc.," which was filed against AT&T, Inc., formerly SBC Communications, Inc., by employees arguing that the telephone concession provided by the company is, in essence, a "defined benefit plan." The suit was filed back in 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Plaintiffs, who are retirees of Pacific Bell Telephone Co., Southwestern Bell, and Ameritech, contend that the telephone concession provided by the company is, in essence, a "defined benefit plan" within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of persons that are either retirees of the former subsidiaries of SBC or a predecessor thereof, who received the telephone concession benefit after they retired or current or former employees of the former subsidiaries of SBC with more than 5 years of service during the time that they had a policy to provide employees with a telephone concession benefit upon retirement. They also seek reformation of the out-of-region phone concession offered under the post-employment benefits plan (Plan) and the documents governing it to comply with ERISA, an order requiring the company to fund the Plan as reformed, the appointment of an independent fiduciary to administer the Plan, an order requiring the Plan to pay benefits to plaintiffs and other class members consistent with the terms of the plan and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to ERISA. The company filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which was denied by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on Feb. 3, 2006. On June 23, 2006, the court heard argument on plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. On Oct. 3, 2006, the Court certified two classes. Trial has been set for the week of Nov. 26, 2007, according to the company's Aug. 3, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Stoffels, et al. v. SBC Communications, et al., Case No. 5:05-cv-00233-WWJ," filed in the U.S District Court for the Western District of Texas under Judge William Wayne Justice. Representing the plaintiffs is: Les Mendelsohn, Esq. Les Mendelsohn & Associates, P.C. 110 Broadway, Suite 500 San Antonio, TX 78205-1934 Phone: (210) 222-2271 Fax: 210/230-8914 Representing the defendants are: Bruce Allen Blefeld, Esq. John L. Carter, Esq. Vinson & Elkins Phone: (713) 758-3610 and (713) 758-2124 Fax: (713) 615-5307 CERTEGY CHECK: Faces Suit in Cal. Over Customer Info Disclosure --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a class-action complaint on Aug. 14, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of approximately 8.5 million consumers nationwide whose financial and personal data was stolen by an employee of Certegy Check Services, Inc. and Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. and released to unauthorized third parties. The complaint alleges that a senior database administrator misappropriated the confidential information of millions of consumers and then sold the data to direct marketing firms and data brokers who may have resold it to others. It asserts claims of negligence, invasion of privacy and breach of implied contract. The complaint alleges that Certegy and FIS failed to implement and maintain adequate security measures to protect consumers' confidential financial and personal information. Their failure to properly monitor and supervise their employee subjected consumers to risk of data theft and other fraudulent actions. The case was brought by a Los Angeles, California resident who, prior to the public announcement by Certegy and FIS of the data breach, started noticing an influx of direct marketing and promotional offers as well as phone calls to his home. After subsequently receiving a letter from Certegy informing him that his personal data may have been compromised by one of its employees, the plaintiff engaged a credit monitoring service. Certegy and FIS merged in January of 2006. Certegy provides check- verification services to major U.S. retailers such as Wal-Mart, Sears, Bed Bath & Beyond and Amazon.com. Due to the nature of the services provided by Certegy and FIS, and their undisclosed role in financial transactions, consumers do not choose to use the services of these companies but rather are forced to do so. "Certegy and FIS had a duty to safeguard the confidential data of consumers from any breach, including that of their employees. Once the internal breach became known, it should have been communicated to the public in a timely and adequate manner," said Eric Gibbs, one of the attorneys for the plaintiff. "The failure by these companies to make the internal data breach immediately known exposed consumers to direct marketing campaigns and the risk of unauthorized use of their bank accounts and identity theft." For more information, contact: Girard Gibbs LLP Toll-free: (866) 981-4800 Website: http://www.girardgibbs.com CHIQUITA BRANDS: Faces Tort Violations Suits in Several States -------------------------------------------------------------- Chiquita Brands International, Inc. faces three separate lawsuits filed in U.S. federal courts, claiming that it is liable for alleged tort violations committed in Colombia. The first lawsuit was filed on June 7, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; the second was filed on June 13, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida; and the third, a proposed class action, was filed on July 18, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs in all three suits claim to be, or claim to be members of a class of, family members or legal heirs of individuals allegedly killed by armed groups that received payments from the company’s former Colombian subsidiary. The plaintiffs claim that, as a result of such payments, the company should be held legally responsible for the death of plaintiffs’ family members. The lawsuits seek unspecified monetary damages, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Chiquita Brands International, Inc. -- http://www.chiquita.com-- operates as an international marketer and distributor of bananas and other fresh produce sold under the Chiquita and other brand names in over 80 countries. It sells packaged salads under the Fresh Express brand name primarily in the U.S. The Company also distributes and markets fresh-cut fruit and other branded, value- added fruit products. Chiquita operates its business through three segments: the Banana segment includes the sourcing, transportation, marketing and distribution of bananas; the Fresh Select segment includes the sourcing, marketing and distribution of whole fresh fruits and vegetables other than bananas, and the Fresh Cut segment includes value-added salads, foodservice and fresh-cut fruit operations. Remaining operations, reported in Other, primarily consist of processed fruit ingredient products, which are produced in Latin America and sold in other parts of the world, and other consumer packaged goods. CHIQUITA BRANDS: Settles Banana Antitrust Litigation in Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- Chiquita Brands International, Inc. settled antitrust class actions filed by direct and indirect purchasers of bananas in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Initially, the company entered into a settlement agreement in May 2007 with all named plaintiffs in the direct purchaser action. Pursuant to the settlement, the company paid $2.5 million into a class escrow fund in June 2007. In June 2007, the company also entered into a settlement agreement with all named plaintiffs in the indirect purchaser action, which requires the company to donate to charity fruit products with a retail value of approximately $1 million. The other defendants in both cases have entered into similar or identical settlement agreements. All of these settlements still require formal court approval before becoming final and binding on both classes. Chiquita Brands International, Inc. -- http://www.chiquita.com-- operates as an international marketer and distributor of bananas and other fresh produce sold under the Chiquita and other brand names in over 80 countries. It sells packaged salads under the Fresh Express brand name primarily in the U.S. The Company also distributes and markets fresh-cut fruit and other branded, value- added fruit products. Chiquita operates its business through three segments: the Banana segment includes the sourcing, transportation, marketing and distribution of bananas; the Fresh Select segment includes the sourcing, marketing and distribution of whole fresh fruits and vegetables other than bananas, and the Fresh Cut segment includes value-added salads, foodservice and fresh-cut fruit operations. Remaining operations, reported in Other, primarily consist of processed fruit ingredient products, which are produced in Latin America and sold in other parts of the world, and other consumer packaged goods. CITIGROUP GLOBAL: "Disher" Lawsuit Remanded to Ill. State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of the purported class action, "Disher v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., f/k/a Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.," which was recently remanded by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois back to state court. Case Background Richard Disher filed the suit on March 22, 2004 before a circuit court. Mr. Disher was a customer of the Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. He purchased shares of MCI WorldCom Inc. between April 16, 1998, and March 5, 1999. He also purchased shares of Rhythms Netconnections Inc. on Aug. 11, 1999. As part of its services for its customers, Salomon Smith issued investment research reports and ratings on a stock's future performance (Class Action Reporter, may 28, 2007). The subject of Mr. Disher's complaint included unspecified stocks researched and rated by Salomon Smith's Internet and Telecommunications research groups. Salomon Smith represented that its reports employed a five-point rating system: "buy," "outperform," "neutral," "underperform" and "sell." Mr. Disher's complaint alleged that "no later than March 2000," Salomon Smith "secretly abandoned its published five-point rating system and instead utilized a de facto three- point system of 'buy,' 'outperform,' and 'neutral'." Specifically, a neutral recommendation allegedly was a coded message from Salomon Smith to certain institutional customers to sell a security. Also, instead of assigning an underperform or sell rating for a particular stock, Salomon Smith allegedly would stop covering that stock, with no public announcement or explanation. Thus, the complaint alleged, Salomon Smith's research ratings did not reflect its actual beliefs concerning the future performance of a stock. The gravamen of the complaint was that Salomon Smith's misleading ratings induced Mr. Disher and class members to continue holding their securities in reliance on Salomon Smith's positive ratings when SSB's analysts no longer believed that such ratings were warranted. In addition, Salomon Smith also allegedly used its research reports, ratings and recommendations of certain stock to attract new, and to retain current, investment banking clients "by agreeing to issue a research rating for [those clients'] stock more favorably than Smith Barney's research warranted." Mr. Disher defined the putative class to include himself and "all customers of Smith Barney who held one or more of the Internet or Telecom Stocks in their Smith Barney accounts at times when those stocks were declining in value and when Smith Barney was rating those stocks as 'buy' 'outperform' or 'neutral' when such ratings were not warranted by Smith Barney's research." The complaint specifically excluded "any claims based on Smith Barney's conduct in connection with plaintiff's or any class member's purchases or sales of any of the Internet Stocks or Telecom Stocks." Salomon Smith timely removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (Case No. 04 C 308) under Judge G. Patrick Murphy on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, jurisdiction related to bankruptcy proceedings, and preemption under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. District Court Proceedings The SLUSA provides for the removal to federal court of certain class actions based on state law in which the plaintiffs allege "a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security." The district court ruled that SLUSA did not apply in this case because the alleged misconduct was not connected sufficiently to any purchase or sale of stock. Rather, the complaint alleged harm solely from the retention of securities in reliance on Salomon Smith's misleading research reports and ratings. The district court also concluded that there was no basis for removal under the general removal statute, section 1441 of the Judiciary Code. On Mr. Disher's motion, the district court remanded the case to state court. On appeal, Salomon Smith challenges the district court's conclusion that Mr. Disher's action did not fall within SLUSA's preemptive scope. On Aug. 17, 2005, the appeals court reversed the judgment of the district court and remands the case for further proceedings. The 7th Circuit found federal law mandated removal of the action to federal court and that the district court's order was a determination delegated to federal court by the SLUSA rather than a determination of lack of adjudicatory competence, according to Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. Thus, it was an appealable order rather than remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On May 3, 2007, the District Court remanded the matter to Illinois state court. On June 13, 2007, Citigroup moved in state court to dismiss the action, according to the company's Aug. 3, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Disher v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Case No. 3:04-cv-00308-GPM-CJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois under Judge G. Patrick Murphy with referral to Judge Clifford J. Proud. Representing the plaintiff is: Derek Y. Brandt, Esq. SimmonsCooper 209 South LaSalle Street, Suite 805 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: 312-759-7500 Fax: 312-759-7516 E-mail: dbrandt@simmonscooper.com Representing the defendants is: Richard K. Hunsaker, Esq. Heyl, Royster et al. 103 West Vandalia Street, P.O. Box 467 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Phone: 618-656-4646 E-mail: rhunsaker@hrva.com COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Del. Court Dismisses Claims in Khanna Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action filed against Covad Communications Group, Inc.'s current and former directors by the company's former general counsel continues in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, New Castle County. In June 2002, Dhruv Khanna was relieved of his duties as the company's general counsel and secretary. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Khanna alleged that, over a period of years, certain current and former directors and officers had breached their fiduciary duties to the company by engaging in or approving actions that constituted waste and self-dealing, that certain current and former directors and officers had provided false representations to the company's auditors and that he had been relieved of his duties in retaliation for his being a purported whistleblower and because of racial or national origin discrimination. Based on the events mentioned, in September 2003, Mr. Khanna filed a purported class action and a derivative lawsuit against the company's current and former directors. On Aug. 3, 2004, Mr. Khanna amended his complaint and two additional purported shareholders joined the lawsuit. In this action the plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of the company from the individual defendants for their purported breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs also seek to invalidate the company's election of directors in 2002, 2003 and 2004 because they claim that the company's proxy statements were misleading. On Oct. 11, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety and a motion to disqualify Mr. Khanna and the additional plaintiffs as class representatives. On May 9, 2006, the court dismissed several of the claims for breach of fiduciary duty as well as the claims relating to the company's proxy statements. The court also determined that Mr. Khanna could no longer serve as a plaintiff in this matter. The litigation with respect to the remaining claims is still pending, according to the company’s Aug. 2 form 10-Q filing for the quarter ended June 30, 2007. Based in San Jose, California, Covad Communications Group, Inc. -- http://www.covad.com/-- provides voice and data communications products and services to consumers and businesses throughout the U.S. in approximately 235 major metropolitan areas in 44 states. The company's products and services include high-speed, or broadband, data communications, Internet access connectivity, voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) telephony and a variety of related services. It primarily uses digital subscriber line (DSL) and DS-1, also referred to as T-1, technologies to deliver its services. DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Files Motion to Dismiss Trubyte Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dentsply International Inc. and its tooth dealers have filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims that they engaged in a conspiracy to violate antitrust laws in relation to the sale of Trubyte teeth or products containing Trubyte teeth. Subsequent to the filing of the Department of Justice Complaint in 1999, several private party class actions were filed based on allegations similar to those in the Department of Justice case, on behalf of dental laboratories, and denture patients in seventeen states who purchased Trubyte teeth or products containing Trubyte teeth. These cases were transferred to the United States District Court in Wilmington, Delaware. The private party suits seek damages in an unspecified amount. The Court has granted the Company’s Motion on the lack of standing of the laboratory and patient class actions to pursue damage claims. The Plaintiffs in the laboratory case appealed this decision to the Third Circuit and the Court largely upheld the decision of the District Court in dismissing the Plaintiffs’ damages claims against DENTSPLY, with the exception of allowing the Plaintiffs to pursue a damage claim based on a theory of resale price maintenance between the Company and its tooth dealers. The Plaintiffs’ petition to the United States Supreme Court asking it to review this decision of the Third Circuit was denied. The Plaintiffs in the laboratory case filed an amended complaint asserting that DENTSPLY and its tooth dealers, and the dealers among themselves, engaged in a conspiracy to violate the antitrust laws. Dentsply and the dealers have filed Motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims, except for the resale price maintenance claims. Additionally, manufacturers of two competitive tooth lines have filed and are pursuing separate actions seeking damages alleged to have been incurred as a result of the Company’s tooth distribution practice found to be a violation of the antitrust law. DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Calif. Cavitron Suit Appealed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The decertification of a purported class action that accuses Dentsply International, Inc. of misrepresenting its Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers is being appealed. On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, D.D.S. and Richard Nathan, D.D.S. filed a class action in San Francisco County, California. The complaint, which has been amended twice, seeks a recall of the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in oral surgery. The court certified the case as a class action on June 15, 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair business practices claims. The class is defined as California dental professionals who purchased and used one or more Cavitron ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients. The company filed a motion for decertification of the class and this motion was granted. Plaintiffs have appealed the decertification of the class to the California Court of Appeals, according to the company's May 2, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The company reported no development in the case at its Aug. 2 form 10-Q filing for the quarter ended June 30, 2007. Dentsply International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of products for the dental market. DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dentsply International, Inc. continues to face a purported class action alleging that its Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers was sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because it cannot deliver potable or sterile water. On Dec. 12, 2006, Carole Hildebrand, DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS filed a complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint seeks a refund of the purchase price paid for Cavitron scalers and asserts putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The company reported no development in the case at its Aug. 2 form 10-Q filing for the quarter ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Hilderbrand, et al. v. Dentsply International, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05439-RBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge R. Barclay Surrick. Representing the plaintiff is: Alan Klein, Esq. Duane Morris LLP 30 South 17th St. Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196 Phone: 215-979-1000 Fax: 215-979-1020 E-mail: aklein@duanemorris.com Representing the defendants is: Richard G. Placey Montgomery, Mccracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP 123 S. Broad St., 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19109 Phone: 215-772-7424 Fax: 215-772-7620 E-mail: rplacey@mmwr.com DVA RENAL: Continues to Face Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc. remains a defendant in a class action filed in the Superior Court of California, alleging violations of the state's labor laws. In June 2004, DVA Renal was served with a complaint filed in the Superior Court of California by one of its former employees that worked for its California acute services program. The complaint, which is styled as a class action, alleges, among other things, that DVA Renal failed to provide overtime wages, defined rest periods and meal periods, or compensation in lieu of such provisions and failed to comply with certain other California labor code requirements. DVA Renal is formerly Gambro Healthcare, Inc. DaVita, Inc. acquired it in 2005. DaVita, Inc. reported no development in the matter its Aug. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. DaVita, Inc. -- http://www.davita.com/-- is a provider of dialysis services in the U.S. for patients suffering from chronic kidney failure, also known as end-stage renal disease. The company also provides acute inpatient dialysis services in approximately 770 hospitals and related laboratory services. DVA RENAL: Patients Seek Arbitration in Dismissed La. Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff in a purported class action against DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc. filed a demand to compel class arbitration in the case, which was previously dismissed by U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana back in March. DVA Renal is formerly known as Gambro Healthcare, Inc. It is now a subsidiary of DaVita, Inc. On Aug. 8, 2005, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana filed a complaint against Gambro AB, DVA Renal and related entities. The plaintiff sought to bring its claims as a class action on behalf of itself and all entities that paid any of the defendants for health care goods and services from on or about January 1991 through at least December 2004. The complaint alleged, among other things, damages resulting from facts and circumstances underlying DVA Renal's December 2004 settlement agreement with the Department of Justice and certain agencies of the U.S. Government. In March 2006, the case was dismissed and the plaintiff was compelled to seek arbitration to resolve the matter. In August 2006, the plaintiff proceeded with a demand to compel arbitration. In March 2006, the case was dismissed and the plaintiff was compelled to seek arbitration to resolve the matter. In November 2006, the plaintiff filed a demand for class arbitration against the company and DVA Renal Healthcare. DaVita, Inc. reported no development in the matter its Aug. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Co. v. Gambro A B, et al., Case No. 6:05-cv-01450-TLM-CMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana under Judge Tucker L. Melancon with referral to Judge C. Michael Hill. Representing the plaintiff is: Greg Murphy, Esq. Morain & Murphy 6555 Perkins Rd., Ste. 200 Baton Rouge, LA 70808 Phone: 225-767-7151 Fax: 225-767-8995 E-mail: greg@mandmlawfirm.com Representing the company is: G. William Jarman, Esq. Kean Miller, et al. P.O. Box 3513 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 Phone: 225-387-0999 Fax: 225-388-9133 EASTERN ILLINI: Recalls Junction Boxes Due to Fire Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------- Eastern Illini Electric Cooperative, of Paxton, Illinois, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 2,800 junction boxes used with water heaters. The company said the wiring connections within the junction box can become loose, posing an overheating and fire hazard. Eastern Illini Electric Cooperative has received 25 reports of overheating or melted wiring and wiring connectors. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves junction boxes installed between the water heater and load management switch. The metal junction boxes measure about 4 inches by 4 inches and have no markings. The junction box contains wiring connections for water heaters. These recalled junction boxes are being sold by Eastern Illini Electric Cooperative from June 1989 through late 2002. Picture of recalled junction boxes: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07569.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately contact Eastern Illini Electric Cooperative to schedule an appointment to have the switches re-wired at no cost. Eastern Illini Electric Cooperative has contacted consumers with recalled junction boxes directly. For additional information, call Eastern Illini Electric Cooperative at (800) 824-5102 anytime, or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.eiec.coop EXPEDIA INC: Faces Mo. Suit Over City Hotel Accommodations Tax -------------------------------------------------------------- Expedia, Inc. was named a defendant in a purported class action in Missouri state court in connection with city hotel accommodations taxes. On June 27, 2007, Jefferson City, Missouri filed a putative class action in state court against a number of internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia. The suit, “Jefferson City v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 07AC-CC0055,” was filed in Circuit Court of Cole County. It alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinance. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of that ordinance, violation of Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duties, constructive trust, and declaratory judgment. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages in an unspecified amount. The deadline to respond to the lawsuit has not yet been established. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expedia.com/-- is an online travel company. The Company has created a global travel marketplace used by a range of leisure and corporate travelers and offline retail travel agents, as well as travel service providers. It makes available travel products and services provided by airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, destination service providers, cruise lines and other travel product and service companies. Expedia’s portfolio of brands includes Expedia.com, Hotels.com, Hotwire.com, Worldwide Travel Exchange (WWTE) and Interactive Affiliate Network (IAN), Classic Vacations, Expedia Corporate Travel (ECT), eLong and TripAdvisor. EXPEDIA INC: Court Grants Ohio City’s Request to Withdraw Case -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted a request to withdraw the class action allegations in the lawsuit, "City of Columbus, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.," which names Expedia, Inc. as a defendant. On Aug. 8, 2006, the City of Columbus, Ohio and the City of Dayton, Ohio, filed a putative statewide class action in federal court against a number of Internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia. The suit is in relation to the defendants’ alleged failure to pay hotel accommodations taxes. It was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to counties and cities in Ohio hotel accommodation taxes as required by local ordinances. It purports to assert claims for violation of those ordinances, unjust enrichment, violation of the doctrine of money had and received, conversion, declaratory judgment, and seeks imposition of a constructive trust. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On July 10, 2007, the court entered an ordering transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. On July 23, 2007, the court ruled that the defendants are not subject to Ohio’s transient guest tax ordinance. The court also granted Columbus/Dayton’s request to withdraw the class action allegations from their lawsuit. The suit is “City of Columbus et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-02117-DAK,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under Judge David A. Katz. Representing the plaintiff are: Jonathan P. Saxton, Esq. Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis Ste. 900, One West Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-381-9288 Fax: 513-381-9206 E-mail: jsaxton@rendigs.com Representing the defendants is: Michael R. Gladman, Esq. Jones Day Ste. 600, 325 John H. McConnell Blvd., P.O. Box 165017 Columbus, OH 43216-5017 Phone: 614-469-3939 Fax: 614-461-4198 E-mail: mrgladman@jonesday.com EXPEDIA INC: Wash. Court Extends Response Deadline in Tax Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas extended the deadline for Expedia, Inc., and other defendants to respond to a purported class action over the defendants’ alleged non-payment of hotel accommodations taxes. On Feb. 28, 2007, the City of Fayetteville filed a putative class action in state court against a number of internet travel companies, including Hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia. The complaint, “City of Fayetteville v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., CV 07 567- 1,” alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinances. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of those ordinances, unjust enrichment, conversion, imposition of a constructive trust, and declaratory judgment. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The deadline to respond to the complaint was May 31, 2007. On June 6, 2007, the court entered an order granting defendants’ request to extend the deadline to file an answer or other responsive pleading. Defendants’ deadline to file their answers or other responsive pleadings is ten days after plaintiffs file their Amended Class Action Complaint, which has not been filed, 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. Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expedia.com/-- is an online travel company. The Company has created a global travel marketplace used by a range of leisure and corporate travelers and offline retail travel agents, as well as travel service providers. It makes available travel products and services provided by airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies, destination service providers, cruise lines and other travel product and service companies. Expedia’s portfolio of brands includes Expedia.com, Hotels.com, Hotwire.com, Worldwide Travel Exchange (WWTE) and Interactive Affiliate Network (IAN), Classic Vacations, Expedia Corporate Travel (ECT), eLong and TripAdvisor. FAIR ISAAC: Ga. CROA Litigation Settlement Approval Appealed ------------------------------------------------------------- Two class members have appealed against a final approval of a proposed settlement in lawsuits against Fair Isaac, Inc. that alleges violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act. The company was named a defendant in a lawsuit captioned, “Robbie Hillis v. Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. and Fair Isaac, Inc.,” which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants jointly sold the Score Power credit score product in violation of certain procedural requirements under the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), and in violation of the antifraud provisions of that statute. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendants are “credit repair organizations” under CROA. The plaintiff sought certification of a class on behalf of all individuals who purchased products containing Score Power from the defendants in the five year period prior to the filing of the Complaint on Nov. 14, 2004. Plaintiff claimed damages of an unspecified amount, and further claimed that Equifax and Fair Isaac were unjustly enriched such that all payments should be refunded. On Feb. 5, 2007, the plaintiff, Equifax and Fair Isaac entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve this lawsuit and the Christy Slack lawsuit. The “Hillis” matter and the case, “Christy Slack v. Fair Isaac Corp. and myFICO Consumer Services, Inc.,” were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and the Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved by the Court on Feb. 8, 2007. Christy Slack Case The case by Christy Slack was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As in the Hillis matter, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants violated certain procedural requirements of CROA, and violated the antifraud provisions of CROA, with respect to the sale of credit score products on the company's myfico.com website. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendants violated the California Credit Services Act and were unjustly enriched. The plaintiff sought certification of a class on behalf of all individuals who purchased credit score products from us on the myfico.com website in the five year period prior to the filing of the Complaint on Jan. 18, 2005. Settlement and Appeal On June 4, 2007, the Court held a hearing to determine the final approval of the settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, Fair Isaac will pay legal fees, will provide three months of its ScoreWatch product for free to participating class members, and will make certain changes to its myfico.com website. Fair Isaac has delivered notices to class members. On June 13, 2007, the Court granted final approval of the settlement and directed that final judgment be entered. However, an appeal objecting to the settlement was filed on July 11, 2007 by Meredith Whittington and Taren Hill, two members of the class. The Slack case was covered by the settlement agreement in the Robbie Hillis lawsuit. The appeal in Hillis also affects this case. For more details, on the settlement, visit: http://www.hillisslacksettlement.com/ Fair Isaac Corp. -- http://www.fairisaac.com-- provides analytical, software and data management products and services. Its services include predictive modeling, decision analytics, business intelligence management, decision management systems and consulting services. The Company helps businesses make better decisions in the areas of customer targeting and acquisition, customer origination, customer management, fraud collections and recovery, as well as helping businesses improve the non- customer decisions, such as transaction and claims processing, and network integrity review. Fair Isaac categorizes its products and services into four segments: strategy machine, scoring solutions, professional services and analytical software tools. FORMATION INC: Recalls Coke Drinking Glasses that Easily Break -------------------------------------------------------------- Formation Inc., of San Bruno, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 300 Coca-Cola-themed drinking glasses. The company said the inner wall of the double-walled glasses can break easily, posing a laceration hazard to consumers. Formation has received one report of a glass breaking during normal use. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves clear double-walled soda glasses sold in a bell-shape. The drinking glasses were sold in two sizes: 16-ounces and 22-ounces, and have various Coca-Cola® graphics printed on the glass. These recalled Coca-Cola-themed drinking glasses were manufactured in China and are being sold at The World of Coca-Cola Store in Atlanta, Georgia exclusively from May 2007 through June 2007 for between $6 and $8. Pictures of recalled Coca-Cola-themed drinking glasses: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07268a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07268b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07268c.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07268d.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using and discard the glasses immediately. Consumers can contact Formation for a refund. For additional information, contact Formation toll free at (866) 428-1176 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.formationinc.com. IMAGITAS INC: MDL Panel Consolidates Fla. DPPA Violations Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation consolidated 10 purported class actions against Imagitas, Inc., a subsidiary of Pitney Bowes, Inc., which are generally alleging that the company violated the Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), according to the company's Aug. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The federal panel on multi-district litigation held a hearing on the company's motion to consolidate the 10 purported class actions that have now been filed against Imagitas, which are alleging that the Imagitas DriverSource program violates DPPA During the second quarter of 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation consolidated the ten purported class actions before a single judge in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The cases are now jointly referred to as “In re Imagitas, Inc., Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1828.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. -- http://www.pb.com/-- is a provider of mail processing equipment and integrated mail solutions. KBR INC: Still Faces Miscalculation Claim in Iraq Overtime Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A court refused to dismiss a contractual claim for miscalculation of employees’ pay in the Iraqi Overtime Litigation filed against KBR Inc. During the fourth quarter of 2005, a group of present and former employees working on the LogCAP contract in Iraq and elsewhere filed a class action alleging that KBR wrongfully failed to pay time and a half for hours worked in excess of 40 per work week and that “uplift” pay, consisting of a foreign service bonus, an area differential, and danger pay, was only applied to the first 40 hours worked in any work week. The class alleged by plaintiffs consists of all current and former employees on the LogCAP contract from December 2001 to present. The basis of plaintiffs’ claims is their assertion that they are intended third party beneficiaries of the LogCAP contract and that the LogCAP contract obligated KBR to pay time and a half for all overtime hours. The company has moved to dismiss the case on a number of bases. On September 26, 2006, the court granted the motion to dismiss insofar as claims for overtime pay and “uplift” pay are concerned, leaving only a contractual claim for miscalculation of employees’ pay. That claim remains pending, according to the company’s Aug. 2 form 10-Q filing for the quarter ended June 30, 2007. MICHIGAN: Certification of Suit Over Warren Tree Policy Upheld -------------------------------------------------------------- The Michigan Court of Appeals allowed about 50 Warren homeowners to sue the city over alleged damages caused by the planting of trees in residential neighborhoods, reports say. Twenty-tree residents filed the suit in 2000. According to Detroit Free Press, some residents said their homes were flooded with raw sewage and sidewalks cracked when the roots of the trees began to expand. The Macomb County Circuit judge denied class-action status to the case, but eventually overturned it. The city argued against that ruling. The appeals court disagreed, finding that Judge James Biernat acted within his powers when he reviewed and eventually overturned his previous ruling denying class action status in a case. The ruling will allow an estimated 7,000 Warren homeowners to join in the suit, according to Brian C. Louwers of C & G News. There exists “no procedural or legal impediment to extending class membership as to all claims in this matter to class members who were not explicitly named in the initial complaint as of April 2, 2002,” Judges Alton T. Davis, Joel P. Hoekstra, and Pat M. Donofrio declared. Attorney Gerard Mantese, of the Troy-based Mantese and Rossman law firm said he currently represents about 50 Warren homeowners. For more information, contact: Gerard Mantese, Esq. Mantese and Rossman PC 1361 E. Big Beaver Road Troy, Michigan 48083 (Oakland Co.) Phone: 248-457-9200 Fax: 248-457-9201 Web site: http://www.manteselaw.com MONKEY JOE’S: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Inaccurate Product Labels --------------------------------------------------------------- Monkey Joe’s Big Nut Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County claiming it inaccurately labeled its products as having fewer grams of “carbohydrates” than “sugars,” the CourtHouse News Service reports. Also named as defendants are JBEC LLC and The Big Nut Co. The complaint -- filed by Robert Cameron -- states, “All ‘sugars’ are ‘carbohydrates’ and it is mathematically and scientifically impossible that the total carbohydrates be less than the amount of sugars in the product.” The products include its best-selling product, Jordan Almonds (labeled as containing 6 grams of carbohydrates and 19 grams of sugar), and Butter Toasted Peanuts (14 g carbs and 18 g sugar), the complaint states. The proposed class consists of all persons who purchased products with a nutrition notice defectively labeled by Monkey Joe's. Plaintiff requests judgment as follows: -- certification of the suit as a class action; -- awarding actual damages and trebling said damages under NJSA 56:12-7; -- awarding a civil penalty of not less than $ 100 per violation; -- awarding counsel fees and costs of suit; -- awarding pre-judgment interest; -- compelling a recall of the defectively labeled products; and -- awarding other such relief as the court may deem fair and equitable. The suit is "Robert Cameron et al. v. Monkey Joe's Big Nut Co., aka JBEC LLC and The Big Nut Co.," filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County. Representing plaintiffs is: Donald M. Doherty, Jr. Friedman Doherty, Jr. 125 N. Rt. 73 West Berlin, New Jersey 08091 Phone: (856) 988-7777 MONSANTO CO: Accused of Herbicide Monopoly in Tex. Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Monsanto Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed Aug. 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas accusing it of using its seed-trait licensing fees to coerce companies into exclusive contracts, restraining competition, and allowing it to charge extortionate prices for “Roundup.” Named plaintiff Texas Grain Storage, Inc., dba West Chemical & Fertilizer, brings this action on behalf of all direct purchasers of "Roundup" branded herbicides at prices that were, allegedly, artificially inflated because of an anticompetitive scheme that Monsanto started in the mid-1990s. The complaint alleges Monsanto has improperly and illegally maintained its herbicide monopoly prior to, and during, the class period via a comprehensive anticompetitive and exclusionary scheme that involved: (a) anticompetitive agreements that unreasonably restrained trade in glyphosphate herbicides; (b) leveraging its monopoly power in various seed trait markets to unlawfully monopolize and restrain competition in the separate herbicide market; and (c) other improper acts to maintain its supra-competitive glyphosate herbicide prices. Plaintiff brings this antitrust action on behalf of all individuals and entities in the United States who purchased "Roundup" branded non-selective herbicides directly from Monsanto at any time from Aug. 10, 2003 to the present. Questions of law and fact common to the class include: (a) whether the product markets alleged in the complaint constitute relevant antitrust product markets; (b) whether the United States constitutes the relevant antitrust geographic market; (c) whether Monsanto engaged in actions that suppressed competition in unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (d) whether Monsanto's conduct constituted unlawful monopolization and/or monopoly leveraging in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; and (e) whether and to what extent Monsanto's alleged wrongful conduct caused injury to the propoerty of plaintiff and the members of the class. Plaintiff demands judgment against Monsanto and requests: -- that the court certify the proposed class; -- that the court declare that Monsanto has committed the violations of federal antitrust law as alleged; -- that plaintiff and the class recover damages against Monsanto in an amount to be trebled; -- that the court order Monsanto to pay the expenses and costs of the action including but not limited to plaintiff's attorneys' fees; and -- that the court award such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is “Texas Grain Storage, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 5:07-cv- 00673-OLG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, under Judge Orlando L. Garcia. Representing plaintiffs are: Douglas A. Abrahams Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Daniel Berger Berger & Montague 1622 Locus Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 - and - Steven M. Burton Sheehy, Lovelace & Mayfield, P.C. 510 North Valley Mills Dr., Suite 500 Waco, TX 76710 Phone: (254) 772-8022 Fax: 254/772-9297 E-mail: sburton@slmpc.com PLAZA SQUARE: Missouri Apartment Faces Lawsuit by Tenants --------------------------------------------------------- Lawyer Andrew Kuhlmann is pursuing a purported class action that could force the owner of Plaza Square Apartments in St. Louis, Mo. to reimburse tenants for part of their rent, it emerged in a report by Jake Wagman of St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Last week, the tenants faced relocation due to elevator problems at the high- rise apartment complex. A court has ordered the owner to pay for hotel accommodations of residents that may not be unable to climb stairs if elevator service is shut off to the building. Authorities ordered some elevators shut down after it was found out they would not function in case of fire. Mr. Kuhlmann said security is just one of several issues in the apartment in addition to the elevator problems, according to the report. The residents allegedly suffer from bug infestations, unclean public areas and trash accumulation. The owner of the building is Urban Developers. QUIZNOS SUB: Franchisees Sue Over Alleged Fraudulent Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action was filed against Quiznos Sub in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a class of an estimated 5,000 Quiznos franchisees across the U.S. Among other things, the lawsuit contends that the company forces franchisees to buy food, supplies, and services from Quiznos or its affiliates at drastically inflated prices while concurrently setting artificially low retail prices for its products -- in many instances, making the stores unprofitable for the franchisees. In addition, the franchisees allege that the company unlawfully participates in a scheme to sell the franchises by omitting or otherwise misrepresenting key facts about Quiznos' business operations. In seeking damages for lost investments as well as injunctive relief, the suit alleges, among other things, statutory and common law fraud, violations of federal and state antitrust laws, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, breach of contract, and violations of Colorado franchise and consumer protection laws. The class action in Colorado is one of several lawsuits filed against the company, noted Justin M. Klein, Esq., a partner in the Red Bank, N.J. law firm of Marks & Klein, LLP. The firm represents the franchisees along with co- counsel Mark M. Leitner and Joseph S. Goode of the Milwaukee-based firm of Kravit, Hovel & Krawczyk S.C. "The success of this system is dependent upon the success of its franchisees," said Danny Kessels, a Quiznos franchisee in Colorado and president of the Toasted Subs Franchisees Association, Inc., the trade group representing Quiznos franchisees that helped organize the class-action suit. "The goal of the lawsuit is to right the wrongs of the past, and to ensure that franchisee profitability will be the focus of this system in the future." Recently, a class action, “Bonanno, et al v. The Quiznos Franchise Company, LLC, et al., Civil Docket No. 06-02358,” filed on behalf of franchisees alleging that the company had sold franchises it had no ability to open was amended to expand the class to cover franchisees throughout the United States. According to Mr. Klein, who also represents the Plaintiffs in that case, that class has approximately 3,000 members. Mr. Kessels added, "It is up to the courts now, but, on behalf of the TSFA, we are hopeful that the new management team at Quiznos will recognize and appreciate many of the historic problems with this system and do what is necessary to make this brand as successful as we know it can be." The suit is “Brunet et al. v. Quizno's Franchise Company LLC, The et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01717-EWN-KLM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, under Judge Edward W. Nottingham, with referral to Judge Kristen L. Mix. Representing plaintiffs are: Joseph S. Goode Mark M. Leitner Kravit, Hovel & Krawczyk, S.C. 825 North Jefferson Street, #500 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: 414-271-7100 Fax: 414-271-8135 E-mail: mml@kravitlaw.com - and - Justin M. Klein David S. Paris Marks & Klein, LLP 63 Riverside Avenue Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: 732-747-7100 Fax: 732-219-0625 E-mail: justin@marksklein.com or david@marksklein.com RYLAND GROUP: $1.2M Tex. Securities Suit Deal Gets Initial Okay --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas gave preliminary approval to a $1,200,000 settlement of the suit "TDH Partners LLP v. Ryland Group Inc. et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00073." On Jan. 15, 2004, a securities class action was filed against the company and two of its officers. Generally, the action alleged violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the disclosure by the Company of new home sales for the fourth quarter of 2003. The complaint charges Ryland Group and certain of its officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Between Oct. 22, 2003 and Jan. 7, 2004, the defendants issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market concerning the company's financial results. More specifically, the defendants' statements during the class period were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: -- that the Texas market (and particularly Dallas) was in a freefall; -- that Texas buyers were proving highly resistant to the entry level homes that Ryland Group was offering; and -- that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that offerings of "move up" properties would be better received in that market, but that Ryland Group was not in a position to offer these types of properties. The complaint further alleges that on Jan. 8, 2004, Ryland Group shocked the market by announcing that new orders for the fourth quarter had decreased 8.9%, largely due to an astounding 33% decline in Texas orders. Indeed, Ryland Group sold only 344 new homes in that quarter, as contrasted with sales of 770 new units in the third quarter of 2003. According to the complaint, the development stood in stark contrast to the positive statements issued during the Class Period by defendants. In March 2007, the company and its officers agreed to a $1.2 million settlement that will be funded by the company and its insurer (Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2007). All expenses of the settlement, including the costs of notice to the class and any attorneys' fees awarded to the plaintiff's counsel by the court, will be paid out of the settlement fund. The net amount remaining in the settlement fund will be distributed to those members of the class who suffered an actual loss as a result of the price decline that occurred on Jan. 8, 2004. The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of RYLAND during the period from October 3, 2003 through January 7, 2004, inclusive. Deadline to file for exclusions and objections is on November 15, 2007. Deadline to file claims is on November 15, 2007. Pursuant to a Court Order, a hearing will be held on December 11, 2007 at 10:00 A.M. before United States District Judge Jane Boyle, at the United States Courthouse, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas 75242. The suit is "TDH Partners LLP v. Ryland Group Inc. et al., Case No. 3:04-cv- 00073," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Jane J. Boyle. Representing the plaintiffs are: Roger F. Claxton, Esq. Claxton & Hill 3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 LB 103 Dallas, TX 75204-2471 Phone: 214/969-9029 Fax: 214/953-0583 E-mail: claxtonhill@airmail.net Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. Hoeffner & Bilek 1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713/227-7720 Fax: 713/227-9404 E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com - and - Leonard A. Epstein, Esq. Newman Davenport & Epstein 700 N. Pearl St., Suite 1650 LB 314 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: 214/754-0025 Fax: 214/754-0936 E-mail: leonep@flash.net Representing the defendants is: James R. Nelson, Esq. DLA Piper US LLP 1717 Main St., Suite 4600 Dallas, TX 75201-4605 Phone: 214/743-4512 Fax: 214/743-4545 E-mail: jr.nelson@dlapiper.com WARNER CHILCOTT: Settles Ovcon Direct Purchasers Suit for $10M --------------------------------------------------------------- Warner Chilcott Ltd. reached a settlement to conclude two antitrust lawsuits brought by certain direct purchasers of the company's combined hormonal contraceptives, Ovcon 35. The claims held by the settling plaintiffs represented a majority of the damages sought by all of the direct purchaser plaintiffs who have brought antitrust suits against the Company. Under the proposed settlement, all claims will be dismissed and the litigations will be terminated in exchange for a cash payment of $10.0 million. The settlement remains subject to the court-ordered dismissal of the suits, and does not address the one continuing antitrust class action brought by the remaining direct purchaser plaintiffs. Case Background Initially, eight direct purchaser lawsuits were filed against the companies. The direct purchaser plaintiffs allege that the Ovcon Agreements violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. All of the direct purchaser plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and costs including attorneys' fees. Six of the lawsuits, which were all filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, are class actions. The remaining two suits are brought on behalf of individual direct purchasers. On April 14, 2006 the six direct purchaser class action plaintiffs jointly filed an amended consolidated class action complaint and dismissed their complaints in the remaining five cases. On Nov. 27, 2006, the court appointed Magistrate Judge Alan Kay as a mediator for settlement of the direct purchaser cases at the parties' request. Warner Chilcott, Ltd. on the Net: http://www.warnerchilcott.com. Asbestos Alert ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Ind. Expenses Total $13M at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries Inc.’s asbestos-related expenses amounted to US$13.1 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$20.7 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007. The Company’s asbestos-related expenses amounted to US$26 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$25.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2006. Asbestos liabilities, net of receivables, amounted to US$22.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$2.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2006. Payments for asbestos-related claims, net of insurance recoveries, amounted to US$3.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$23.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2006. The Company’s current asbestos liability amounted to US$87.5 million as of June 30, 2007 and US$88.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company’s long- term asbestos liability amounted to US$439.9 million as of June 30, 2007 and US$479.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company’s current asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$66 million as of June 30, 2007 and US$71.3 as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company’s long-term asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$338.8 million as of June 30, 2007 and US$396.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2006. Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. is a leader in the design, development, manufacturing and marketing of engineered industrial products that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer bearings and filament wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Open Cases v. EnPro Ind. Remain at 160,500 ---------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries Inc. still faces 106,500 asbestos-related cases filed against it and its subsidiaries, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007. Pending asbestos-related cases against the Company, as of March 31, 2007, remain at 106,500. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007) Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries, primarily Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC and The Anchor Packing Co., are among a large number of defendants in actions filed in various states by plaintiffs alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers. Among the products at issue in these actions are industrial sealing products, including gaskets and packing products. The damages claimed vary from action to action, and in some cases plaintiffs seek both compensatory and punitive damages. To date, neither Garlock nor Anchor has been required to pay any punitive damage awards. Liability for compensatory damages has historically been allocated among responsible defendants. Since the first asbestos-related suits were filed against Garlock in 1975, Garlock and Anchor have processed about 900,000 asbestos claims to conclusion and, together with their insurers, have paid about US$1.2 billion in settlements and judgments and almost US$400 million in fees and expenses. Of those claims resolved, about three percent have been claims of plaintiffs alleging the disease mesothelioma, about six percent have been claims of plaintiffs with lung or other cancers, and more than 90 percent have been claims of plaintiffs alleging asbestosis, pleural plaques or other non- malignant impairment of the respiratory system. Of the 106,500 open cases at June 30, 2007, the Company is aware of about 9,200 (8.6 percent) that involve claimants alleging mesothelioma, lung cancer or some other cancer. The Company recorded 3,100 new claims filed in the 2007-1st half, compared with 4,200 new claims filed in the 2006-1st half. The number of new actions filed against the Company’s subsidiaries in 2006 (7,700) was significantly lower than the number filed in 2005 (15,300). Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. is a leader in the design, development, manufacturing and marketing of engineered industrial products that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer bearings and filament wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Has $2.4M Collateral on Appeal Bonds ---------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries Inc., at June 30, 2007, had US$2.4 million of cash collateral on asbestos-related appeal bonds recorded as restricted cash on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007. Of that amount, US$1.2 million has been released in the third quarter as a result of the successful New York appeal. Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries, primarily Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC and The Anchor Packing Co., are among a large number of defendants in actions filed in various states by plaintiffs alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers. Garlock’s product defenses have enabled it to be successful at trial, winning defense verdicts in 12 of the 24 cases tried to verdict in the years 2004 through 2007, including the one case tried to verdict thus far in 2007 and three of the four cases tried to verdict in 2006. During the 2007-1st half, Garlock began six trials. A Massachusetts jury returned a defense verdict in favor of Garlock. Four suits in Pennsylvania and one in Maryland settled during trial before the juries had reached a verdict. In 2006, Garlock began 10 trials involving 11 plaintiffs. Garlock received jury verdicts in its favor in Oakland, Calif.; Easton, Pa.; and Louisville, Ky. In Pennsylvania, three other suits involving four plaintiffs settled during trial before the juries reached verdict. Garlock also settled cases in Massachusetts, California, and Texas during trial. In a retrial of a Kentucky case, the jury awarded the plaintiff US$900,000 against Garlock. The award was significantly less than the US$1.75 million award against Garlock in the previous trial, which Garlock successfully appealed. Garlock has also appealed the new verdict. In addition, Garlock obtained dismissals in two cases in Philadelphia after the juries were selected but before the trials began because there was insufficient evidence of exposure to Garlock products. In March 2006, a three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, overturned a US$6.4 million verdict that was entered against Garlock in 2003, granting a new trial. The case subsequently settled. On the other hand, the Maryland Court of Appeals denied Garlock’s appeal from a 2005 Baltimore verdict, and Garlock paid that verdict, with post-judgment interest, in the 2006-4th quarter. In a separate Baltimore case in the 2006- 4th quarter, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals denied Garlock’s appeal from another 2005 verdict. The subsequent appeal of that decision was also denied and Garlock paid that verdict in 2007-2nd quarter. In June 2007, the New York Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, overturned a US$800,000 verdict that was entered against Garlock in 2004, granting a new trial. At June 30, 2007, two Garlock appeals were pending from adverse verdicts totaling US$1.2 million, down from more than US$41 million at December 31, 2005. New settlement commitments in the 2007-1st half totaled US$40 million, compared with US$41 million in the 2006-1st half. Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. is a leader in the design, development, manufacturing and marketing of engineered industrial products that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer bearings and filament wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Has $405M Reserve for Future Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries Inc.’s subsidiary Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, at June 30, 2007, had available US$405 million of insurance and trust coverage, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007. The Company said it believes the coverage will be available to cover future asbestos claim and certain expense payments. At March 31, 2007, Garlock had available US$437 million of insurance and trust coverage that will be available to cover future asbestos claim and certain expense payments. (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2007) In addition, at June 30, 2007, Garlock had US$56 million of otherwise available insurance that the Company classifies as insolvent. Garlock collected about US$5 million from insolvent carriers in 2006, bringing total collections from insolvent carriers from 2002 through 2006 to about US$38.4 million. Of the US$405 million, US$241 million is allocated to claims that have been paid by Garlock and submitted to its insurance companies for reimbursement, and the remainder is allocated to pending and estimated future claims as described later in this section. During the 2006-4th quarter, the Company reached an agreement with a significant group of related U.S. insurers. These insurers had withheld payments pending resolution of the matter. This payment delay accounted for US$45.6 million of the Company’s insurance receivables at June 30, 2007. The agreement provides for the payment of the full amount of the insurance policies (US$194 million) in various annual payments to be made from 2007 through 2018. Under the agreement, Garlock received US$22 million during the 2007-1st half. In May 2006, the Company reached agreement with a U.S. insurer that resolved two suits and an arbitration proceeding. Under the settlement, Garlock received US$4 million in December 2006 and will receive another US$17 million in the future. As part of the agreement, Garlock agreed to forgo US$19 million of nominal insurance. During the 2005-1st quarter, the Company reached agreement with two of Garlock’s U.S. insurers. The insurers agreed to pay Garlock a total of US$21 million in three equal bi-annual payments of US$7 million. The first payment was received in May 2005 and the second payment was received in April 2007. The third payment is due in May 2009. In the 2004-2nd quarter, the Company reached agreement with Equitas, the London-based entity responsible for the pre-1993 Lloyds’ of London policies in the Company’s insurance block, concerning settlement of its exposure to the Company’s subsidiaries’ asbestos claims. As a result of the settlement, US$88 million was placed in an independent trust. In the 2004-4th quarter, the Company reached agreement with a group of London market carriers (other than Equitas) and one of its U.S. carriers that has some policies reinsured through the London market. As a result of the settlement, US$55.5 million was placed in an independent trust. At June 30, 2007, the market value of the funds remaining in the two trusts was US$44.7 million, which was included in the $405 million of insurance and trust coverage available to pay future asbestos-related claims and expenses. Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. is a leader in the design, development, manufacturing and marketing of engineered industrial products that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer bearings and filament wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro’s Liability Totals $527.4M at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries Inc.’s total asbestos-related liability, at June 30, 2007, amounted to US$527.4 million, which includes $520.6 million as the Company’s estimate of the liability plus US$6.8 million of accrued legal and other fees already incurred but not yet paid. This amount includes US$95.4 million for advanced-stage cases and settled claims and accrued legal and other fees, and US$432 million for early-stage and unasserted claims. During the 2007-2nd quarter, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge to income of US$13.1 million to reflect net cash outlays of US$6.7 million of legal fees and expenses incurred during the quarter and a US$6.4 million non-cash charge primarily to add an estimate of the liability for the 2017-2nd quarter to maintain a 10-year estimate. For the 2007-1st half, the Company has recorded pre-tax charges to income of US$26 to reflect net cash outlays of $13.8 million of legal fees and expenses and a US$12.2 million non-cash charge primarily to add an estimate of the liability for the first half of 2017. Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries Inc. is a leader in the design, development, manufacturing and marketing of engineered industrial products that include sealing products, metal and metal polymer bearings and filament wound products, air compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas and dual fuel reciprocating engines. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Has $329M Net Unpaid Losses ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.’s asbestos-related net unpaid losses and allocated loss adjustment expenses amounted to US$328,954,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2007. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2006, the Company’s asbestos- related net unpaid losses and ALAE amounted to US$356,787,000. For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded US$341,031,000 as net unpaid loss and allocated loss adjustment expenses, compared with US$367,183,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007) The Company’s asbestos-related gross unpaid losses and ALAE amounted to US$421,380,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007, compared with US$441,752,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006. For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded US$429,596,000 as gross unpaid losses and ALAE, compared with US$461,078,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007) Morristown, N.J.-based Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. is 100-percent owned by Fairfax Inc., which in turn is owned by Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. The Company, through its subsidiaries, offers commercial property and casualty insurance distributed through an independent producer force located across the U.S. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Units Face Cases w/ 6,100 Claimants ---------------------------------------------------------------- CIRCOR International Inc. subsidiaries (Leslie, Spence, and Hoke, collectively) have been named as defendants or third-party defendants in open asbestos related cases brought on behalf of about 6,100 claimants, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 2, 2007. The Company, like many other manufacturers of fluid control products, has been and continues to be named as a defendant in product liability actions brought on behalf of individuals who seek compensation for their alleged exposure to airborne asbestos fibers. In some instances, the Company also has been named individually and as successor in interest to one or more of these subsidiaries. These cases typically have anywhere from 25 to 400 defendants and seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages against all defendants in the aggregate. Of about 6,100 plaintiffs whose claims remain open, all but about 1,000 have brought their claims in Mississippi. Over the past two years, the Mississippi courts have rendered decisions and the state legislature has passed legislation aimed at curbing certain abusive practices by plaintiff attorneys under which large numbers of unrelated plaintiffs would be grouped in the same case against hundreds of defendants. As a result of these changes, many of these “mass filings” have been dismissed and the number of Mississippi claimants against the Company’s subsidiaries is now about 5,200, whereas it previously had been as high as 21,000. The remaining claims have been brought in the state courts of about 32 different states with California, Texas, New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut having the most significant percentage of the claims. Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International Inc. makes instrumentation and fluid regulation products, including precision valves, tube and pipe fittings, and regulators for hydraulic, pneumatic, cryogenic, and steam systems. The Company sells its products (through about 1,900 distributors) to more than 11,000 aerospace, energy, chemical, pharmaceutical, and industrial customers in nearly 100 countries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Has 4,592 Claims at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., as of June 30, 2007, has been named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,592 plaintiffs, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 2, 2007. Of the 4,592 claims, about 1,950 claims were pending and 2,642 have been closed through dismissals or settlements. As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded about 1,942 pending asbestos- related claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007) The Company is a defendant in lawsuits where plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work the Company may have performed at various locations. As of June 30, 2007, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount per claim of about US$1,000. At June 30, 2007, the Company had accrued US$930,000 for liability and related expenses. Based in Hoofddorp, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. is a global specialty engineering and construction company that makes flat-bottom tanks for storing crude oil, gas, water, chemicals, and manufacturing feedstocks; cryogenic tanks and systems to maintain liquid gases; natural gas processing plants; elevated tanks for water storage; and pressure vessels for high-pressure/high-temperature applications. The Company serves the hydrocarbon, energy, power generation, and water storage and treatment industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Corp. Records 72,890 Claims at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Corp. had about 72,890 pending asbestos claims as of June 30, 2007, about 73,310 pending claims as of Dec. 31, 2006, and about 94,730 claims as of June 30, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 2, 2007. The Company’s pending asbestos-related claims, as of March 31, 2007, dropped to about 72,510. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007) The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, before the 1970s. In most of the asbestos suits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for power- generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial ships. Of the 72,890 claims pending as of June 30, 2007, about 48,220 were pending in state courts, 21,140 in federal courts and, additionally, about 3,530 were third party claims pending in state courts. During the 2007-2nd quarter, the Company received about 1,490 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket about 1,110 claims. The Company's total costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were about US$5.7 million for 2006 and about US$37.2 million for 2005. Filings include claims for individuals suffering from mesothelioma, lung cancer, other cancers, and conditions that are substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly asbestos-related disease. Claims identified as cancer remain a small percentage of asbestos claims pending at June 30, 2007. In a substantial number of the pending claims, the plaintiff has not yet identified the claimed injury. New York-based CBS Corp. is comprised of the following segments: Television (CBS Television, comprised of the CBS Network, television stations, and its television production and syndication operations; Showtime Networks; and CSTV Networks), Radio (CBS Radio), Outdoor (CBS Outdoor) and Publishing (Simon & Schuster). ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint, Units Still Face Injury Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries have been named, along with numerous others, as defendants in lawsuits filed by individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 2, 2007. Some Company-owned facilities contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials. Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by the Company, but most existing claims relate to facilities previously owned by the Company or its subsidiaries. In 2004, the Company sold its generating business, to which most of these claims relate, to Texas Genco LLC, which is now known as NRG Texas LP (NRG). Houston-based CenterPoint Energy Inc.’s regulated utilities distribute natural gas and electricity to more than 5 million customers in six states, primarily in the southern U.S. The Company also operates 7,900 miles of gas pipeline, and it has gas gathering and storage operations. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Records 1,181 Cases at June ---------------------------------------------------------------- CH Energy Group Inc.’s subsidiary Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., as of June 30, 2007, had 1,181 pending asbestos-related cases, out of the 3,306 cases filed against it, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 2, 2007. As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded 1,178 pending asbestos-related cases filed against Central Hudson. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007) Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,975 have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 150 cases. Poughkeepsie, N.Y.-based CH Energy Group Inc.’s Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. provides electricity to 367,000 customers in eight counties of New York State's Mid-Hudson River Valley, and delivers natural gas and electricity in a 2,600-square-mile service territory that extends from New York City to Albany. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Has 26 Cases Set For Trial in 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Belden Inc. (f/k/a Belden CDT Inc.) recorded 26 asbestos-related cases that are scheduled for trial in 2007, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2007. These 26 cases are included in about 150 personal injury cases of the Company was aware at July 30, 2007. At April 30, 2007, the Company was aware of about 152 cases. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007) The Company is party to various legal proceedings and administrative actions that are incidental to its operations in which the claimant alleges injury from exposure to heat-resistant asbestos fiber, generally contained in a small number of products manufactured by the Company’s predecessors. Electricians have filed a majority of these cases, primarily in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs in these cases generally seek compensatory, special and punitive damages. Through July 30, 2007, the Company has been dismissed (or reached agreement to be dismissed) in about 192 similar cases without any going to trial, and with 12 of these involving any payment to the claimant. St. Louis-based Belden Inc. (f/k/a Belden CDT Inc.) makes cable and wire products for use in the broadcasting, computer, entertainment, security, instrumentation, and networking industries. The Company’s products include fiber optic, coaxial, and multi-conductor cables, as well as lead and hookup wires and connectivity and management products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Still Has 3rd-Party Injury Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anadarko Petroleum Corp. continues to face various personal injury claims, including claims by employees of third-party contractors, alleging exposure to asbestos, silica, and benzene. These employees had worked at refineries (previously owned by predecessors of acquired companies) located in Texas, California, and Oklahoma. The Woodlands, Tex.-based Anadarko Petroleum Corp. is engaged in the exploration, development, production, gathering, processing and marketing of natural gas, crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids (NGLs). The Company also engages in the hard minerals business through non-operated joint ventures and royalty arrangements. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. American Standard Drop to 102,653 ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Standard Companies Inc. recorded 102,653 open asbestos-related claims filed against as of June 30, 2007, compared with 102,261 open claims at the end of 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2007. As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded 110,133 pending asbestos-related claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007) The Company has been named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injury claims arising primarily from its historical sales of boilers and railroad brake shoes. In these asbestos-related lawsuits, the Company is usually named as one of a large group of defendants. Many of these lawsuits involve multiple claimants, do not specifically identify the injury or disease for which damages are sought and do not allege a connection between any Company product and a claimed injury or disease. As a result, numerous lawsuits have been placed, and may remain on, inactive or deferred dockets, which some jurisdictions have established. For the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company recorded 1,632 new claims filed, 331 claims settled, and 909 claims dismissed. For the year ended 2006, the Company recorded 4,445 new claims filed, 845 claims settled, and 15,102 claims dismissed. From receipt of its first asbestos claim more than 20 years ago to June 30, 2007, the Company has resolved 62,074 claims. The total amount of all settlements paid by the Company (excluding insurance recoveries) and by its insurance carriers is about US$94.6 million, for an average payment per resolved claim of US$1,524. The average payment per claim resolved during the six months ended June 30, 2007 amounted to US$7,810, compared with US$1,260 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. At June 30, 2007, the total asbestos liability was estimated at US$655.6 million, compared with US$665.8 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The asbestos indemnity liability decreased by US$10.2 million during the first six months of 2007 due to claims payments made during the first half of the year. Piscataway, N.J.-based American Standard Companies Inc. makes air- conditioning systems, plumbing products, and automotive braking systems. Its air-conditioning division makes consumer and commercial systems. Its kitchen and bath segment makes plumbing fixtures like toilets, tubs, sinks, and faucets. The Company makes vehicle braking systems through subsidiary WABCO. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Discovery on ASD Suit Still Extended to Nov ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery of an asbestos-related insurance lawsuit filed by American Standard Companies Inc. against certain carriers in New Jersey court is still extended through Nov. 12, 2007, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2007. The Company is in litigation against the carriers whose policies it believes provide coverage for asbestos claims. The insurance carriers named in this suit are challenging the Company’s right to recovery. The Company filed the action in April 1999 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, against various of its primary and lower layer excess insurance carriers, seeking coverage for environmental claims (the “NJ Litigation”). The NJ Litigation was later expanded to also seek coverage for asbestos related liabilities from 21 primary and lower layer excess carriers and underwriting syndicates. On Sept. 19, 2005, the court granted the Company’s motion to add to the NJ Litigation 16 additional insurers and 117 new insurance policies. The court also required the parties to submit all contested matters to mediation. The Company and the defendants in the NJ Litigation engaged in their first mediation session on Jan. 18, 2006 and have engaged in active discussions since that time. In February 2005, the Company settled with Equitas for US$84.5 million to buy- out the participants of certain underwriters in pre-1993 Lloyd’s, London policies included in the Company’s insurance coverage. As of Dec. 31, 2006, US$64.9 million remained in a trust, excluding interest, which expired Jan. 3, 2007. Under the settlement, the balance of the funds was disbursed to the Company on Jan. 4, 2007. Of the US$64.9 million, about US$44.2 million relates to historical asbestos claim settlements and current legal expenses incurred and the balance represents amounts relating to future legal costs to be incurred. The asbestos receivable was US$342.9 million at June 30, 2007, compared with US$385.8 million at Dec. 31, 2006. The asbestos receivable decreased by US$42.9 million during the first six months of 2007. Piscataway, N.J.-based American Standard Companies Inc. makes air- conditioning systems, plumbing products, and automotive braking systems. Its air-conditioning division makes consumer and commercial systems. Its kitchen and bath segment makes plumbing fixtures like toilets, tubs, sinks, and faucets. The Company makes vehicle braking systems through subsidiary WABCO. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liggett Group Faces 2 Third-Party Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd., as of June 30, 2007, recorded two Third-Party Payor actions pending against its subsidiary Liggett Group LLC, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 6, 2007. The Third-Party Payor Actions typically have been commenced by insurance companies, union health and welfare trust funds, asbestos manufacturers and others. In Third-Party Payor Actions, plaintiffs seek damages for: funding of corrective public education campaigns relating to issues of smoking and health; funding for clinical smoking cessation programs; disgorgement of profits from sales of cigarettes; restitution; treble damages; and attorneys’ fees. Although no specific amounts are provided, it is understood that requested damages against the tobacco company defendants in these cases might be in the billions of dollars. Miami-based Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett unit makes discount cigarettes under brands including Liggett Select, Grand Prix, and Eve, OMNI-branded "reduced- carcinogen" cigarettes, and several generic lines of cigarettes. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dalmine Records 53 Pending Claims at June ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tenaris S.A.'s subsidiary, Dalmine S.p.A., as of June 30, 2007, recorded 53 asbestos-related claims, of which three claims are covered by insurance, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 6, 2007. As of March 31, 2007, Dalmine had 54 asbestos-related claims, of which three claims are covered by insurance. (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2007) In addition to the previously known 14 civil proceedings for work-related injuries arising from the use of asbestos in its manufacturing processes during the period from 1960 to 1980, 39 asbestos-related out-of-court claims and 1 civil party claim, 2 new asbestos-related out-of-court claims and 1 asbestos civil proceedings have been notified to Dalmine during 2007. Three claims were adjudicated, dismissed, or settled. Aggregate settlement costs to date are EUR5.1 million. Dalmine estimates that its potential liability in connection with the claims above that are not yet settled is about EUR21.5 million (US$29 million) of which EUR8.9 million (US$12 million) relate to the claims and proceedings notified to Dalmine during 2007. Luxembourg-based Tenaris S.A. manufactures and distributes seamless steel pipe products. The Company also produces welded steel pipes for gas pipelines in South America. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Liability Stays at $18.7M at July 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corp.’s long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$18,694,000 as of July 1, 2007, the same as for the periods ended April 1, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 10, 2007. The Company’s current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$4,244,000 million as of July 1, 2007, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company’s long-term asbestos-related insurance receivables amounted to US$18,503,000 as of July 1, 2007, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Company’s current asbestos-related assets totaled US$4,244,000 as of July 1, 2007, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006. Rogers, Conn-based Rogers Corp.’s products include printed circuit board laminates and polyester-based industrial laminates, which are used in digital cellular communications, hand-held devices, and direct broadcast TV. The Company also makes high-performance elastomer components sold to OEMs in various markets, including transportation, communications, and consumer industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Records 161 Pending Claims at July 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corp., as of July 1, 2007, recorded about 161 pending asbestos-related claims filed against it, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 10, 2007. As of April 1, 2007, the Company recorded about 158 pending asbestos-related claims filed against it, compared with 148 pending claims at Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007) Over the past several years, there has been a significant increase in certain U.S. states in asbestos-related product liability claims brought against numerous industrial companies where the third-party plaintiffs allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing products. The Company has been named, along with hundreds of other companies, as a defendant in some of these claims. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, or, if an amount is specified, it merely represents jurisdictional amounts or amounts to be proven at trial. The Company made some limited products, which contained encapsulated asbestos. Those products were provided to industrial users. The Company stopped manufacturing these products in 1987. The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi. Cases involving the Company typically name 50-300 defendants, although some cases have had as few as one and as many as 833 defendants. The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these claims. In the six month period ended July 1, 2007, the Company was able to have about 27 claims dismissed and settled 5 claims. For the full year 2006, about 77 claims were dismissed and 16 were settled. Most of the costs have been paid by the Company’s insurance carriers, including the costs associated with the small number of cases that have been settled. Those settlements totaled about US$700,000 in the six month period ended July 1, 2007 and US$5.1 million in all of 2006. Rogers, Conn-based Rogers Corp.’s products include printed circuit board laminates and polyester-based industrial laminates, which are used in digital cellular communications, hand-held devices, and direct broadcast TV. The Company also makes high-performance elastomer components sold to OEMs in various markets, including transportation, communications, and consumer industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pepco Still Faces 180 Cases in Md. Courts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pepco Holdings Inc., as of June 30, 2007, continues to face about 180 asbestos-related cases pending against it in the State Courts of Maryland, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 6, 2007. During 1993, the Company was served with Amended Complaints filed in the state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Md. in separate ongoing, consolidated proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury Asbestos Case." The Company and other corporate entities were brought into these cases on a theory of premises liability. Under this theory, the plaintiffs argued that the Company was negligent in not providing a safe work environment for employees or its contractors, who allegedly were exposed to asbestos while working on Company property. Initially, a total of about 448 individual plaintiffs added the Company to their complaints. It appears that each plaintiff sought US$2 million in compensatory damages and US$4 million in punitive damages from each defendant. Since the initial filings in 1993, more individual suits have been filed against the Company, and significant numbers of cases have been dismissed. As a result of two motions to dismiss, numerous hearings and meetings and one motion for summary judgment, the Company has had about 400 of these cases successfully dismissed with prejudice, either voluntarily by the plaintiff or by the court. Of about 180 pending cases as of June 30, 2007, about 90 cases were filed after Dec. 19, 2000, and have been tendered to Mirant Corp. for defense and indemnification under the terms of the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Mirant has agreed to assume this contractual obligation. Washington, D.C.-based Pepco Holdings Inc. distributes electricity to more than 1.8 million customers and natural gas to 121,000 customers through its utility units. Non-regulated operations include independent power production, wholesale and retail energy marketing, and energy management services. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hearing on Quigley Statement Held Last July ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. stated that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, on July 12, 2007, held a hearing to consider the adequacy of Quigley Company Inc.'s disclosure statement, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 6, 2007. Quigley was acquired by the Company in 1968 and sold small amounts of products containing asbestos until the early 1970s. In September 2004, the Company and Quigley took steps that were intended to resolve all pending and future claims against the Company and Quigley in which the claimants allege personal injury from exposure to Quigley products containing asbestos, silica or mixed dust. The Company took a charge of US$369 million, pre-tax (US$229 million, after- tax) to 2004-3rd quarter earnings in connection with these matters. In September 2004, Quigley filed a petition in the Bankruptcy Court seeking reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In March 2005, Quigley filed a reorganization plan in the Bankruptcy Court that needed the approval of both the Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York after receipt of the favorable vote of 75 percent of the claimants. In connection with that filing, the Company entered into settlement agreements with lawyers representing more than 80 percent of the individuals with claims related to Quigley products against Quigley and the Company. The agreements provide for a total of US$430 million in payments, of which US$215 million became due in December 2005 and is being paid to claimants upon receipt by the Company of certain required documentation from each of the claimants. The reorganization plan provided for the establishment of a Trust for the payment of all remaining pending claims as well as any future claims alleging injury from exposure to Quigley products. As certified by the balloting agent in May 2006, more than 75 percent of Quigley's claimants holding claims that represent more than two-thirds in value of claims against Quigley voted to accept Quigley's plan of reorganization. On Aug. 9, 2006, in reviewing the voting tabulation methodology, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that certain votes that accepted the plan were not predicated upon the actual value of the claim. The reorganization plan was not accepted. In June 2007, Quigley filed an amended plan of reorganization that is intended to address the Bankruptcy Court's concerns regarding the voting tabulation methodology. In addition, the Company entered into an agreement with the representative of future claimants that provides for the contribution by Pfizer to the Trust of an additional amount with a present value of US$88.4 million. New York-based Pfizer Inc. is a research-based pharmaceuticals firm with products like erectile dysfunction therapy Viagra, pain management drug Celebrex, antidepressant Zoloft, and cholesterol-lowering Lipitor. Subsidiaries include Embrex, Warner-Lambert, and Parke-Davis. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Has 470 Cases with 7,000 Plaintiffs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pending asbestos-related cases against NL Industries Inc. total about 470, in which these cases involve a total of about 7,000 plaintiffs and their spouses, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 6, 2007. The Company faced about 490 pending asbestos-related cases, involving a total of about 7,000 plaintiffs and their spouses. (Class Action Reporter, May 11, 2007) The Company has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to products made by the Company’s former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust. In addition, the claims of about 3,300 former plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed from Ohio State Courts. From time to time, the Company has received notices regarding asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which the Company has entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from the Company. The Company is also involved in various legal proceedings with certain of its former insurance carriers regarding the nature and extent of the carriers’ obligations to the Company under insurance policies with respect to certain lead pigment and asbestos lawsuits. The Company has agreements with two former insurance carriers under which the carriers reimburse the Company for a portion of its past and future lead pigment litigation defense costs. Dallas-based NL Industries Inc., through minority owned subsidiary, Kronos Worlwide Inc., supplies titanium dioxide (TiO2), which maximizes the whiteness, opacity, and brightness of paints, plastics, paper, fibers, and ceramics. Valhi Inc. owns 83 percent of the Company. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Still Faces 3rd-Party Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Badger Meter Inc. continues to face numerous multi-party lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 6, 2007. The asbestos was manufactured by third parties and integrated into a very limited number of the Company’s industrial products. Milwaukee-based Badger Meter Inc. provides water utilities and industrial customers with instruments that measure and control the flow of liquids. Established in 1905, the Company makes meters, valves, flow tubes, and other measurement devices for original equipment manufacturers, water and wastewater utilities, and companies in the pharmaceutical, chemical, concrete, and food and beverage industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argonaut’s A&E Loss Reserves Total $148.1M ---------------------------------------------------------------- Argonaut Group Inc.’s loss reserves for asbestos and environmental claims totaled a gross of US$148.1 million, a net of US$139.7 million, at June 30, 2007, according to the Company’s quarter report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 6, 2007. At June 30, 2006, the Company’s loss reserves for A&E totaled a gross of US$158 million, a net of US$148.3 million. The Company’s asbestos & environmental reserves, at Dec. 31, 2006, was a gross of US$166.8 million and a net of US$176.4 million. (Class Action Reporter, March 16, 2007) San Antonio, Tex.-based Argonaut Group Inc. is a national underwriter of specialty insurance products in niche areas of the property and casualty market, with over US$3.8 billion in assets. Through its insurance subsidiaries, the Company operates in three primary segments: Excess and Surplus Lines, Select Markets, and Public Entity. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex Int’l. Still Faces Liability Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Superior Essex Inc. stated that, since about 1990, Essex International Inc. and certain subsidiaries have been named as defendants in product liability suits brought by electricians, other skilled tradesmen and others claiming injury, in a majority of cases, from exposure to asbestos found in electrical wire products produced many years ago. Essex International is a subsidiary of Superior Essex Holding Corp., which is a Company subsidiary. Litigation against various past insurers of Essex International who had previously refused to defend and indemnify Essex International against these lawsuits was settled during 1999. Under the settlement, Essex International was reimbursed for substantially all of its costs and expenses incurred in the defense of these lawsuits, and the insurers have undertaken to defend, are directly defending and, if it should become necessary, will indemnify Essex International against those asbestos lawsuits, subject to the terms and limits of the respective policies. Under the plan of reorganization, certain of the claimants in these actions will be able to assert claims under applicable insurance coverage and other similar arrangements. Atlanta-based Superior Essex Inc. is a manufacturer and supplier of communications wire and cable products. The Company also converts copper cathode to copper rod for internal consumption and for sale to other wire and cable manufacturers and OEMs. The Company operates manufacturing facilities in the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Portugal, Mexico, Canada, Italy, and China. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Still Involved in Grace Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corp. continues to be involved in W.R. Grace & Co.’s bankruptcy case, which is pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the District of Delaware, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007. On Nov. 27, 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in the bankruptcy case of W. R. Grace & Co. to resolve all current and future asbestos-related claims made against the Company and its affiliates, the fraudulent transfer claims, successor liability claims, and indemnification claims by Fresenius Medical Care Holdings Inc. and affiliated companies in connection with the Cryovac transaction. On Dec. 3, 2002, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the agreement in principle. The parties to the agreement in principle signed a definitive settlement agreement as of Nov. 10, 2003 consistent with the terms of the agreement in principle. The Company recorded a charge of US$850.1 million as a result of the asbestos settlement in its consolidated statement of operations for the year ended Dec. 31, 2002. On June 27, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court signed an order approving the definitive settlement agreement. The order also provides that the Court will retain jurisdiction of any dispute involving the interpretation or enforcement of the terms and provisions of the definitive settlement agreement. In January 2005, Grace filed a proposed plan of reorganization and related documents with the Bankruptcy Court. A number of objections were filed, and the Company does not know whether the final plan will be consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement or if the other conditions to the Company’s obligation to pay the settlement amount will be met. If these conditions are not satisfied or not waived by the Company, the Company will not be obligated to pay the settlement amount. However, if the Company does not pay the settlement amount, the Company and its affiliates will not be released from the various asbestos-related, fraudulent transfer, successor liability and indemnification claims made against them. All of these claims would remain pending and would have to be resolved through other means, such as through agreement on alternative settlement terms or trials. Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corp.’s largest product segment, Food Packaging, produces Cryovac shrink films, absorbent pads, and foam trays used by food processors and supermarkets to protect meat and poultry. Its Protective Packaging segment produces Bubble Wrap, Instapak foam, Jiffy envelopes, and Fill-Air inflatable packaging systems. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stay in Grace Action Still Extended to Oct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corp. states that the stay of actions on asbestos, in a suit where the Company and W.R. Grace & Co. are involved, is still extended through Oct. 1, 2007, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007. On March 31, 1998, the Company completed a multi-step transaction that brought the Cryovac packaging business and the former Sealed Air Corp.’s business under the common ownership of the Company. In its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company described the Cryovac transaction and contingencies related to the Cryovac transaction. The Company also described the cases of: -- Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al., and -- Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. The Company also described six additional putative class proceedings that had been brought in various provincial and federal courts in Canadian courts seeking recovery from the Company and its subsidiaries Cryovac Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie as well as other defendants, including Grace, for asbestos-related injuries. In April 2001, Grace’s subsidiary Grace Canada Inc. had obtained an order of the Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Court File No. 01-CL-4081) recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the U.S. involving Grace Canada’s U.S. parent corporation and other U.S. affiliates of Grace Canada, and enjoining all new actions and staying all current proceedings against Grace Canada related to asbestos under the Canadian Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. That order has been renewed repeatedly. In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, the court ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of staying all of the Canadian actions. Grace’s proposed plan of reorganization provides that these claims will be paid by the trusts to be established under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code as part of Grace’s plan of reorganization. It is anticipated that the defendants will ask the Canadian courts to enforce the terms of the plan of reorganization. However, if Grace’s final plan does not include comparable provisions or if the Canadian courts refuse to enforce Grace’s final plan of reorganization in the Canadian courts, and if in addition Grace is unwilling or unable to defend and indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries in these cases, then the Company could be required to pay substantial damages. Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corp.’s largest product segment, Food Packaging, produces Cryovac shrink films, absorbent pads, and foam trays used by food processors and supermarkets to protect meat and poultry. Its Protective Packaging segment produces Bubble Wrap, Instapak foam, Jiffy envelopes, and Fill-Air inflatable packaging systems. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pending Cases v. RBS Global Increase to 650 ---------------------------------------------------------------- RBS Global Inc. faces more than 650 lawsuits (with about 6,800 claimants) pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions over alleged personal injuries due to the presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by its Stearns division, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007. The Company faced over 630 lawsuits, with about 6,800 claimants, pending in state or federal court relating to alleged personal injuries due to asbestos in certain brakes and clutches. (Class Action Reporter, June 1, 2007) Invensys plc and FMC, the prior owner of the Stearns business, have paid 100 percent of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. The Company’s Prager subsidiary has been named as a defendant in two pending multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly made by Prager. There are about 3,600 claimants in the Prager suits. To date, Invensys has paid 100 percent of the costs related to the Prager suits. Milwaukee-based RBS Global Inc. is a diversified, multi-platform industrial company comprised of two key segments, Power Transmission and Water Management. The Power Transmission segment manufactures gears, industrial bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyor belts, couplings, aerospace bearings and seals, industrial chain and special components. The Company’s Water Management segment supplies professional grade specification drainage, PEX piping, water control and commercial brass products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global’s Falk Unit Faces Over 140 Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- RBS Global Inc.’s Falk unit continues to face more than 140 lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously made by Falk. About 4,100 claimants in these suits, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007. On May 16, 2005, the Company acquired the Falk Corp. from Hamilton Sundstrand, a division of United Technologies Corp. In connection with the Falk acquisition in May 2005, Hamilton Sundstrand has provided the Company with indemnification against certain contingent liabilities, including coverage for certain pre-closing environmental liabilities. Milwaukee-based RBS Global Inc. is a diversified, multi-platform industrial company comprised of two key segments, Power Transmission and Water Management. The Power Transmission segment manufactures gears, industrial bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyor belts, couplings, aerospace bearings and seals, industrial chain and special components. The Company’s Water Management segment supplies professional grade specification drainage, PEX piping, water control and commercial brass products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Has 6,700 Zurn Suits at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- RBS Global Inc. and an average of 85 other unrelated companies, as of June 30, 2007, were defendants in about 6,700 asbestos-related lawsuits representing about 46,300 claims, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007. Plaintiffs' claims against the Company allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used in industrial boilers formerly made by a segment of the Company's Zurn water management business. Zurn did not make asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are being handled under a defense strategy funded by the Company's insurers. The suits allege damages in an aggregate amount of about US$11.2 billion against all defendants. The Company estimates that Zurn’s potential liability for asbestos claims pending against it and for claims estimated to be filed through 2016 is about US$136 million, of which the Company expects to pay about US$102 million through 2016 on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years. Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its potential asbestos liability as of June 30, 2007, is about US$286.5 million, and believes that all current claims are covered by this insurance. However, principally as a result of the past insolvency of certain insurance carriers of the Company, certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company’s other carriers have paid the first US$210.5 million of aggregate liabilities. In order for the next US$51 million of insurance coverage from solvent carriers to apply, management estimates that it would need to satisfy US$14 million of asbestos claims. Layered within the final US$25 million of the total US$286.5 million of coverage, management estimates that it would need to satisfy an additional US$80 million of asbestos claims. As of June 30, 2007, the Company had recorded a receivable from its insurance carriers of US$136 million, which corresponds to the amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by available insurance and is determined to be probable of recovery. However, there is no assurance that US$286.5 million of insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that Zurn’s asbestos liabilities will not ultimately exceed US$286.5 million. Milwaukee-based RBS Global Inc. is a diversified, multi-platform industrial company comprised of two key segments, Power Transmission and Water Management. The Power Transmission segment manufactures gears, industrial bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyor belts, couplings, aerospace bearings and seals, industrial chain and special components. The Company’s Water Management segment supplies professional grade specification drainage, PEX piping, water control and commercial brass products. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Product Suits v. Mine Safety Rise to 250 ---------------------------------------------------------------- About 10 percent of the 2,500 product liability lawsuits, or 250 cases, pending against Mine Safety Appliances Co. are related to asbestos or combined injuries, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007. About 10 percent of the 2,300 product liability lawsuits filed against the Company is asbestos-related. (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2007) Various lawsuits and claims, primarily product liability claims, arising in the normal course of business are pending against the Company. The Company is named as a defendant in about 2,500 lawsuits primarily involving respiratory protection products allegedly manufactured and sold by the Company. Collectively, these lawsuits represent a total of about 16,500 plaintiffs. About 90 percent of these lawsuits involve plaintiffs alleging they suffer from silicosis. These lawsuits typically allege that these conditions resulted in part from respirators that were negligently designed or manufactured by the Company. The defendants in these lawsuits are often numerous, and the claims generally do not specify the amount of damages sought. Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Co. makes protective equipment for workers in the military, as well as the fire service, construction, homeland security industries, and miners. The Company produces air-purifying respiratory equipment, gas masks, and head protection gear, much of which carries the MSA brand. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MeadWestvaco Still Has 350 Suits at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- MeadWestvaco Corp., as of June 30, 2007, still faces about 350 asbestos- related lawsuits filed against it, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007. As of March 31, 2007, the Company recorded about 350 asbestos-related lawsuits filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2007) The Company has been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury litigation. Typically, these suits also name many other corporate defendants. All of the claims against the Company resolved to date have been concluded before trial, either through dismissal or through settlement with payments to the plaintiff that are not material to the Company. At June 30, 2007, the Company had recorded litigation liabilities of about US$20 million, a significant portion of which relates to asbestos. Glen Allen, Va.-based MeadWestvaco Corp. is a global packaging company that delivers high-value packaging solutions, dispensing and spraying systems, and other products to the world’s most recognized companies in the food and beverage, media and entertainment, personal care, cosmetic, home and garden, and healthcare industries. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McDermott Units Face Antoine Action in Tex. ---------------------------------------------------------------- McDermott International Inc.’s affiliates, J. Ray McDermott Inc. and McDermott Inc., continue to face an asbestos-related lawsuit filed in the 164th Judicial District Court in Harris County, Tex., according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007. In the matter styled Antoine, et. al. v. McDermott, Inc., et. al., the court entered an order on April 27, 2007 staying all activity and deadlines in this matter other than service of process and answer/appearance dates until further order of the court. The matter was also filed against about 65 other employer defendants and 42 maritime products defendants for monetary damages as a result of alleged personal injuries from exposure to asbestos and noise. Houston-based McDermott International Inc. is a global engineering and construction firm active in offshore oil and gas construction, power generation systems, and government contracting. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, Subsidiaries Face Suits in 28 States ---------------------------------------------------------------- IDEX Corp. and five of its subsidiaries face asbestos-related injury lawsuits in 28 states, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007. Claims have been filed in Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. The suits claim various asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products manufactured with components that contained asbestos. Those components were acquired from third party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. To date, all of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance subject to applicable deductibles. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without payment. The balance has been settled for reasonable amounts. One case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the Company's business unit. Northbrook, Ill.-based IDEX Corp. is a manufacturer of pump products, dispensing equipment, and other engineered products. The Company’s fluid and metering segment includes industrial pumps, injectors, compressors, and flow meters. Its health and science segment consists of low-flow pumps and equipment. The Company's dispensing equipment includes gear for dispensing, metering, and mixing dyes, inks, and paints. The Company’s fire and safety/diversified products segment manufactures banding and clamping equipment, fire-fighting pumps, and rescue tools. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Motors Still Faces Exposure Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Corp. has been subject to asbestos-related claims, which seek damages for illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos used in brake components, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007. A limited numbers of claims have arisen from asbestos contained in the insulation and brakes used in the manufacturing of locomotives, and claims brought by contractors who allege exposure to asbestos-containing products while working on premises owned by the Company. A small percentage of the claims pending against the Company allege causation of a malignant disease associated with asbestos exposure. The amount expended on asbestos-related matters in any year depends on the number of claims filed, the amount of pretrial proceedings, and the number of trials and settlements during the period. The Company recorded a US$127 million charge for unasserted asbestos claims during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2006. Detroit-based General Motors Corp. is engaged in the worldwide production and marketing of cars and trucks. The Company develops, manufactures, and markets vehicles worldwide through its four automotive regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/Mid-East, and GM Asia Pacific. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exide’s French Unit to Pay $300T for Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Exide Technologies’ principal French subsidiary, Compagnie Europenne D Accumulateurs (d/b/a CEAC), in 2007, has been adjudged to indemnify a French governmental agency about US$300,000 for asbestos-related claims. From 1957 to 1982, CEAC operated a plant using crocidolite asbestos fibers in the formation of battery cases, which, once formed, encapsulated the fibers. About 1,500 employees worked in the plant over the period. Since 1982, the agency responsible for worker illness claims received 64 employee claims alleging asbestos-related illnesses. For some of those claims, CEAC is obligated to and has indemnified the agency in accordance with French law for about US$400,000 in calendar 2004. In addition, CEAC has been adjudged liable to indemnify the agency for about US$100,000 during the same period for the dependents of four of the claimants. The Company was not required to indemnify or make any payments subsequent to calendar year 2004. No payment has yet been made to the agency in 2007, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007. Alpharetta, Ga.-based Exide Technologies makes lead-acid automotive and industrial batteries with customers that include retailers like Wal-Mart and NAPA, and transportation giants like DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and Toyota. The Company also makes batteries for boats, farm equipment, golf carts, locomotives, and wheelchairs, as well as backup power supply batteries for telecommunications, computer, and power plant systems. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Ind. Has 31,637 Abex Claims at June ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Industries Ltd., at June 30, 2007, recorded 31,637 Pneumo Abex Corp. asbestos-related claims that are the responsibility of Federal-Mogul Corp., according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007. At March 31, 2007, the Company recorded 31,607 Pneumo Abex asbestos-related claims that are the responsibility of Federal-Mogul. (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2007) In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products business to Federal- Mogul Corp. These discontinued businesses (including the Abex product line obtained from Pneumo-Abex Corp. in 1994) were operated through subsidiary companies, and the stock of those subsidiaries was sold to Federal-Mogul under a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated Aug. 17, 1998. In conjunction with the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified the Company for certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies, including liabilities related to the Abex product line and any potential liability that the Company may have to Pneumo under a 1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between the Company and Pneumo. On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition and indicated that Federal-Mogul may not honor the indemnification obligations to the Company. As of the date of this filing, Federal-Mogul had not rejected the 1998 Agreement, which includes the indemnification to the Company. If Federal-Mogul rejects the 1998 Agreement, the Company will be relieved of its future obligations under the 1998 Agreement, including specific indemnities relating to payment of taxes and certain obligations regarding insurance for its former Automotive Products businesses. To the extent the Company is obligated to Pneumo for any asbestos-related claims arising from the Abex product line (“Abex Claims”), the Company has rights, confirmed by Pneumo, to significant insurance for such claims. From Aug. 28, 1998 through June 30, 2007, a total of 142,721 Abex Claims were filed, of which 111,084 claims have been resolved. During the three months ended June 30, 2007, 474 claims were filed and 444 claims were resolved. Since Aug. 28, 1998, the average indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was US$2,073 before insurance. A total of US$117.7 million was spent on defense costs for the period Aug. 28, 1998 through June 30, 2007. Historically, existing insurance coverage has provided 50 percent to 80 percent of the total defense and indemnity payments for Abex Claims. However, insurance recovery is at a lower percentage (about 30 percent) due to exhaustion of primary layers of coverage and litigation with certain excess insurers. On Feb. 2, 2007, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware approved the adequacy of Federal-Mogul’s Supplemental Disclosure Statement describing the Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization. The Court also approved the Voting Procedures and ordered that the voting period would expire on April 6, 2007. At a hearing on April 13, 2007, Federal-Mogul announced that the Abex settlement had received a favorable vote of about 94 percent. In addition, any objections to the Fourth Amended Plan were filed with the Court by April 24, 2007 and the hearing on confirmation of the Plan was completed on July 10, 2007. The Court has established dates through Oct. 1, 2007 for final briefs and hearings. If the Plan is confirmed, Federal-Mogul could emerge from bankruptcy by year-end 2007. The accrual for potential liabilities related to the Automotive Products sale and the Federal-Mogul bankruptcy was US$543 million at June 30, 2007 and US$529.6 million at Dec. 31, 2006. Houston-based Cooper Industries Ltd. makes electrical products, tools, hardware, and metal support products. The Company's electrical products include electrical and circuit protection devices, residential and industrial lighting, and electrical power and distribution products. The Company’s tool offerings include brands like Crescent wrenches and pliers, Apex impact sockets, Plumb hammers, and Weller soldering and welding supplies. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int’l. Has 18,813 Claims at July 27 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp. was defending against 18,813 asbestos-related claims as of July 27, 2007, compared with 19,120 claims as of April 27, 2007, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007. The Company was defending against 19,388 asbestos-related claims as of Feb. 16, 2007 and 19,416 claims as of Dec. 31, 2006. The Company faces suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products previously manufactured by the Company. The Company produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. Those fabrics generally had a useful life of three to 12 months. As of July 27, 2007, about 12,612 of the claims pending against the Company are pending in Mississippi. Of these, about 12,031 are in federal court, at the multidistrict litigation panel (“MDL”), either through removal or original jurisdiction. In addition to the 12,031 Mississippi claims pending against the Company at the MDL, there are about 850 claims pending against the Company at the MDL removed from various U.S. District Courts in other states. The MDL has now issued a new order addressing the cases on its inactive docket. That order, signed on May 31, 2007, requires each plaintiff to provide detailed information regarding alleged asbestos-related medical diagnoses. The first set of plaintiffs are required to submit their filings with the Court by Aug. 1, 2007, with deadlines for additional sets of plaintiffs monthly thereafter until Dec. 1, 2007, by which time all plaintiffs are required to be compliant. The Company’s insurer, Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights. As of July 27, 2007, the Company had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 21,563 claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was US$6,706,000. Of this amount, US$6,671,000, or 99 percent, was paid by the Company’s insurance carrier. The Company has about US$130 million in confirmed insurance coverage that should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage that it should be able to access. Albany, N.Y.-based Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing, which are custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each phase of production. The Company makes around 35 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and relies on suppliers for the rest. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brandon Drying Has 9,023 Claims at July 27 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp.’s subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics Inc. faces 9,023 asbestos-related claims as of July 27, 2007, according to the Company’s quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007. This compares with 9,089 claims as of April 27, 2007, 9,189 claims as of Feb. 16, 2007, and 9,114 claims as of Dec. 31, 2006. Brandon, a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a subsidiary of the Company, is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which the Company is named as a defendant. The Company acquired Geschmay, formerly known as Wangner Systems Corp., in 1999. Brandon is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Geschmay. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney Mills, a South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales Inc., which had sold dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney. Although Brandon manufactured and sold dryer fabrics under its own name subsequent to the asset purchase, none of such fabrics contained asbestos. Under the terms of the Assets Purchase Agreement between Brandon and Abney, Abney agreed to indemnify, defend, and hold Brandon harmless from any actions or claims on account of products manufactured by Abney and its related corporations before the date of the sale, whether or not the product was sold subsequent to the date of the sale. A representative of Abney has been notified of the pendency of these actions and demand has been made that it assume the defense of these actions. In some instances, plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed claims against Brandon, while in others it has entered into what it considers to be reasonable settlements. As of July 27, 2007, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 8,530 claims for a total of US$152,499. Brandon’s insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2 percent of the total indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings. The remaining 11.8 percent of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004, Brandon’s insurance carriers agreed to cover 100 percent of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related to these proceedings. Albany, N.Y.-based Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing, which are custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each phase of production. The Company makes around 35 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and relies on suppliers for the rest. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Continues to Face Mt. Vernon Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Inc., in several asbestos-related cases, continues to be named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2007. The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products allegedly sold by Mount Vernon years before the acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising out of those products. The Company denies any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon before the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets. Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, the Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions. Albany, N.Y.-based Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing, which are custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each phase of production. The Company makes around 35 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and relies on suppliers for the rest. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Morgen Lawsuit in U.S.’s Favor ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court, E.D. California, granted the United States of America’s motion to dismiss, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, an asbestos-related action filed by Donna Morgen in behalf of Dennis Morgen. U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. entered decision of Case No. 2:05- cv-1751-GEB-GGH on July 16, 2007. On Nov. 17, 2006, Ms. Morgen informed the Court that Mr. Morgen had passed away and that the case should proceed with her. Ms. Morgen sought recovery for personal injuries and loss of consortium stemming from Mr. Morgen’s mesothelioma. She asserted that while Mr. Morgen worked at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, he was exposed to asbestos products and asbestos-related materials which caused him to develop mesothelioma. He worked there from March 1963 through October or November 1963. Mr. Morgen's job at PSNS consisted of testing communications equipment aboard Navy ships. This job required him to spend up to 25 hours a week on board ships and to participate in three sea-trials each lasting two to three nights. Mr. Morgen's duties included working in the compartment housing the electronics equipment, climbing through hatches, and traversing catwalks, which took him through virtually the entire length of the ship. Mr. Morgen did not handle or use asbestos or asbestos-containing materials as part of his job, nor did he see anyone using asbestos or asbestos-containing materials. The United States argued that Ms. Morgen’s claims are barred by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"); or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, and moves for dismissal of the Department of the Navy as a defendant in this FTCA action. Steven Kazan, James L. Oberman, and Matthew Louis Thiel of Kazan, McClain, Abrams, Fernandez, Lyons & Farrise PLC, Oakland, Calif., represented Donna Morgen. David Simon Fishback, Torts Br., Civil Div., U.S. Department of Justice, Margaret Jane Mahoney, Kirsten Wilkerson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., represented the United States of America. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Ransom’s Motion in McFaul Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, denied a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Ransom & Randolph, in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Roslyn S. McFaul in behalf of Joseph McFaul. Judge Joseph R. Slights III entered decision of C.A. No. 05C-10-178 ASB on July 12, 2007. Mrs. McFaul alleged that Mr. McFaul developed and eventually died from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases as a result of his alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured and distributed by several entities, including Ransom. Mrs. McFaul claimed that Mr. McFaul was exposed to these products while he was a manager at E.D. Caulk Co. in Milford, Del., from 1956 or 1957 to 1983. E.D. Caulk Company is now known as Dentsply International Inc. Mr. McFaul was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2004, and died on April 13, 2004. Ransom was not affiliated with Dentsply at the time Mr. McFaul began to work at E.D. Caulk Co. in the late 1950s. Dentsply acquired Ransom's assets and certain designated liabilities in 1964. From 1964 through 1997, Ransom operated as a division of Dentsply. On April 29, 1997, Ransom was separately incorporated as a wholly owned subsidiary of Dentsply. Mrs. McFaul maintained that her husband had no connection to Ransom during his tenure at Dentsply. Ransom did not hire or pay Mr. McFaul or in any way direct his work with Caulk/Dentsply. According to Mrs. McFaul, her husband's only contact with Ransom was his exposure to Ransom's asbestos- containing products. Ransom has moved for summary judgment on the ground that it is immune from suit in tort as an employer of the Mr. McFaul under Delaware's worker's compensation immunity statute. Specifically, Ransom alleged that Mr. McFaul was an employee of a predecessor of Ransom's parent corporation, Dentsply International Inc., for the time periods before and after he allegedly was exposed to asbestos products manufactured or distributed by Ransom. According to Ransom, the affiliation between Ransom and Dentsply during the relevant time periods was such that Ransom should be entitled to avail itself of Dentsply's worker's compensation immunity. After careful consideration of the record and applicable law, the Court concludes that it is unable to engage in a meaningful analysis of the issues because the record is not fully developed. Accordingly, the Court denied Ransom's motion for summary judgment. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tex. Court Reverses Ruling in Alcoa’s Favor ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas, reversed an asbestos-related ruling of the 116th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Tex., stating that Alcoa Inc. did not owe a legal duty to Barbara Behringer and Leroy Behringer. Justices Whittington, Bridges, and Lagarde entered decision of Case No. 05-06- 00136-CV on July 27, 2007. On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 04-00176-F. Mrs. Behringer was married to John Alford from 1951 until 1959. During four years of their marriage, from 1953 until 1955, and from 1957 until 1959, Mr. Alford worked for Alcoa. Specifically, Mr. Alford worked in the "potrooms" at Alcoa's Rockdale, Tex., plant in which aluminum ore was made by smelting raw materials in large industrial pots. The pots were lined with insulation blocks containing asbestos. According to Mr. Alford's testimony, the "pot-liners" at Alcoa routinely removed the insulation with jackhammers and replaced it, a process that took about three days per pot. Although Mr. Alford continued to work for Alcoa after 1959, as a result of their divorce, Mrs. Behringer no longer came in contact with his clothing after that time. She was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma in November 2003. In 2004, the Behringers sued Alcoa and other defendants alleging her mesothelioma resulted from asbestos exposure caused by their wrongful acts. The Behringers’ petition against Alcoa alleged Alcoa failed to provide adequate safety measures and protective gear and failed to adequately warn Alford and Mrs. Behringer of the dangers of asbestos exposure. At the close of the evidence, the case was submitted to the jury as a negligence case and the jury returned a verdict against Alcoa on counts of negligence and gross negligence. The jury awarded Mrs. Behringer US$12 million in actual damages and US$2 million in exemplary damages. The jury awarded Mr. Behringer US$1.5 million in actual damages for loss of household services and loss of consortium, and US$2 million in exemplary damages. After applying settlement credits and the punitive damages cap, the trial court entered judgment on the jury verdict, including prejudgment interest, in the amount of US$15,593,340.05. The trial court denied Alcoa's post-trial motions for judgment. Alcoa timely perfected appeal. Mrs. Behringer died on Jan. 25, 2006. In 14 issues, Alcoa argued the trial court erred when it entered a final judgment in favor of the Behringers. In its second issue, Alcoa asked whether it owed a legal duty to the Behringers under the facts of this case. Within this issue, Alcoa argued it did not owe a legal duty to the Behringers because in the 1950s Alcoa could not foresee the harm of non-occupational asbestos exposure. The Appeals Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and render judgment that the Behringers take nothing on their claims against Alcoa. Marie R. Yeates represented Alcoa Inc. C. Andrew Waters, Jeffrey B. Simon, and Charles S. Siegel represented Barbara Behringer and Leroy Behringer. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Last Day of Filing v. ACandS Set on Oct. 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has established Oct. 5, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (the “Asbestos Property Damage Claim Bar Date”) as the last date and time by which Asbestos Property Damage Claims may be filed in the chapter 11 case of ACandS Inc. All entities that wish to assert an Asbestos Property Damage Claim against the Debtor are required to file an Asbestos Damage Proof of Claim Form by no later than the Asbestos Property Damage Claim Bar Date. The Asbestos Property Damage Claim Bar Date applies to all holders of Asbestos Property Damage Claims. More information about what constitutes an Asbestos Property Damage Claim and other important information and definitions may be obtained from the ACandS Bankruptcy Website. Any entity that fails to timely file an Asbestos Property Damage Claim by the Asbestos Property Claim Bar Date, shall be forever barred, estopped, and enjoined from asserting any Asbestos Property Damage Claim against the Debtor, or voting upon, or receiving any distributions under any plan of reorganization in this chapter 11 case in respect of such Asbestos Property Damage Claim. For complete information, including all relevant forms, notices and instructions, please consult: ACandS Bankruptcy Website: www.ACSbankruptcy.com ACandS Claims Helpline: 1-888-455-9302 Write to: The Garden City Group Inc. Attn: ACandS Claims Processing P.O. Box 9000 #6029 Merrick, N.Y. 11566-9000 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposed Texas Locals Show Signs of Illness ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to preliminary findings from X-ray screenings, at least 15 people who worked at or lived near the Texas Vermiculite Plant in Dallas manifest symptoms of asbestos-related illnesses, The Associated Press reports. Doctors at UT Health Center at Tyler, Tex., have analyzed about 250 of 421 chest X-rays conducted in summer 2007 on ex-employees of the plant, as well as their families. Neighborhood residents and former students at nearby schools also received X-rays. Fifteen people, or about six percent of those so far analyzed, show signs of asbestos-related illnesses. Doctors said that a few more showed spots on their lungs that will require additional study. In 2005, the federal government determined that the plant could have exposed its employees and neighbors to asbestos. It produced fire-retardant materials extracted from vermiculite. The process released asbestos fibers, which are small enough to be inhaled, into the air and the surrounding area. W.R. Grace & Co. operated the plant from 1953 to 1992 before it was demolished between 2001 and 2002. Health officials screened 25 people with chest X-rays in May 2007. Eight of them showed signs of asbestos-related disease. Further testing is needed to confirm those results. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Supreme Court Junks 57 Injury Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Mississippi Supreme Court has dismissed 57 asbestos-related personal injury claims, ruling that these claims were not filed in the proper jurisdiction and attorneys failed to promptly file to have them transferred, LegalNewsline.com reports. The ruling drops the claims against asbestos manufacturers charged with causing health problems to those individuals exposed to it while affirming the ruling of Noxubee Circuit Judge Jim Kitchens, who has thrown out 437 claims from individuals who did not live in the state, did not allege asbestos exposure in the state or had no claims against state defendants. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that: (1) The circuit court erred in dismissing their claims; (2) It was not the responsibility of the plaintiffs to copy and transfer the cases; and (3) The trial court's dismissal of the claims was contrary to the procedures prescribed for transfer," wrote Justice Ann Lamar, in her third month on the job after being appointed by Republican Gov. Haley Barbour. On June 24, 2005, Judge Kitchens ordered an Order of Severance, Transfer and/or Dismissal for each of the 57 claims, advising the plaintiffs’ attorneys at a hearing in August 2007 to have the cases transferred by Sept. 30, 2007. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illinois Ex-Councilman Sentenced to 15 Mos. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Powell Jr., a former councilman of East St. Louis, Ill., on Aug. 13, 2007, was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison for asbestos-related environmental violations at a downtown East St. Louis landmark, St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports. Mr. Powell, also a former St. Clair County Board member and head of the Democratic Party in East St. Louis, said he hoped that the 2002 renovation of the Spivey Building would in turn spark a revitalization downtown. He was on the council at the time. Mr. Powell pleaded guilty in June 2007 to a conspiracy charge and a charge of failing to notify authorities before removing asbestos. Mr. Powell admitted then that both he and an employee, Isaiah Newton, knew that the building contained asbestos and that it was being improperly removed. They did not notify the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, as required, and did not tell refuse haulers that trash bins that they were taking to the Milam Landfill contained asbestos, court documents show. Mr. Newton also pleaded guilty. Philip H. Cohn, owner of the 12-story structure built in 1929, pleaded guilty in 2004 of improperly removing asbestos from the building and other charges. He was sentenced to five years in prison. Mr. Powell's indictment says he told workers that the building contained asbestos, but not the "dangerous kind," and gave them paper masks instead of respirators. Those workers, who were paid in cash, threw building materials out the windows during the demolition, scattering debris down Missouri Avenue. The building, which sits just blocks from the federal courthouse, is still vacant and dotted with broken windows and graffiti. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texas Couple Sues 39 Firms in W.Va. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Theodore and Nancy Alderman, a Texas couple formerly of West Virginia, on July 27, 2007, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va. against 39 companies, The West Virginia Record reports. The suit claims Mr. Alderman was exposed to asbestos on the job and is now ill with mesothelioma because of the exposure. According to the suit, Mr. Alderman worked as a pipefitter for Union Carbide Corp. from 1957 to 1990. Mr. Alderman claims the companies were negligent by manufacturing, producing, selling and using products that contained asbestos. Mrs. Alderman also claims she suffered a loss of services, society, companionship and consortium from her husband. Together, through attorney William K. Schwartz, the Aldermans seek compensatory and punitive damages. Kanawha Circuit Court case number 07-C-1575 will be assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Court Dismisses Claim in Todd’s Favor ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Washington Supreme Court rejected the late Roger Herring’s asbestos- related claim against Todd Shipyards Corp., stating that Todd Shipyards cannot be sued for a deceased worker’s asbestos exposure because the man missed a filing deadline in a 20-year-old bankruptcy proceeding, Associated Press reports. On Aug. 9, 2007, the Court said Todd Shipyards gave Mr. Herring sufficient warning about Todd Shipyards’ 1987 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing when it published notices in several newspapers. The Court rejected Mr. Herring's argument: That the prominent shipbuilding company had a duty to give Herring's labor union specific notice of the bankruptcy. Justice Tom Chambers wrote, “It certainly would have been desirable for the bankruptcy court to have required such notice, or for Todd to have taken the extra step. But, under current federal case law, it appears to us that Todd had no duty to inform Herring's union.” Mr. Herring worked for subcontractors at Todd's work sites in the 1960s and early 1970s. He was a member of the Asbestos Workers Union Local 7. In 1987, Todd filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. The Bankruptcy Court set a 1988 deadline for filing claims, and Todd sent a written notice to its known creditors. In 1989, Mr. Herring's previously diagnosed lung thickening developed into asbestosis, or lung scarring. He sued several manufacturers of products that contain asbestos, but did not sue Todd, which emerged from bankruptcy that year. Mr. Herring was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2002. He filed a lawsuit based on the diagnosis, and Todd was among the defendants. The Company was not previously aware of Mr. Herring's claims. Mr. Herring died two years later. His estate carried on the lawsuit, which claimed that Mr. Herring's union would have passed information about Todd's bankruptcy on to its members if it had received a specific warning. In 2004, the Company won a summary judgment dismissing Mr. Herring's lawsuit because it was discharged during bankruptcy. On Aug. 9, 2007, Supreme Court justices agreed that Mr. Herring's union was not entitled to such "actual notice" because it was not one of Todd's creditors. Instead, the court said Todd provided the required legal notice by publishing bankruptcy notices in Seattle's two daily newspapers and in the national editions of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Joint Case Filed v. Vimasco in W.Va. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A joint asbestos-related lawsuit has been filed by four families against Nitro, W.Va.-based Vimasco Corp. on July 27, 2007 in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports. Attorney Scott Segal filed the suit on behalf of Clellie N. Maddox and his wife, Norma; Donna Jo Crago, as the executrix of the estate of Donald W. Rensi; Lowell L. Sharp; and Junior E. Stewart. The suit also names Owens-Illinois Inc. as a defendant. According to the suit, Mr. Maddox, Mr. Rensi, Mr. Sharp, and Mr. Stewart all suffer from asbestosis and lung cancer. Mr. Rensi is deceased. The suit claims the men all inhaled asbestos dust while working at various jobsites and locales. The men claim they did not know of the dangers associated with asbestos and were not properly protected. Each man claims he suffers from a lung injury, which has already allegedly resulted in the death of Mr. Rensi. According to the suit, each plaintiff suffered damages for medical expenses, embarrassment and inconvenience, loss of earning capacity and loss of enjoyment of life. In the nine-count suit, the plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. Kanawha Circuit Court case number 07-C-1566 has been assigned to a visiting judge. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace’s Expert Estimates $385M for Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. B. Thomas Florence, W.R. Grace & Co.’s asbestos expert, estimates that the Debtors' total present value of pending and future asbestos-related personal injury liabilities ranges from US$385,000,000 to US$1,314,000,000, with a median value of US$712,000,000. Dr. Florence estimates that the value of pending PI Claims that met the evidentiary criteria ranges from US$83,000,000 to US$713,000,000 with a median value of US$128,000,000. Dr. Florence also estimates that the present value of future PI Claims that would meet the evidentiary criteria ranges from US$303,000,000 to US$1,141,000,000 with a median value of US$585,000,000. Dr. Florence used a specific set of assumptions in the estimation of the Debtors' PI liabilities. Those assumptions, according to Dr. Florence, are based on the premise that only claimants whose claims meet certain criteria would be able to sustain their burden of proof that their claims against the Debtors are valid, and therefore should be valued as part of the estimation process. Analysis Research Planning Corporation, the Debtors' asbestos claims consultant, applied an average inflation value of 2.5 percent per year to bring all settlement averages to 2001 dollars, Dr. Florence tells the Court. ARPC selected the range from April 1999 to April 2001 because it was the most recent and therefore more reflective of future events, without over-weighting any single time period. To estimate the nominal value of the median future claim estimates, ARPC applied a 2.5 percent inflation rate to settlement values through 2007 and then a one percent inflation rate was used to reflect a 2.5 percent annual inflation rate reduced by an average 1.5 percent claim deflation rate representing the effects on claim values of an aging population and a primarily static period of exposure. A full-text copy of the Florence Report is available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/grace_FlorenceReport.pdf (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 136; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Expert Estimates Grace Liability at $7.9B ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer L. Biggs, the Future Claims Representative's asbestos expert, estimates W.R. Grace & Co.’s personal injury liabilities at US$7,900,000,000 on an undiscounted basis. When reduced to present value as of the Petition Date using a 5.2 percent interest rate, Ms. Biggs estimates the Debtors' PI liabilities to be about US$3,700,000,000. Ms. Biggs opines that the range of the Debtors' PI liabilities is US$6,400,000,000 to US$11,800,000,000 on an undiscounted basis, and US$3,000,000,000 to US$5,300,000,000 discounted. Ms. Biggs' estimate is based on projecting the quantity and type of future PI Claims against the Debtors for up to 54 years after the Petition Date. The estimate also includes a provision for the known pending PI Claims filed against the Debtors on or before the Petition Date. Ms. Biggs calculated the total liability by multiplying the known pending and projected future claims filings by the expected average payment amounts that the Debtors would pay to claimants in each of the years in projection. A full-text copy of the Biggs Report is available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/grace_BiggsExpertReport.pdf (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 136; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Urges for Celotex Document Production ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.R. Grace & co. and the other Debtors point out that the Celotex Asbestos Settlement Trust has admitted that more than 73,000 Grace claimants have submitted claims against the Celotex Trust, yet it refused to produce any electronic data relating to Grace claimants based on specious claims that those information is immune from discovery under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Celotex has refused to produce paper files for the Grace claimants, asserting that the burden inherent in production of the files would be too great, estimating the cost to obtain paper discovery at a million or more dollars. The Debtors maintain that they are entitled to reasonable discovery of the claimants' exposure data held by the Celotex Trust. Accordingly, the Debtors ask the Court to compel Celotex to produce the subpoenaed documents. (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 136; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Disallows 3 Damage Claims v. Grace ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Bankruptcy Court disallows three of W.R. Grace & Co.’s asbestos- related property damage claims filed Canadian claimants. These claimants are: City of Edmonton (Claim No. 12400), Calgary Board of Education (Claim No. 12440), and Hamilton District School Board (Claim No. 13950). (W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 136; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 215/945-7000) New Securities Fraud Cases ARCHSTONE-SMITH: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in Colo. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons, other than the defendants, who own the securities of Archstone-Smith Trust against defendants Archstone and its board of directors alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 USC ss. 78n(a), and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, 17 CFR ss. 240-14a-9. The Complaint alleges that the defendants have: (i) violated their fiduciary duties owed to the public shareholders of Archstone; and (ii) issued a false and misleading proxy statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission concerning the merger agreement among defendant Archstone, and non- defendants Tishman Speyer and Lehman Brothers (including its Private Equity group) (collectively, the "Partnership"), to take Archstone private by purchasing all of its outstanding shares in exchange for $60.75 per share (the "Agreement"). As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading statements in the proxy statement concerning the Agreement as set forth above, the market price of Archstone has been artificially capped, and Archstone shareholders have been deprived of certain material information concerning the negotiation of the Agreement and the adequacy of the consideration to be provided by the Agreement. Interested parties may move the court no later than October 14, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Lawrence P. Kolker, Esq Derek Behnke Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Phone: 800-575-0735 E-mail: classmember@whafh.com Website: http://www.whafh.com LUMINENT MORTGAGE: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. from October 10, 2006 to August 6, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges Luminent and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Luminent is a real estate investment trust that invests primarily in the United States agency and other single-family, adjustable-rate, hybrid adjustable-rate and fixed-rate, mortgage-backed securities, which it acquires in the secondary market. 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's investments were not "high quality" as previously represented; (2) that the Company had failed to employ a disciplined and sophisticated hedging program for the interest rate and credit risks in its portfolio; (3) as such, the Company would be forced to eliminate its promised dividend payment to shareholders going forward; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the above, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis when made. The Company shocked investors on August 6, 2007 when it announced that it had experienced a significant increase in margin calls on its "highest quality assets," as well as a decrease on the financing advance rates provided by its lenders. As a result, the Company's Board of Directors suspended payment of the Company's second quarter cash dividend of $0.32 per share, cancelled the Company's second quarter 2007 earnings conference call scheduled for August 9, 2007, and stated that it would delay filing the Company's quarterly report with the SEC. On news of this, Luminent's shares fell $1.95, or over 30 percent, to close on August 6, 2007 at $4.37 per share. Then on August 7, 2007, the Company attempted to assure investors that it was "moving forward with its efforts to enhance its liquidity and preserve the value of its portfolio of assets which is comprised substantially of high quality mortgage loans." Therein, the Company again stated that that it had experienced a significant increase in margin calls on its "highest quality assets," as well as a decrease on the financing advance rates provided by its lenders. On news of this, shares of Luminent fell an additional $3.29 per share, or over 75 percent, to close on August 8, 2007 at $1.08 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 Or by e-mail at info@sbtklaw.com NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Rosen Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action on behalf of purchasers of Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. common stock during the period from July 9, 2007 through July 16, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The Complaint charges that Northwest and certain of its present officers and senior management violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading statements about its lead drug candidate DCVax-Brain. The Complaint asserts that on July 9, 2007 the Company issued a press release entitled "World's First Therapeutic Vaccine for Brain Cancer Commercially Available to Patients in Switzerland." The release stated that Northwest received an "authorization for use" from the Swiss authorities and that "DCVax-Brain is the first commercially available therapeutic vaccine for such cancers. The Company intends to begin making the product available to patients in Q3 2007." Additionally, the Complaint alleges that on July 16, 2007, Northwest issued another press release explaining that the authorization it received was really just for import/export purposes, and was conditional even for those limited purposes. Northwest stated that the Swiss government has not yet reviewed DCVax for neither safety nor efficacy. As a result of these adverse disclosures, the Complaint asserts that shareholders were damaged. Interested parties may move the court no later than October 12, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. Phone: (212) 686-1060 or Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425 Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com QIAO XING: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who acquired the securities of Qiao Xing Universal Telephone, Inc. between October 31, 2006 and July 16, 2007, inclusive. The suit was filed against defendants Qiao Xing, certain of its officers and directors, and Grobstein, Horwath & Company, LLC, the Company's auditor. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants issued numerous, positive press releases, statements and financial reports filed with the SEC that described the Company's financial performance. On July 17, 2007, before the market opened for trading in New York, Qiao Xing announced it was restating results for fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, and fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, and taking remediation steps to address material weaknesses in the Company's internal control over financial reporting and ineffectiveness of disclosure controls and procedures. These disclosures caused the Company's stock to plummet approximately 21% on unusually heavy trading volume. These disclosures, discussed in the complaint, contradicted much of the information provided by Defendants to the market during the Class Period concerning its reported revenues and results. As alleged in the complaint, Qiao Xing insiders, however, faired far better than public shareholders. Indeed, while in possession of material, non-public information, insiders sold substantial amounts of their Company holdings, achieved greater liquidity, and spun-off a subsidiary for $160 million in cash. As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading statements set forth in the complaint, the market price of Qiao Xing securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period. Had plaintiffs and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said securities, or would not have purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid. Interested parties may move the court no later than October 8, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Gustavo Bruckner, Esq. Derek Behnke Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 Phone: (800) 575-0735 E-mail: classmember@whafh.com Website: http://www.whafh.com RADIAN GROUP: Lerach Coughlin Files Pa. Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Radian Group Inc. between January 23, 2007 and July 31, 2007, inclusive. The complaint charges Radian and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Exchange Act. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to disclose: (i) that the Company's $468 million investment in C-BASS was materially impaired as C-BASS was experiencing increasing margin calls and C-BASS's investments were declining in value at a significant rate; (ii) that the Company was materially overstating its financial results by failing to properly value its investment in C-BASS and by failing to write-down that investment in a timely fashion; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and, therefore, were materially false and misleading. On July 30, 2007, after the market closed, Radian issued a press release announcing that "it has concluded that the value of its investment in" C-BASS has been "materially impaired." The Company further disclosed that its investment in C-BASS consists of approximately $468 million of equity as of June 30, 2007 and an additional $50 million drawn on July 20 and 23, 2007 under a $50 million unsecured credit facility that Radian provides to C-BASS. The Company also represented that although it had not determined the level of the impairment charge it "could be Radian's entire investment, less any associated tax benefit." In response to this announcement, the price of Radian common stock declined from $40.20 per share to $33.71 per share on extremely heavy trading volume. Then, on July 31, 2007, before the market opened, C-BASS issued a press release concerning Radian's announcement of the impairment charge. According to C-BASS, at the beginning of 2007, it had $302 million of liquidity, representing more than 30% of its capital of $926 million. Thereafter, as 2007 unfolded and the subprime mortgage market crisis deepened, C-BASS received and met $290 million in margin calls from its lenders, leaving it with virtually no liquidity. However, the margin calls kept coming into C-BASS and C-BASS did not have the liquidity to meet them. In response to this announcement, the price of Radian stock declined from $33.71 per share to $27.51 per share on extremely heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased the behalf of purchasers of the securities of Radian between January 23, 2007 and July 31, 2007, inclusive. Radian operates, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, as a credit enhancement company that provides credit protection products and financial services to mortgage lenders and other financial institutions. One of Radian's principal affiliates is Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization, known as C-BASS. C-BASS is an investor in the credit risk of subprime single-family residential mortgages. For more information, contact: Samuel H. Rudman David A. Rosenfeld Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com Website: http://www.lerachlaw.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, and Mary Grace Durana, Editors. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *