/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070921.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, September 21, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 187
Headlines
AIG INC: Lawsuit Alleges Misclassification of Clerical Workers
AUSTRALIA: Farmers Plan to File Suit Over Water Rations
BP AMERICA: Oct. Hearing Set for N.Mex. $35M Royalties Suit Deal
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces “Brockmeyer” ERISA 401(k) Lawsuit
ENCYSIVE PHARMACEUTICALS: Tex. Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
EQUITY MEDIA: Defendants, Plaintiffs Added to Ark. Investor Suit
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Court Denies Securities Suit Dismissal Motion
FERRO CORP: Dec. Hearing Set for $5.5M Antitrust Suit Settlement
GREAT AMERICAN: Oct. Hearing Set for Ohio Merger Suit Agreement
HOMESTORE.COM INC: Dec. 3 Hearing Set for $7.9M Suit Settlement
IONATRON INC: Motion to Dismiss Ariz. Securities Suit Opposed
LABRANCHE & CO: Faces Antitrust Litigation Over NYSE Trading
LORAL SPACE: Discovery Ongoing in "Christ" Securities Lawsuit
LORAL SPACE: Discovery Ongoing in “Beleson” Securities Lawsuit
LOUISIANA: AG Blocked from Suing Army Corps for Katrina Victims
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Expects Race Bias Suit Appeal Ruling by Q4
MAGMA DESIGN: 2008 Trial Set for Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Nixing of Ariz. Securities Suit on Appeal
MBLOX INC: Faces Suit Over “Recycled” Cell Phone Number Bills
MICROSOFT CORP: Ariz. Gov’t Agency Wants Antitrust Suit Expanded
PET VALU: Ontario Court to Add Firm in Lawsuit Over Pet Food
TRAVEL AGENCIES: Ill. City Denies Agreeing to Collective Suit
TTP INC: Files for Bankruptcy in Wake of Suits by Mo. Florists
TWEEN BRANDS: Federman Expands Ohio Securities Fraud Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Dismissal of Guantanamo Torture Claims Appealed
UPS: Ill. Court Approves $1M Payment for Janitors’ Lost Wages
SPRINT SPECTRUM: Oct. 2 Hearing Set for Consumer Suit Settlement
VALASSIS COMMS: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Conn.
* Freed Kanner London & Millen Named Top Tier Antitrust Firm
* Labaton Sucharow Moves to Bigger Office in Lower Manhattan
Asbestos Alerts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: K-Sea Affiliate to Settle Remaining Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: J.C. Penney Records $63M Liability at Feb.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe at Calif. Air Force Station Widens
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Town to Pay $9,600 for Handling Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds $3.4M Verdict in Jones Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Town Reaches $1.8M Settlement in Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: London Sports Center Closed Due to Hazards
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crews Remove Hazard at Canadian Water Plant
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Worker Launches GBP250,000 Payout Bid
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Court Grants Plaintiff’s Remand Motion
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Family of Tokyo Factory Worker Gets Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Carries Out Health Checks in Businesses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Attorney Pleads Guilty to Mail Fraud
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navy Electrician’s Death Linked to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Developer to Pay $12T for Renovation Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Slows Repairs at Calif. University
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Israel Creates Central Asbestos Dump Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Threatens CRA Miami Housing Project
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Broadway Kin Seeks Workmates in Payout Bid
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. School Board OKs $15,000 for Abatement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amerex Completes Abatement at Oklahoma Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Housing Demolition in S.C. Raises Concerns
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement of Asbestos Ongoing at R.I. Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hauler to Pay $55,700 for Disposal Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Firm Responds to Illegal Abatement Incident
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Promptly Contained at Colorado Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ariz. Laborer Sues 84 Companies in Illinois
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wis. Laborer Sues 88 Companies in Illinois
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DNA Test Could be Useful in Workers’ Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Specialists Deal with Hazard at U.K. Church
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Couple Sues 51 Companies in W.Va. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms Board Ruling in Fredette Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Moves to Settle 54 Time-Barred Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Seeks to Disallow 55 Claims in Canada
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Charges Can Be Reinstated, Court Says
New Securities Fraud Cases
FREMONT GENERAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
LJ INTERNATIONAL: Coughlin Stoia Files Cal. Securities Lawsuit
TUBE MEDIA: Vianale & Vianale Files Securities Suit in Fla.
*********
AIG INC: Lawsuit Alleges Misclassification of Clerical Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two insurance adjusters employed by AIG, Inc., the nation's largest property
and casualty insurer, have filed a collective action under the Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The lawsuit asserts that AIG intentionally misclassified hundreds of clerical
employees as exempt from federal overtime requirements.
The FLSA was enacted to protect non-supervisory workers from wage-and-hour
abuses. The Plaintiffs, residents of New Jersey, contend that they were not
executive, administrative, or professional employees as defined by the FLSA
and, as a result, should have been paid at least one-and-one-half times their
regular hourly rate for working more than 40 hours in a given work week.
The suit, filed September 6, 2007 in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, seeks damages for all similarly-situated AIG
employees including unpaid overtime since January 2001, liquidated damages,
and interest.
"AIG appears to have knowingly and willfully denied Plaintiffs and their
colleagues overtime pay for no other reason than to improve its bottom line,"
says David J. Cohen, attorney for the Plaintiffs and head of SMBB's class
action group. "We intend to shed light on AIG's illegal conduct and seek the
maximum recovery for its hard working men and women."
"I am committed to AIG's customers and to the company," says named plaintiff
Sandy Dorofy, "but I also believe in getting an hour's pay for an hour's work
and earning overtime pay for the overtime hours I worked."
Several major insurers have settled overtime pay litigation in recent years.
Allstate Corp. agreed to pay as much as $120 million to settle allegations it
denied California workers overtime pay in violation of FLSA. State Farm
Insurance Exchange reportedly agreed to pay more than $200 million to settle
a FLSA suit by its claims adjusters. In both cases, the companies denied any
FLSA violations.
For more information, contact:
David J. Cohen
Sidney L. Gold & Associates, P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 515
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
Phone: 215-569-1999
Fax: 215-569-3870
Website: http://www.sgoldandassociates.com
AUSTRALIA: Farmers Plan to File Suit Over Water Rations
-------------------------------------------------------
Farmers in Murray Valley voted to file a class action against the federal and
state governments over an alleged mismanagement of irrigation water, The AAP
reports.
The farmers decided on the move at a meeting in Mildura in Victoria's north-
east this week, Growers Action Group chairman Vince Cirillo told AAP.
The 800 growers who voted on the action are on water allocations of 10-20 per
cent this season because of continuing dry conditions and low in-flows into
the Murray Darling Basin. Some said they received just 5% of that allocation
and would like to sue to receive compensation for the part they lost. They
include irrigators from Victoria, South Australia and NSW, according to Mr.
Cirillo.
Mr. Cirillo said problems include the distortion of water market system, the
release of "sleeper" licenses that allow large-scale managed investment
schemes, adding pressure to an already stretched system and forcing small
growers out. He told AAP he could not yet put a figure on a possible
compensation.
BP AMERICA: Oct. Hearing Set for N.Mex. $35M Royalties Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The State of New Mexico, County of Santa Fe, First Judicial District Court
will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 31, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. for the proposed
$35,000,000 settlement in the matter: “Laura Dichter, Romero Family Limited
Parthership. J. Glenn Turner, et al. v. BP America Production Co. f/k/a AMOCO
Production Co., Case No. D-0101-CV-20000162.”
Case Background
Laura Dichter, Romero Family Limited Partnership, and J. Glenn Turner filed
this lawsuit in June 2000, individually and on behalf of a proposed class of
royalty and overriding royalty interest owners against defendants
ConocoPhilips Co. and BP America.
They purport to be royalty and overriding royalty interest owners in the San
Juan Basin whose royalty and overriding royalty interests apply to leases
operated by the defendant BP America (BP Subject Leases).
The BP Subject Leases produce gas that is processed at the San Juan New
Blanco Plant near Bloomfield, New Mexico, which is jointly owned by COP and
BP. Natural gas liquids (NGLs) are removed from the gas stream at the plant
and are then sold by defendants.
Plaintiffs allege that they and all class members have been damaged, because
defendants underpaid royalty and overriding royalty to them, including
amounts due for NGLs saved and sold by defendants.
The second amended complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of the
covenant to market. Plaintiffs seek actual damages, punitive damages and
injunctive relief.
COP entered into a settlement agreement. That settlement was approved on May
12, 2006. Thus the case is proceeding against BP only. It was granted class-
action status on July 25, 2006 by
Judge Michael E. Vigil.
Generally, the class consists of owners of private royalty and overriding
that burden leases held by BP America Production Co. in the San Juan Basin
which leases contain wells that are or have been productive of natural gas
processed at the new Blanco Plant near Bloomfield, New Mexico during October
1994 through December 2006.
For more details, contact:
J.E. Gallegos, Esq.
Gallegos Law Firm, P.C.
460 St., Michaels Drive, Building 300
Sante Fe, New Mexico 87505
Phone: (505) 983-6686
Fax: (505) 986-1367
- and -
Thomas A. Graves, Esq.
McKool Smith, P.C.
Suite 1500
300 Crescent Court
Dallas, Texas 75201
Phone: (214) 978-4000
Fax: (214) 978-4044
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces “Brockmeyer” ERISA 401(k) Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Participants in the Countrywide Financial Corp. 401(k) Savings and Investment
Plan have filed a class action, seeking recovery of millions of dollars that
they lost during the recent collapse of the company's stock.
Filed in Federal Court in Los Angeles, California, “Brockmeyer, et al., v.
Countrywide Financial Corp., et al.” is a class action filed on behalf of the
Plan and its participants whose accounts included investments in Countrywide
stock (NYSE:CFC) from April 24, 2004 to the present. It names Countrywide
and its chief executive Angelo Mozilo, as well as other individual
fiduciaries.
The class action complaint alleges that the defendants knew or should have
known, in light of Countrywide's illegal financial and business practices,
that a sharp decline in the stock's price was inevitable, and they should
have taken action to protect Plan participants from that decline. The
complaint further alleges Countrywide improperly made matching contributions
solely in Countrywide stock, failed to sell Countrywide stock even after the
stock price started to fall and the company faced dire financial
circumstances, and failed to provide complete and accurate information to the
Plan's participants and beneficiaries.
Plaintiff Jonie L. Brockmeyer is asking that the Plan be made whole for the
money lost, as well as monies the Plan and its participants would have made
if the Countrywide fiduciaries had fulfilled their fiduciary obligations
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Since August of this year, the company's stock has dropped from over $45 per
share to the $15-$17 range. As of this month, Countrywide has lost almost $2
billion in total market capitalization.
Countrywide Plan participants who are interested in joining this class action
can receive more information by calling 866-620-6722 or e-mailing
classaction@linerlaw.com.
For more information, contact:
Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq.
Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif LLP
Phone: (866) 620-6722
E-mail: classaction@linerlaw.com
Web site: http://www.californiaclassaction.com
ENCYSIVE PHARMACEUTICALS: Tex. Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas has
dismissed with prejudice, the securities class action litigation originally
filed in September 2006 against the Encysive Pharmaceuticals, four of its
former officers and a current officer.
On Sept. 26, 2006, a purported class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas by:
* Massachusetts Laborers’ Annuity Fund, on behalf of itself
and all other similarly situated investors against
-- the Company;
-- Bruce D. Given, M.D., president and chief executive
Officer;
-- Richard A.F. Dixon, senior vice president, research and
chief scientific officer; and
-- Stephen L. Mueller, former vice president, finance and
administration, secretary and treasurer.
The complaint alleges violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 10b-5, and focuses on statements that are claimed to be false and
misleading regarding our drug sitaxsentan sodium.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of our securities during the period from Feb. 19, 2004 through
March 24, 2006.
In addition, on Oct. 10, 2006, a second purported class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas by Gustav
R. Bastian, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated investors
against the Company, Dr. Given, Mr. Dixon and Mr. Mueller.
The complaint asserts substantially the same factual allegations and legal
claims as the Massachusetts Laborers complaint on behalf of the same putative
class.
A third substantially similar purported class action complaint was filed on
Oct. 20, 2006 by Steven O. Scott, and a fourth substantially similar
purported class action complaint was filed on Nov. 1, 2006 by Cami Janzen-
Guare.
These complaints assert substantially the same factual allegations and legal
claims as the Massachusetts Laborers’ complaint and were filed in the same
court on behalf of the same putative class.
The Court has consolidated the four existing putative class actions into a
single civil action (Class Action Reporter, May 31, 2007).
Encysive announced the dismissal on Sept. 19. The plaintiffs have a right to
file an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Encysive Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.encysive.com/-- is a
biopharmaceutical company that engages in the discovery, development and
commercialization of synthetic small molecule compounds.
For more information, contact:
Encysive Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Investors:
Ann Tanabe, VP, Investor Relations and
Corporate Communications
Phone: (713) 796-8822
The Trout Group
Marcy Strickler
Phone: (646) 378-2927
BMC Communications
Media:
Dan Budwick
Phone: (212) 477-9007 ext. 14
EQUITY MEDIA: Defendants, Plaintiffs Added to Ark. Investor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three new plaintiffs and three new defendants were added to a purported
shareholder class action filed against Equity Media Holdings Corp., formerly
known as Equity Broadcasting Corp., in the circuit court of Pulaski County,
Arkansas in relation to a merger agreement.
Equity Media was incorporated in Delaware on April 29, 2005 as Coconut Palm
Acquisition Corp. to serve as a vehicle for the acquisition of an operating
business through a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition and/or
other similar transaction.
On March 30, 2007, Coconut Palm merged with Equity Broadcasting Corp., with
Coconut Palm remaining as the legal surviving corporation. Immediately
following the merger, Coconut Palm changed its name to Equity Media Holdings
Corp.
In connection with the merger between EBC and Coconut Palm, EBC and each
member of EBC's board of directors was named in a lawsuit filed by an EBC
shareholder on June 14, 2006.
As a result of the merger between EBC and Coconut Palm, pursuant to which EBC
merged into Coconut Palm, Coconut Palm, which was renamed Equity Media
Holdings Corp., is a party to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit contains both a class action component and derivative claims.
The class action claims allege various deficiencies in EBC's proxy used to
inform its shareholders of the special meeting to consider the merger.
These allegations include:
-- the failure to provide sufficient information regarding
the fair value of EBC's assets and the resulting fair
value of EBC's Class A common stock;
-- that the interests of holders of EBC's Class A common
stock are improperly diluted as a result of the merger
to the benefit of the holders of EBC's Class B common
stock;
-- failure to sufficiently describe the further dilution
that would occur post-merger upon exercise of Coconut
Palm's outstanding warrants;
-- failure to provide pro-forma financial information;
-- failure to disclose alleged related party transactions;
-- failure to provide access to audited consolidated
financial statements during previous years;
-- failure to provide shareholders with adequate time to
review a fairness option obtained by EBC's board of
directors in connection with the merger; and
-- alleged sale of EBC below appraised market value of its
assets.
The derivative components of the lawsuit allege instances of improper self-
dealing, including through a management agreement between EBC and Arkansas
Media, LLC.
In addition to requesting unspecified compensatory damages, the plaintiff
also requested injunctive relief to enjoin EBC’s annual shareholder meeting
and the vote on the merger.
An injunction hearing was not held before EBC’s annual meeting regarding the
merger so the meeting and shareholder vote proceeded as planned and EBC’s
shareholders approved the merger.
On Aug. 9, 2006, EBC’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit was denied. On Feb. 21,
2007, the plaintiff filed a “Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement” with the
court alleging the parties reached an oral agreement to settle the lawsuit.
The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to withdraw the motion to settle
and filed a “Third Amended Complaint” on April 10, 2007. This motion added
two additional plaintiffs and expanded on the issues recited in the previous
complaints.
On July 31, 2007, the plaintiff filed a “Fourth Amended Complaint”. This
motion added three new plaintiffs and three new defendants to the
proceedings. The three additional defendants bear a fiduciary relationship
to three previously named defendants.
Equity Media Holdings Corp., formerly Coconut Palm Acquisition Corp. (Coconut
Palm), is an owner and operator of television stations in the U.S.
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Court Denies Securities Suit Dismissal Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has denied a
motion by FARO Technologies, Inc. and individual defendants to dismiss an
amended securities class action complaint filed against them.
On Dec. 6, 2005, the first of four essentially identical class action
securities fraud lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain officers
of the Company.
On April 19, 2006, the four lawsuits were consolidated, and Kornitzer Capital
Management, Inc. was appointed as the lead plaintiff.
On May 16, 2006, Kornitzer filed its Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint against the Company and the individual defendants.
The Amended Complaint also named Grant Thornton LLP, the Company's
independent registered public accounting firm, as an additional defendant.
On July 31, 2006, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint. On Feb. 3, 2007, the Court dismissed the Amended Complaint,
without prejudice.
As to the Company and the individual defendants, the Court's decision
primarily was based on its findings that the Amended
Complaint failed to adequately allege:
-- scienter (i.e., intentionally fraudulent or severely
reckless conduct) with respect to certain claims; and
-- that certain supposed misrepresentations or omissions
actually caused economic loss.
The Court granted Kornitzer leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by Feb.
22, 2007.
On Feb. 22, 2007, Kornitzer filed its Consolidated Second Amended Class
Action Complaint against the Company, the individual defendants and Grant
Thornton LLP.
In the Second Amended Complaint, as in the Amended Complaint, Kornitzer seeks
to represent a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between April 15, 2004 and
March 15, 2006.
On behalf of the alleged class, Kornitzer seeks an unspecified amount of
damages, premised on allegations that each defendant made misrepresentations
and omissions of material fact during the class period in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Among other things, Kornitzer alleges:
-- that the Company's reported inventory, gross margins
and profits were false and misleading during a portion
of the class period because the Company consciously
overstated the value of its inventory;
-- that the Company misstated during 2005 certain of the
selling expenses it had accrued and had expected to
incur;
-- that certain Asian sales that the Company had reported
during the class period had been the product of
unlawful payments made in violation of the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act, and that the Company failed to
disclose that it was utilizing unlawful means to
achieve such sales; and
-- that certain of the Company's statements regarding the
Company's systems of internal controls had been false
and misleading, in light of the above and other
circumstances.
In May, the company, sought for the dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint
in the securities fraud class action pending against it (Class Action
Reporter, May 28, 2007).
The court has issued a Report and Recommendation to enter an order denying
FARO Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the second amended consolidated
securities class action (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007).
Faro said in a statement released Sept. 19 that the court denied the motion.
"The court stated that it was required to accept as true the allegations of
the complaint, and to construe all reasonable inferences therein in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff.
“Although we are disappointed with the decision, we also realize that the
court did not rule upon the merits of the lawsuit, but simply allowed it to
proceed. We continue to believe that the plaintiff's claims are without
merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against them," said Jay Freeland,
the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer.
The suit is "Goldberger v. Faro Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:05-cv-
01810-ACC-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
Court of Florida under Judge Anne C. Conway and with referral to Judge David
A. Baker.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
John F. Edgar, Esq.
John M. Edgar, Esq.
Edgar Law Firm, LLC
4520 Main St., Suite 1650
Kansas City, MO 64111
Phone: 816/531-0033
Fax: 816/531-3322
E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
jme@edgarlawfirm.com
- and -
Patrick A. Klingman, Esq.
Karen M. Leser, Esq.
James E. Miller, Esq.
James C. Shah, Esq.
Nathan Zipperian, Esq.
Scott R. Shepherd, Esq.
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
Phone: 860-526-1100, 610-891-9880 and 954-943-9191
Fax: 860-526-1120, 610-891-9883 and 954-943-9173
E-mail: pklingman@sfmslaw.com
kleser@sfmslaw.com
jmiller@sfmslaw.com
jshah@classactioncounsel.com
nzipperian@classactioncounsel.com
sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com
Representing the defendants are:
Richard S. Davis, Esq.
Robert A. Scher, Esq.
Foley & Lardner, LLP
Phone: (407) 244-3260 and (212) 682-7474
Fax: (407) 648-1743 and (212) 687-2329
E-mail: rdavis@foley.com
- and -
Daniel A. Casey, Esq.
Jeffrey T. Kucera Esq.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham, LLP
201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2000
Miami, FL 33131-2399
Phone: 305-539-3324 and 305-539-3322
Fax: 305-358-7095
E-mail: dcasey@klng.com
jkucera@kl.com
FERRO CORP: Dec. Hearing Set for $5.5M Antitrust Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will hold a
fairness hearing on Dec. 17, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for
a proposed $5,500,000 settlement by Ferro Corp. in the matter, "In Re Plastic
Additives Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket No. 03-CV2038 and MDL Docket
No. 1684."
The hearing will be held at the U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 6A, 601 Market
St., Philadelphia, PA 19106.
Any objection and exclusion to and from the settlement must be made on or
before Nov. 27, 2007.
Case Background
The case is a class action brought on behalf of purchasers of plastics
additives (including, but not limited to, impact modifiers, heat stabilizers,
and processing aids) between Jan. 1, 1990 and Jan. 31, 2003.
Plastics additives are added to plastic resins in order to enhance the
quality of those resins. Among the principal plastics additives are heat
stabilizers, impact modifiers, and processing aids.
Heat stabilizers are used to protect resins from thermal degradation and to
enhance the flexibility and stability of the end product.
Impact modifiers are used to improve the resistance of the finished plastics
products to stress and improve the strength of plastics.
Impact modifiers also reduce the weathering, chemical resistance, tensile
strength, and stress rupture of plastic compounds.
Processing aids are chemicals that enable plastics to be processed at lower
temperatures thereby eliminating heat degradation and ensuring quality, as
well as providing greater control over the flow of melted plastic.
Plaintiff alleges a nationwide and worldwide conspiracy among 16 companies to
fix prices of plastics additives in order to raise, maintain, or stabilize
prices for plastics additives above the level where they otherwise would have
been in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
Plaintiff alleges that the conspiracy began in or around Jan. 1, 1990 and
ended around Jan. 31, 2003 when it was announced that these companies were
being investigated by U.S., European, and Japanese law enforcement and
antitrust investigators for participating in an international cartel to fix
the prices of plastics additives.
Plaintiffs sought to recover, among other things, treble damages on behalf of
itself and others who purchased plastics additives from the defendants and
others during the class period.
For more details, contact:
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
805 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 1-800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980
Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com/
Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C.
One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: 215-238-1700
Fax: 215-238-1968
E-Mail: info@kohnswift.com
Web site: http://www.kohnswift.com/
Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP
Phone: 800-778-1822,
E-mail: info@gbcslaw.com
Web site: http://gbcslaw.com
- and -
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
150 East 52nd Street, Thirtieth Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 838-7797
Fax: (212) 838-7745
Web site: http://www.cmht.com
GREAT AMERICAN: Oct. Hearing Set for Ohio Merger Suit Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Ohio will hold a fairness
hearing on Oct. 29, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. for a proposed settlement of two
purported class actions filed against Great American Financial Resources,
Inc. over a May 2006 merger it entered into with American Financial Group,
Inc. (AFG), and GAFRI Acquisition Corp., a newly-formed, wholly owned
subsidiary of AFG.
The hearing will be held before the Honorable Fred Nelson in Courtroom 320 of
the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, 1000 Main St., Cincinnati, Ohio.
Case Background
Under the terms of the agreement, GAFRI Acquisition Corp. will be merged with
and into the company, and as a result of the merger, the separate corporate
existence of GAFRI Acquisition Corp. will cease with Great American
continuing as the surviving corporation (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2007).
Pursuant to the Agreement, Great American would acquire the shares of common
stock of the company that AFG does not currently beneficially own at a price
of $24.50 per share in cash for a total purchase price of approximately $225
million.
On Feb. 27, 2007, a purported class action was filed challenging the terms of
the unsolicited offer received from AFG to acquire all of the shares of Great
American Financial Resources, Inc. not owned by AFG.
The suit names Great American and AFG as defendants as well as all persons
serving as directors of the Registrant on Feb. 22, 2007, the date the offer
was received. The suit seeks injunctive relief.
The case is captioned "Webb, et al. v. Great American Financial Resources,
Inc., et al., Case No. A0701905," filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Hamilton County, Ohio.
Also, as previously reported, on Feb. 28, 2007, a separate purported class
action was filed that makes similar allegations against the same defendants
as the case outlined immediately above. The suit seeks both injunctive
relief and monetary damages. The case is "Call4U, Ltd., et al. v. Carl H.
Linder, et al., Case No. A0701929," filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Hamilton County, Ohio.
On May 17, 2007, the counsel to the parties in both of the above actions
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle both actions, subject to
approval of the court. The principal terms of the proposed settlement are:
-- AFG agrees that it will acquire the outstanding
shares of GAFRI that it does not own at $24.50 per
share;
-- the defendants in the action will provide
plaintiffs' counsel the opportunity to review and
comment upon the Agreement and disclosures
contained in the publicly-filed disclosure
documents relating to the Merger, including those
yet to be filed, which comments will be considered
in good faith by defendants.
-- counsel for plaintiffs will conduct discovery of
AFG's Board of Directors, the Special Committee of
the Board of GAFRI, and a representative of Cochran
Coronia Waller, financial advisor to the Special
Committee of the Board of GAFRI (CCW), regarding
the Merger and the events and negotiations leading
up to the Merger.
-- defendants shall provide plaintiffs' counsel with
the opportunity to review all documents not yet
produced by defendants, which were considered by
GAFRI's Board, the Special Committee of the Board
of GAFRI, and CCW with respect to the Merger and
the events and negotiations leading up to the
Merger.
For more details, contact:
Mark F. Muething
Great American Financial Resources, Inc.
Chiquita Center, 10th Floor, 250 East Fifth St.
Cincinnati, OH 45102
Fax: (513) 357-3397
E-mail: mmuething@gafri.com
- and -
Richard S. Wayne, Esq.
Strauss & Troy
The Federal Reserve Building, 150 East Fourth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
Phone: (513) 621-2120
Fax: (513) 241-8259
Web site: http://www.strausstroy.com/
HOMESTORE.COM INC: Dec. 3 Hearing Set for $7.9M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California will hold a
fairness hearing on Dec. 3, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. for the proposed $7,965,000
settlement by:
* Time Warner, Inc.,
* Max Worldwide f/k/a L90, Inc., and
* Peter Tafeen
in the matter: “In re Homestore.com, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File
No. 01-CV-11115 RSWM (Cwx).”
The hearing will be held before the Honorable Stephen V. Wilson, U.S.
District Judge, at the U.S. Courthouse, 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA
90012.
Any objection to the settlement must be made on or before Oct. 30, 2007.
Deadline for the submission of proof of claim forms must be mode on or before
Nov. 29, 2007.
Case Background
Beginning in December 2001, numerous separate complaints purporting to be
class actions were filed in various jurisdictions alleging that the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated certain
provisions of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaints contain varying allegations, including that the Company made
materially false and misleading statements with respect to the Company's 2000
and 2001 financial results included in the Company's filings with the SEC,
analysts' reports, press releases and media reports. The complaints sought an
unspecified amount of damages.
In March 2002, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System was named
lead plaintiff and the complaints were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.
In November 2002, the Plaintiff filed a first amended consolidated class
action complaint naming the Company, certain of its current officers,
directors and employees, certain of the Company's former officers, directors
and employees, and various other parties, including, among others,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as defendants.
The amended complaint made various allegations, including that the Company
violated federal securities laws, and sought an unspecified amount of damages.
In general, the suit was brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the company during the
period from Jan. 1, 2000 through Dec. 21, 2001.
For more details, contact:
Claims Administrator
In re Homestore.com, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
PO Box 1670
Faribault, MN 55021-1670
Phone: 1-866-216-0264
Web site: http://www.homestoresettlement.com
- and -
Nancy L. Fineman, Esq.
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy
SF Airport Office Ctr., 840 Malcolm Rd., Ste. 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: (650) 697-6000
Fax: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: bsimon@cpsmlaw.com
Web site: http://www.cpsmlaw.com/
IONATRON INC: Motion to Dismiss Ariz. Securities Suit Opposed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action pending against
Ionatron, Inc. and its founders in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona are opposing a motion seeking for the dismissal of the matter.
In July 2006, George Wood and Raymond Veedon filed two purported class action
complaints. Each of the class actions allege, among other things, violations
of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
claiming that the company issued false and misleading statements concerning
the development of its counter improvised explosive device (IED) product
(Class Action Reporter, June 19, 2007).
The court has consolidated these cases, and a consolidated amended complaint
has been served.
On Feb. 16, 2007 the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint for failure to state of cause of action.
On March 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed papers in opposition to the company’s
motion to dismiss.
The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.
The first identified complaint is "George Wood, et al. v. Ionatron, Inc., et
al., Case No. 06-CV-00354," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona.
Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:
Federman & Sherwood
120 North Robinson, Suite 2720
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: 405-235-1560
E-mail: wfederman@aol.com
Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
330 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Phone: 800.797.5499
Fax: 860.493.6290
E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com
Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
3 Bala Plaza E
Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
Phone: 610.667.7706
Fax: 610.667.7056
E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
- and -
Scott & Scott, LLC
P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
Colchester, CT 06415
Phone: 860.537.5537
Fax: 860.537.4432
E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com
LABRANCHE & CO: Faces Antitrust Litigation Over NYSE Trading
------------------------------------------------------------
LaBranche & Co., LLC, a unit of LaBranche & Co., Inc. faces a $4 billion
antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York that accuses it of favoring floor traders at the expense of electronic
SuperDOT system traders.
The complaint was filed June 1, 2007 by Sea Carriers LP and its affiliate Sea
Carriers Corp. against operators of specialist firms that help conduct
trading from the Big Board floor (Class Action Reporter June 7, 2007).
It was allegedly brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who
placed market orders to purchase or sell securities on the NYSE through the
NYSE’s Super Designated Order Turnaround System (SuperDOT) between Oct. 17,
1998 and the present.
Named as defendants are:
-- Bear Stearns Co.,
-- Bear Stearns Securities Corp.,
-- Bank of America,
-- Fleet Specialists,
-- LaBranche & Co.,
-- Susquehanna International Group,
-- SIG Specialists,
-- Van der Moolen Holding N.V.,
-- Van der Moolen Specialists USA LLC,
-- Kellogg Group,
-- Fidelity Investments,
-- Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith,
-- Merrill Lynch & Co.,
-- Citigroup Global Markets,
-- Citigroup,
-- Morgan Stanley Co.,
-- UBS Securities LLC,
-- Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
-- Credit Suisse Group,
-- Jeffries Execution Services,
-- Jeffries Group,
-- Deutsche Bank Securities,
-- NYSE Euronext, and
-- National Financial Services.
The suit claims that NYSE favors floor traders over traders at the electronic
SuperDOT system by filling floor traders' orders first, letting floor traders
see incoming SuperDOT orders, and routinely slowing SuperDOT orders placed
when market conditions were favorable.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified money damages, including trebling under the
antitrust laws, equitable and/or injunctive relief, including an accounting
of and the imposition of a constructive trust and/or asset freeze on trading
proceedings, and attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses.
As of Aug. 8, 2007, neither LaBranche & Co. LLC nor LaBranche & Co., Inc. was
served with or responded to the complaint, according to the company's Aug. 9,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.
The suit is “Sea Carriers, LP I et al. v. NYSE Euronext, Case No. 1:07-cv-
04658-UA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Martin L. Borosko, Esq.
Becker Meisel LLC
354 Eisenhower Parkway
Suite 2800
Livingston, NJ 07039
Phone: (973) 422-1100
Fax: (973) 422-9122
- and -
Seth R. Klein, Esq.
Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C.
20 church St.
Suite 1700
Hartford, CT 06103
Phone: (860) 493-6292
Fax: (860) 493-6291
LORAL SPACE: Discovery Ongoing in "Christ" Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a securities class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against certain officers of Loral
Space & Communications Inc. (New Loral).
In November 2003, plaintiffs Tony Christ, individually and as custodian for
Brian and Katelyn Christ, Casey Crawford, Thomas Orndorff and Marvin Rich,
filed a purported class action complaint against Bernard L. Schwartz and
Richard J. Townsend in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.
The complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an unspecified amount and
reimbursement of plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses. It alleges:
-- that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making
material misstatements or failing to state material
facts about Loral Space & Communications Ltd.'s (Old
Loral) financial condition relating to the restatement
in 2003 of the financial statements for the second and
third quarters of 2002 to correct accounting for
certain general and administrative expenses and the
alleged improper accounting for a satellite transaction
with APT Satellite Co. Ltd.; and
-- that each of the defendants is secondarily liable for
these alleged misstatements and omissions under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling
person" of Old Loral.
The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been asserted
consists of all buyers of Old Loral common stock during the period from July
31, 2002 through June 29, 2003, excluding the defendants and certain persons
related to or affiliated with them.
In October 2004, a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety was denied
by the court. The defendants filed an answer to the complaint in December
2004.
In January 2006, the case was stayed, and after a status conference in March
2007, the stay was lifted and discovery is proceeding, according to the
company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.
Since this case was not brought against Old Loral, but only against certain
of its officers, the company believe, although no assurance can be given,
that to the extent that any award is ultimately granted to the plaintiffs in
this action, the liability of New Loral, if any, with respect thereto is
limited solely to claims for indemnification against Old Loral by the
defendants.
Loral Space & Communications Inc. -- http://www.loral.com/-- together with
its subsidiaries is a satellite communications company with activities in
satellite manufacturing and satellite-based communications services.
LORAL SPACE: Discovery Ongoing in “Beleson” Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in a class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against Bernard L. Schwartz, former
chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Loral Space &
Communications Inc. (New Loral).
In August 2003, plaintiffs Robert Beleson and Harvey Matcovsky filed a
purported class action complaint against the company in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an unspecified amount and
reimbursement of plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses. It alleges:
-- that Mr. Schwartz violated Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by making material
misstatements or failing to state material facts about
the company's financial condition relating to the sale
of assets to Intelsat and its Chapter 11 filing; and
-- that Mr. Schwartz is secondarily liable for these
alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person"
of Loral Space & Communications Ltd. (Old Loral).
The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been asserted
consists of all buyers of Old Loral common stock during the period from June
30, 2003 through July 15, 2003, excluding the defendant and certain persons
related to or affiliated with him.
In November 2003, three other complaints against Mr. Schwartz with
substantially similar allegations were consolidated into the Beleson case.
In February 2004, a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety was
denied by the court. Defendant filed an answer in March 2004.
In January 2006, the case was stayed, and after a status conference in March
2007, the stay was lifted and discovery is proceeding, according to the
company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.
Since this case was not brought against Old Loral, but only against one of
its officers, the company believes, although no assurance can be given, that,
to the extent that any award is ultimately granted to the plaintiffs in this
action, the liability of New Loral, if any, with respect thereto is limited
solely to claims for indemnification against Old Loral by the defendant.
The suit is "Beleson, et al. v. Schwartz, Case No. 1:03-cv-
06051-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York under Judge John E. Sprizzo.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Jules Brody, Esq.
Stull Stull & Brody
6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 687-7230
Fax: (212) 490-2022
Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
Weiss & Yourman
The French Building
551 Fifth Avenue 1600 New York
NY 10176
Phone: (212) 682-3025
Representing Mr. Schwartz are:
Jeanne Marie Luboja, Esq.
Francis James Menton, Jr., Esq.
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (NY)
787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 728-8000
Fax: (212) 728-8111
E-mail: maosdny@willkie.com
LOUISIANA: AG Blocked from Suing Army Corps for Katrina Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a federal court ruling
allowing Louisiana's attorney general to sue the Army Corps. of Engineers on
behalf of Hurricane Katrina victims who do not have lawyers.
U.S. District judge Standwood Duval agreed to let Attorney General Charles
Foti sue the Corps on behalf of claimants who had not yet filed suits. But
the appeals court said Judge Duval acted without proper authority in
appointing Mr. Foti as guardian for the potential claimants.
Mr. Foti sought to represent thousands of people with claims against the
Corps. The deadline for them to file had expired in August, which is the
second anniversary of Katrina. The appeals court ruling means that Hurricane
Katrina victims who had not yet filed suit through a private attorney as of
that deadline will not have their claims heard by a court.
On Feb. 2, Judge Duval ruled the Corps of Engineers can be held liable in a
case alleging a navigation channel called the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet
caused much of the flooding in eastern New Orleans and St. Bernard Parish.
In an August hearing, the corps claimed that it can’t be sued for negligence
because the project falls under the Flood Control Act, rendering it immune to
lawsuits (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 3, 2007). Judge Duval said the law
may grant immunity to the Corps for the failure of a flood wall and levee
during Huricane Katrina, but did not rule on whether the suit can go forward.
Residents of New Orleans filed the lawsuit alleging numerous instances of
negligence and citing expert reports warning the Corps of the failure of the
canal due to weak soils as far back as 1974.
According to the lawsuit, that was the year that the New Orleans Sewerage and
Water Board began seeking a permit to dredge the 17th Street Canal to
increase drainage in uptown New Orleans.
The Corps is accused of negligently approving sheet pilings to depths just
two feet higher than the bottom of the canal, allowing water to travel
underneath the sheet pilings.
The suit further contends that the Corps abandoned the so-called "Barrier
Plan" which would have protected metropolitan New Orleans from deadly storm
surge from Lake Pontchartrain. Instead the Corps implemented another plan,
the 'High-Level Plan" which posed numerous known problems.
The suit is "Greer et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Case No. 2:07-cv-
00647-SRD-JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana under Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr., with referral to Judge Joseph
C. Wilkinson, Jr.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Joseph M. Bruno, Esq.
Bruno & Bruno
855 Baronne St., New
Orleans, LA 70113
Phone: (504) 525-1335
E-mail: jbruno@brunobrunolaw.com
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Expects Race Bias Suit Appeal Ruling by Q4
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lufkin Industries Inc. expects the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit
to issue by the fourth quarter of 2007 a decision in a race discrimination
suit filed by present and former employees of the company.
An employee and a former employee of the company filed the class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on March 7, 1997,
alleging race discrimination. Certification hearings were conducted in
Beaumont, Texas in February 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in August 1998.
In April 1999, the District Court issued a decision that certified a class
for this case, which included all black employees employed by the company
from March 6, 1994, to the present.
The case was closed from 2001 to 2003 while the parties unsuccessfully
attempted mediation. Trial for this case began in December 2003, but was
postponed by the District Court and was completed in October 2004. The only
claims made at trial were those of discrimination in initial assignments and
promotions.
On Jan. 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision finding that the
company discriminated against African-American employees in initial
assignments and promotions.
The District Court also concluded that the discrimination resulted in a
shortfall in income for those employees and ordered that the company pay
those employees back pay to remedy such shortfall, together with pre-judgment
interest in the amount of 5%.
On Aug. 29, 2005, the District Court determined that the backpay award for
the class of affected employees would be $3.4 million -- including interest
to Jan. 1, 2005 -- and provided a formula for attorney fees that the company
estimates will result in a total not to exceed $2.5 million.
In addition to back pay with interest, the District Court enjoined and
ordered the company to cease and desist all racially biased assignment and
promotion practices and ordered the company to pay court costs and expenses.
The company reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and on Sept. 19,
2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th
Circuit.
On April 3, 2007, the Company appeared before the appellate court in New
Orleans for oral argument in this case. The three justices in this case will
now prepare their decision and the Company anticipates that the decision will
be issued in the fourth quarter of 2007, according to the company's Aug. 9,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.
The suit is "McClain, et al., v. Lufkin Industries, Case No.
9:97-cv-00063-HC," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas under Judge Howell Cobb.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Morris J. Baller, Esq.
Goldstein Demchak Baller Borgen
300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: 510-763-9800
Fax: 15108351417
E-mail: mjb@gdblegal.com
Timothy Borne Garrigan, Esq.
Stuckey Garrigan & Castetter
2803 North Street, P.O. Box 631902
Nacogdoches, TX 75963-1902
Phone: 936/560-6020
Fax: 19365609578
E-mail: tbgstugar@cox-internet.com
Representing the company are:
Christopher V. Bacon, Esq.
Vinson & Elkins
1001 Fannin St., Suite 2300
Houston, TX 77002-6760
Phone: 713/758-2222
Fax: 17136155014
E-mail: cbacon@velaw.com
dhamel@velaw.com
MAGMA DESIGN: 2008 Trial Set for Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Dec. 3, 2008 trial is scheduled for a purported shareholder class action
filed against Magma Design Automation, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.
On June 13, 2005, The Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust filed a putative
shareholder class action against:
-- Magma Design Automation, Inc.,
-- Rajeev Madhavan,
-- Gregory C. Walker, and
-- Roy E. Jewell.
The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose information
regarding the risk of Magma infringing intellectual property rights of
Synopsys, Inc., in violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and prays for unspecified damages.
In March 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. Plaintiff filed a further amended complaint in June 2006, which
defendants have again moved to dismiss.
Defendants' motion was granted in part and denied in part by an order dated
Aug. 18, 2006, which dismissed claims against several of the defendants.
The case is now proceeding on the remaining claims and is scheduled for trial
on Dec. 3, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended July 1, 2007.
The suit is "Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust v. Magma Design Automation, Inc.
et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-02394-CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Charles R. Breyer.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Elizabeth P. Lin, Esq.
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
One California Plaza, 300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213/617-1200
Fax: (213) 617-1975
E-mail: elin@milbergweiss.com
Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP
100 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-907-0878
Fax: 212-818-0477
E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com
- and -
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Glancy & Binkow, LLP
1801 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 311
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-201-9150
Fax: 310-201-9160
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
Representing the defendant is:
Dale M. Edmondson, Esq.
O'Melveny & Myers
2765 Sand Hill Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Phone: 650/473-2632
Fax: 650/473-2601
E-mail: dedmondson@omm.com
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Nixing of Ariz. Securities Suit on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on
an appeal against the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona of the consolidated securities fraud class action, "Siracusano, et
al. v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al."
In April and May 2004, two class actions were filed against the company, its
president and chief executive officer, Carl J. Johnson, and its executive
vice president and chief financial officer, William J. Hemelt, alleging
violations of federal securities laws.
On Jan. 18, 2005, the cases were consolidated and the court appointed James
V. Sircusano as lead plaintiff. The amended complaint also includes the
company's vice president of research and development, Timothy L. Clarot, as a
defendant and was filed March 4, 2005.
The consolidated case is "Sircusano, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
al., Case No. CV04-0886 PHX DKD," and was filed in the U.S. District Court
for District of Arizona.
The lawsuit alleges that between October 2003 and February 2004, the company
made materially false and misleading statements regarding its Zicam Cold
Remedy product, including failing to adequately disclose to the public the
details of allegations that the company's products caused damage to the sense
of smell and of certain of the product liability lawsuits in faces.
The company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit and, on March 8, 2006, the
company received an order dated Dec. 15, 2005 granting the motion to dismiss
the case without prejudice.
On April 3, 2006, the plaintiff appealed the Order to the U.S.
District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.
The suit is "Sircusano, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., Case
No. CV04-0886 PHX DKD," filed in the U.S. District Court for District of
Arizona under Judge Mary H. Murguia.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Ramzi Abadou
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
401 B St., Ste 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 231-1058
E-mail: LukeO@Lerachlaw.com
Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Esq.
Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC
2901 N Central Ave, Ste. 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311
Phone: 602-274-1100
Fax: 602-274-1199
E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com
Representing the company are:
Maureen Beyers, Esq.
Osborn Maledon, P.A.
2929 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794
Phone: 602-640-9305
Fax: 602-664-2053
E-mail: mbeyers@omlaw.com
Amy J. Longo
O'Melveny & Myers
610 Newport Center Dr., 17th Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: 949-823-7175
Fax: 949-823-6994
E-mail: alongo@omm.com
MBLOX INC: Faces Suit Over “Recycled” Cell Phone Number Bills
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mblox Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Sept. 13 in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara accusing it of
defrauding thousands of cell-phone users nationwide, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.
Named plaintiff Russell Bradberry alleges that Mblox defrauded its customers
by billing for services they did not order, but had been ordered by previous
users of their “recycled” cell-phone numbers.
Mblox, an aggregator, advertises itself as the “world’s largest mobile
transaction network.” Aggregators are middlemen between the content providers
and carriers, such as AT&T, Verizon and Sprint.
Carriers recycle “dirty” phone numbers “encumbered with pre-existing billing
obligations” and Mblox “helped create a system through which cell phone users
are billed for mobile content services ordered not by them, but by the
previous owners of their cell phone numbers,” the suit states.
The plaintiff brings this action seeking to stop defendant's practice of
causing cellular telephone customers to be billed for mobile content services
that the customers did not order, and to obtain redress for all persons
injured by their conduct.
Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:
(a) whether mBlox has unjustly received money belonging to
plaintiff and the class and whether under principles of
equity and good conscience, mBlox should not be
permitted to retain it;
(b) whether mBlox tortiously interfered with plaintiff's
and the class's contracts with their wireless carriers
by causing them to be charged for products and services
by their carrier that were authorized, if at all, by
the previous owner and/or user of their telephone
number; and
(c) whether mBlox's conduct described violates California
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et. seq.
Plaintiff prays for the following relief:
-- certify the case as a class action and appoint Russell
Bradberry class representative, and appoint Jay Edelson
and John G. Jacobs, as co-lead counsel;
-- declare that the actions of defendant constitute unjust
enrichment, tortious interference with a contract, and
are in violation of California Business and Professions
Code Section 17200;
-- enter judgment against defendant for all economic,
monetary, actual, consequential, and compensatory
damages caused by defendant's conduct, and if their
conduct is proved willful award plaintiff and the
classes exemplary damages;
-- award plaintiff and the classes reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees;
-- award plaintiff and the classes pre- and post-judgment
interest;
-- enter judgment for injunctive and/or declaratory relief
as is necessary to protect the interests of plaintiff
and the classes;
-- award such other and further relief as equity and
justice may require.
The suit is "Russell Bradberry et al. v. mBlox Inc., Case No. 1-07-CV-
094234," filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Santa Clara.
Representing plaintiffs are:
Terry M. Gordon
Law Offices of Terry M. Gordon
Three Harbor Drive, Suite 317
Sausalito, California 94965
Phone: (415) 331-3601
Fax: (415) 331-1225
John G. Jacobs
Bryan G. Olton
The Jacobs Law Firm, Chtd.
122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Phone: (312) 427-4000
Fax: (312) 427-1850
- and -
Jay Edelson
Myles McGuire
Blim & Edelson, LLC
53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1642
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Phone: (312) 913-9400
Fax: (312) 913-9401
MICROSOFT CORP: Ariz. Gov’t Agency Wants Antitrust Suit Expanded
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona's Daisy Mountain Fire District, a political sub-division, is suing
Microsoft Corp. to recover overpayments as a result of the company’s anti-
competitive and monopolistic behavior, Paul McDougall of InformationWeek
reports.
The suit cites antitrust claims similar to those that resulted in a series of
multi-million dollar settlements between Microsoft and consumers in more than
a dozen states beginning in 2004, according to Mr. McDougall. However, the
Fire District thinks the settlements did not cover government agencies, and
so it is reviving the lawsuit to have it opened to all governing bodies in
Arizona.
The Fire District originally filed the claim in Arizona state court in
Maricopa County, but is now seeking to transfer it to the U.S. District Court
in Arizona.
The suit is seeking triple damages, court costs, and jury trial for claims
Microsoft used its monopoly position to overcharge for software applications
such as word processors and spreadsheets. It closely mirrors claims made
against Microsoft by the Department of Justice and attorneys general on
behalf of consumers in 19 states and the District of Columbia, according to
Mr. McDougall.
Microsoft Corp. on the Net: http://www.microsoft.com/.
PET VALU: Ontario Court to Add Firm in Lawsuit Over Pet Food
------------------------------------------------------------
Pet Valu, Inc. and Pet Valu Canada Inc. have been advised that a motion is
being pursued in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to include the Pet
Valu Companies, together with certain other retailers, as defendants in a
potential class action concerning the manufacture and sale of pet food
products alleged to contain tainted ingredients.
In addition, the Pet Valu Companies understand that several other lawsuits
concerning the same allegedly tainted pet food, in which the Pet Valu
Companies are not named as defendants, have also been commenced in the
Ontario Court.
The Pet Valu Companies understand that, on September 27, 2007, the Ontario
Court will hear a motion to determine which of these various lawsuits should
proceed in Ontario.
The outcome of that motion will determine if and how the Ontario action in
which the Pet Valu Companies are to be named as defendants will proceed.
The Pet Valu companies are specialty retailers of pet food and pet-related
supplies operating company-owned and franchised locations in Canada and the
U.S. The TSX stock symbol for Pet Valu Canada Inc., the Pet Valu group's TSX-
listed company, is PVC.
For more information, contact:
Michael Fitzgerald
Secretary - Pet Valu Companies
Phone: (905) 946-1200, extension 3503
TRAVEL AGENCIES: Ill. City Denies Agreeing to Collective Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Recent reports emerged that the aldermen of Fairview Heights did not know
they will actually become lead plaintiffs in a class action filed against
online travel agencies in 2005.
On that year, the city passed a resolution directing city lawyers to
initiate "any necessary legal action on behalf of itself and other similarly-
situated Illinois taxing authorities to recover any and all unpaid taxes"
from online travel agencies. But aldermen Bonnie Crossley, Gil Klein and Pat
Baeske claimed recently that the term class action was not used until the
case was filed the day after the resolution was passed, according to Madison
County Record.
The class action was filed Oct. 5, 2005 in St. Clair County. It was later
removed to federal court. In the suit, Fairview Heights seeks to represent
50 Illinois cities in a claim that online travel agents have cheated on room
taxes. The suit was filed against Orbitz, Priceline.com and Expedia,
Hotels.com, Hotwire, Cheap Tickets, Travelnow.com, Travelocity.com,
Travelweb, LowestFare.com and Site 59.com.
The hotels are accused of pocketing the difference between the retail room
taxes they charge customers and the wholesome room taxes they paid to the
city. They also claim that in addition to the rental price of the hotel
rooms, the occupants are required to pay a transient occupancy tax.
Attorneys involved in the Fairview Heights lawsuit are City Attorney Al
Paulson, Kevin Hoerner –- Mr. Paulson's law partner –- and Richard Burke as
well as the law firm Becker, Paulson, Hoerner & Thompson, P.C., which was
tasked to initiate the suit in 2005.
Defense attorneys have subpoenaed current and former aldermen for discovery
purposes, but attorneys for the city filed motions to quash their
depositions. U.S. Magistrate Judge Donald Wilkerson has taken under
advisement plaintiff's motions to quash the depositions of a dozen Fairview
Heights' officials and citizens. As of Sept. 6 Judge Wilkerson had not yet
ruled, according to Ann Knef of the Madison Record.
According to a later report, on Sept. 11, defendants filed a motion for
extension of time to file memorandum in opposition to plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
On Sept. 12, U.S. District Judge David Herndon stayed defendants' response to
plaintiff's class certification motion pending the court's order on defense
motion for extension of time and invited plaintiff to respond "as soon as
possible" to defense motion for extension.
On Sept. 13, Mr. Burke answered that the city has no objection to an
extension.
TTP INC: Files for Bankruptcy in Wake of Suits by Mo. Florists
--------------------------------------------------------------
The companies of Randolph, N.J.-based florist Thomas Meola have filed for
bankruptcy after facing an onslaught of lawsuits, including class actions by
Missouri florists and consumers, reports say.
Telemarketer TTP Inc., dba Flowers With Gifted Elegance, Preferred Florist
Network and Lower Forty Gardens Inc., filed for bankruptcy on Aug. 17, three
days before a Clay County Circuit Court (Mo.) was to hold a class
certification hearing for a lawsuit filed by Gladstone Florist LLC about a
year ago.
That case and a similar lawsuit filed in the same court, captioned, "Pierce
v. TTP Inc." are now on hold due to an automatic stay arising from the
bankruptcy filing.
“The company has been sued in various states for allegedly engaging in unfair
business practices,” says Meola’s attorney Joseph L. Schwartz, a partner with
Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland, Perretti in Morristown, NJBiz reports.
The Gladstone class action accused the firm of a scheme that uses local names
and phone numbers to keep business away from legitimate local businesses.
The scheme involves an out-of-area company purchasing a listing in the phone
book identical to that of local businesses. When the duplicate number of the
business is called up, a person calling the number will reach an out-of-state
telemarketer, who will refer the caller to another area florist and filled.
The out-of-area telemarketer charges on a handling fee, and the sending
service would capture 20 percent of the order.
The suit seeks damages on behalf of all Missouri customers who allegedly were
overcharged as a result of the scheme.
Representing the plaintiffs in the Missouri suits is:
Gregory Leyh, Esq.
Gregory Leyh, PC
104 NE 72nd St # I
Gladstone, MO 64118-1830
Phone: (816) 283-3380
Web site: http://www.leyhlaw.com/
TWEEN BRANDS: Federman Expands Ohio Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Federman & Sherwood announced the class period in a class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
against Tween Brands, Inc. has been extended to include February 21, 2007
through August 21, 2007.
Earlier, several class-action complaints have been filed on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of Tween Brands, Inc. and Michael
Rayden between June 8, 2007 and August 21, 2007, inclusive (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 18, 2007).
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Tween Brands and its
Chief Executive Officer Michael Rayden violated the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by failing to disclose and misrepresenting adverse facts which were
known or recklessly disregarded by Defendants.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Tween Brands did not properly
disclose that:
(1) consumer demand had significantly declined;
(2) that the Company was facing increased expenses in the
form of higher rent and marketing costs; and
(3) schools had pushed the beginning of the school year
later into the summer.
On August 22, 2007, Tween Brands issued a press release and revealed that the
Company's financial performance had been lower than expected during the
second quarter due to a decline in retail traffic and lower store
transactions throughout the quarter and underestimating the impact of so many
schools moving their back-to-school start dates later. The Company has also
revised their third and fourth quarter outlook downward. On this news, the
Company's shares fell $11.00 per share, or 28.5%, closing at $27.59, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all individuals and entities
that purchased Tween Brands common stock during the Class Period.
Interested parties may move the court no later than October 23, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
K. Lynn Nunn
Federman & Sherwood
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email: kln@federmanlaw.com
Websiet: http://www.federmanlaw.com
UNITED STATES: Dismissal of Guantanamo Torture Claims Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawyer of four former Guantanamo naval base inmates argued in court “they
should be able to build a lawsuit against the U.S. state” for abuses they met
while in detention, Reuters reports.
Attorney Eric Lewis told a federal appeals court that the ex-detainees who
want to hold U.S. military officials accountable for their abuse should at
least get a hearing on the military's policy involving torture.
In October 2004, four British citizens who were detained in Guantanamo filed
a case against 10 military commanders. The plaintiffs were Shafiq Rasul,
Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed and Jamal al-Harith. They were released without
charge in March 2004 and have returned to their homes in the United Kingdom
where, according to their suit, they continue to suffer the physical and
psychological effects of their prolonged arbitrary detention, torture and
other mistreatment.
A federal judge dismissed the constitutional and international law claims by
the four ex-detainees, but ruled they can pursue their claims of religious
rights violations.
Mr. Lewis appealed the part of the ruling dismissing the torture claims,
while the U.S. Justice Department appealed the religious rights part of the
ruling.
The lawsuit was filed against:
-- Donald Rumsfeld,
-- Air Force Gen. Richard Myers,
-- Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller,
-- Army Gen. Janes T. Hill,
-- Army Maj. Gen. Michael E. Dunlavey,
-- Army Brig. Gen. Jay Hood,
-- Marine Brigadier Gen. Michael Lehnert,
-- Army Col. Nelson J. Cannon,
-- Army Col. Terry Carrico,
-- Army Lt. Col. William Cline,
-- Army Lt. Colonel Diane Beaver,
-- John Does 1-100, individuals involved in the illegal
torture of plaintiffs at Guant‡namo Bay Naval Base
The complaint alleges Violations of the Alien Tort Statute, the Fifth and
Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Plaintiffs each demand judgment against Defendants jointly and severally,
including compensatory damages in the amount of $10,000,000 each, the costs
of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Eric L. Lewis, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Robinson, Esq.
Lois J. Schiffer, Esq.
Baach Robinson & Lewis
1201 F Street NW, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20004
Phone: 202/833-8900
Barbara Olshansky, Esq.
Jeffrey Fogel, Esq.
Michael Ratner, Esq.
Center for Constitutional Rights
666 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY, 20012
Phone: 212/614-6439
UPS: Ill. Court Approves $1M Payment for Janitors’ Lost Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Almost 500 mostly Latino janitors who cleaned UPS facilities, hotels, and
other properties in Illinois and Texas have won a $1.2 million settlement in
the latest in a growing number of lawsuits involving the failure of
janitorial contractors to pay their employees according to federal overtime
and minimum wage laws.
The janitors, who will receive varying amounts up to $50,000 from the
settlement, were employed by cleaning firms which contracted with UPS and
other major corporations to provide services in Chicago, Dallas and San
Antonio. Judge Amy St. Eve of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois approved the final portion of the settlement on
Sept. 17.
According to the lawsuit filed with the assistance of the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU), janitors were misclassified as "independent
contractors" and worked as much as 60 hours a week without being paid
overtime. The janitors' employer also illegally stripped money out of the
workers' wages to pay for insurance that provided little if any benefit to
the workers.
Although UPS denied that it employed the janitors, the plaintiffs alleged
that it exercised control over the janitors' working conditions and should be
held accountable for the actions of its subcontractors. Including attorney's
fees and the costs of administering the settlement, UPS paid over one and a
quarter million dollars as a result of the litigation.
The settlement is the latest in a growing number of lawsuits over unlawful
employment practices, known as "wage and hour" claims, involving the
practices of janitorial subcontractors of major U.S. corporations.
Subcontractors are sometimes used by companies to avoid liability for
unlawful practices.
"This settlement -- and the others before it -- shows irresponsible cleaning
contractors can no longer get away with an 'anything goes' philosophy that
drive workers and families deeper into poverty," said Orrin Baird, SEIU
Associate General Counsel. "More and more we're seeing major corporations
being held accountable for doing business with unscrupulous employers."
In 2005, two thousand mostly Latino janitors in California won a class action
settlement totaling $22.4 million -- the largest settlement of its kind --
involving the failure of janitorial subcontractors to comply with federal
employment laws. The janitors involved in the lawsuit -- also initiated by
SEIU -- were employed by subcontractors of the national supermarket chains
Safeway, Vons, Albertsons, and Ralph's and received as much as $10,000 each
as part of the settlement.
In Houston, locally-based cleaning firm Professional Janitorial Service (PJS)
violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act by instructing janitors to
work "off-the-clock" and unlawfully withholding -- and in some cases failing
to pay-wages due to janitors upon termination of employment, according to a
collective action lawsuit filed in June 2006.
PJS counts several high-profile corporations among its clients, including the
Wedge Group and PM Realty. PJS also cleans the offices of Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Texas. If found liable, PJS could owe civil penalties and back pay
to the plaintiffs and other current and former employees who have not
received proper compensation. Hundreds of janitors could be eligible to
receive back compensation potentially amounting to hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
"When big corporations use subcontractors to subvert the law, it drives down
standards for all hard-working people just trying to make a living and
support their families," said Valarie Long, National Director of the SEIU
Property Services Division. "These lawsuits send a sharp signal to crooked
employers everywhere that the workers of the world are watching -- and we
will not tolerate this kind of unlawful behavior."
With 1.9 million members, SEIU -- http://www.seiu.org/-- is the largest and
fastest-growing union in North America and the largest property services
union, representing more than 250,000 security officers, janitors, and other
maintenance and custodial workers.
SPRINT SPECTRUM: Oct. 2 Hearing Set for Consumer Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda will
hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 2, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. for a proposed
settlement of purported class actions filed against Sprint Spectrum, L.P.
The hearing will be held in Department 22 of the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Alameda, located at 1221 Oak Street, 4th
Floor Oakland, California 94612.
Case Background
Previously, a proposed settlement has been reached in two court actions:
* “Zill et al. v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. et al.,” Alameda
County Superior Court, Coordinated Case No. JCCP 4332,
and
* “Molfetas v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. et al.,” Circuit Court
of Palm Beach County, 15th Judicial Circuit, Florida,
Case No. 50 2004CA 005317MB.
Both suits are generally alleging that Sprint installed software locks on its
wireless phones to prevent them from being reprogrammed for use with other
wireless carrier networks.
Plaintiffs allege that by locking handsets in this manner, Sprint violated
California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code Section
17200, et seq., and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750,
et seq., Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, as well as
similar consumer protection laws of the states and territories of the U.S.
For more details, contact:
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
Law Office of Scoot A. Bursor
500 N. E. 85 Ave.
New York, NY 10018-0805
Phone: (212) 989-9113
Fax: (212) 989-9163
Web site: http://www.bursor.com/
http://www.sprintlockinglawsuit.com/
VALASSIS COMMS: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Conn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valassis Communications, Inc. faces a consolidated securities fraud
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut,
according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.
Upon the company's completion of the acquisition of ADVO, it assumed
responsibility for ADVO’s pending securities class actions.
In September 2006, three securities class actions:
* “Robert Kelleher v. ADVO, Inc., et al.,”
* “Jorge Cornet v. ADVO, Inc., et al.,”
* “Richard L. Field v. ADVO, Inc., et al.,”
were filed against ADVO and certain of its officers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut by certain ADVO shareholders seeking to
certify a class of all persons who purchased ADVO stock between July 6, 2006
and Aug. 30, 2006.
These complaints generally allege ADVO violated federal securities law by
making a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning
ADVO’s business and financial results in connection with the proposed merger
with Valassis and, as a result, the price of ADVO’s stock was allegedly
inflated.
On Dec. 12, 2006, the Kelleher plaintiffs filed a Motion to Partially Lift
Discovery Stay, in response to which defendants filed opposition on Jan. 16,
2007. The presiding judge denied the plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay on
discovery.
In addition, the court ordered the matters consolidated under a single action
entitled, “Robert Kelleher et al. v. ADVO, Inc., et al., Civil Case No.
3:06CV01422(AVC).”
A revised, consolidated complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on June 8,
2007. The defendants’ responsive pleading was due Aug. 24, 2007.
Valassis Communications, Inc. -- http://www.valassis.com-- provides a range
of marketing products and services to a variety of manufacturers, direct
marketers, retailers, telecommunications companies, franchisees and other
advertisers.
* Freed Kanner London & Millen Named Top Tier Antitrust Firm
------------------------------------------------------------
Chambers and Partners has ranked class action antitrust firm Freed Kanner
London & Millen LLC (FKLM) amongst Illinois’s finest, FKLM has announced.
The directory describes FKLM as “the new face of Much Shelist’s much-feared
antitrust team...led by the redoubtable Mike Freed” that is “set to maintain
its reputation as a leader on the plaintiff side –- doing much of the best
class action work.” Peers credit founding partner Michael J. Freed, one of
the nation’s premier attorneys, as a “worthy opponent” who knows “the
pressure points and the building blocks of a case.”
Most recently, FKLM had a $21 million partial settlement approved in the
Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation and is seeking settlement approval of
$15 million in addition to a previously approved $18 million settlement in
the Urethanes Antitrust Litigation.
The firm was formed in January 2007. Its founding partners are Steven A.
Kanner, William H. London, Douglas A. Millen and Michael E. Moskovitz.
Freed Kanner London & Millen on the Net: http://www.fklmlaw.com/.
* Labaton Sucharow Moves to Bigger Office in Lower Manhattan
------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP has moved from midtown Manhattan to its larger office
location at 140 Broadway. On September 17, 2007, the 60-attorney firm moved
into its new space in lower Manhattan’s financial district.
Labaton Sucharow now occupies approximately 70,000 square feet on the 33rd
and 34th floors, as well as a portion of the 23rd floor. The firm has a 15-
year lease at 140 Broadway.
“We are very excited to be a part of New York City’s downtown revitalization
and to be at the heart of the financial center of Manhattan,” said Chairman
Lawrence A. Sucharow. “Labaton Sucharow’s thriving securities and antitrust
litigation practices are a testament to the talented professionals who work
there. 140 Broadway will provide a dynamic working environment to meet our
clients’ growing needs,” Mr. Sucharow added.
For more information, contact:
Stacey Szluka
Labaton Sucharow LLP
Phone: 212-907-0664
E-mail: sszluka@labaton.com
Asbestos Alerts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: K-Sea Affiliate to Settle Remaining Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
K-Sea Transportation Partners L.P.’s affiliate, EW Transportation LLC, seeks
to settle one remaining asbestos case filed against it, according to the
Company’s annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Sept. 12, 2007.
EW Transportation and its predecessors have been named, together with a large
number of other companies, as co-defendants in 39 civil actions by various
parties, including former employees.
The suits alleged unspecified damages from past exposure to asbestos and
second-hand smoke aboard some of the vessels that it contributed to the
Company in connection with the Company’s initial public offering.
EW Transportation and its predecessors have been dismissed from 38 of these
lawsuits for an aggregate sum of about US$47 million.
The Company may be subject to litigation in the future involving these
plaintiffs and others alleging exposure to asbestos due to alleged failure to
properly encapsulate friable asbestos or remove friable asbestos on Company
vessels, as well as for exposure to second-hand smoke and other matters.
East Brunswick, N.J.-based K-Sea Transportation Partners L.P. is a provider
of refined petroleum products marine transportation, distribution and
logistics services in the U.S. domestic marine transportation business. The
Company operates a fleet of 71 tank barges, one tanker, and 58 tugboats that
serves a wide range of customers, including major oil companies, oil traders
and refiners. The Company has about 4.2 million barrels of capacity.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: J.C. Penney Records $63M Liability at Feb.
----------------------------------------------------------------
J.C. Penney Company Inc., as of Feb. 3, 2007, recorded US$63 million as
management’s best estimate for the Company’s total potential environmental
liabilities, including asbestos liabilities.
As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company estimated its total potential environmental
liabilities to range from US$52 million to US$87 million.
This estimate covered potential liabilities primarily related to underground
storage tanks, remediation of environmental conditions involving the
Company’s former Eckerd drugstore locations, and asbestos removal in
connection with approved plans to renovate or dispose of Company facilities.
There have been no material changes to these environmental liabilities
through the end of the 2007-2nd quarter, according to the Company’s quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Sept. 12,
2007.
Plano, Tex.-based J.C. Penney Company Inc. is a department store, catalog,
and e-commerce retailer operating in the U.S. In 2004 J.C. Penney Company
sold its Eckerd drugstores chain to The Jean Coutu Group and CVS for US$4.5
billion. The retailer runs more than 1,000 JCPenney department stores
throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe at Calif. Air Force Station Widens
----------------------------------------------------------------
An investigation on possible illegal asbestos abatement at the old Cambria
Air Force Station in Cambria, Calif., has widened, SanLuisObispo.com reports.
On Aug. 29, 2007, a search of the old Cambria Air Force Station turned up
evidence of illegal construction in the property’s asbestos-laced buildings
and led to further investigation.
San Luis Obispo County environmental health and air pollution officials
obtained a search warrant to revisit the 30-acre property two miles south of
Cambria on Sept. 10, 2007.
The officials were looking for additional evidence on the alleged illegal
disposal of hazardous materials on the property owned by Hollywood movie
producer Bernd Schaefers.
Art Trinidade, chief code enforcement investigator for the county Department
of Planning and Building, filed the warrant.
The document states Mr. Trinidade had probable cause to believe that Mr.
Schaefers and tenant Luther Akers committed felonies when illegally disposing
of hazardous waste.
Residents told The Tribune that in addition to the dozen or so people living
full time on the base, about 50 people attended church there on a weekly
basis and could have been exposed to asbestos.
The Air Pollution Control District has records of illegal asbestos removal at
the site going back to 2002. The complaints all involve Mr. Akers.
Air pollution control officials fined the former owner, Golden Thread LLC, in
July 2002 for illegal burning. In September 2003, a multi-agency inspection
found evidence of asbestos disposal violations and issued another citation
for open burning.
In July 2004, the owners paid a US$2,000 fine and implemented an asbestos
operation and maintenance plan that called for hiring a licensed asbestos
abatement company for minor cleanup.
Mr. Schaefers bought the 34-acre site at in 2004.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Town to Pay $9,600 for Handling Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lane Regional Air Protection Agency has imposed a US$9,600 penalty to the
City of Oakridge, Ore., for improperly handling asbestos-containing debris
from mobile phones and other structures it demolished in spring 2007 after
buying land at the north end of the town, The Register-Guard reports.
The city has until Oct. 5, 2007 to pay or appeal the US$9,600 fine.
City Administrator Gordon Zimmerman said the city erred by relying on the
property seller's signed statement that "there are no hazardous materials
located in or upon the property."
Part of the city's fine was a US$2,400 penalty for what the Lane Regional Air
Protection Agency called a major violation: failing to conduct an asbestos
survey prior to demolishing the buildings.
Oakridge also was assessed US$3,600 for a moderate violation: allowing
uncertified contractors to conduct an asbestos abatement project.
The city was also fined an additional US$3,600 for a moderate violation in
allowing the "open accumulation and storage of asbestos-containing waste
material at an unauthorized waste disposal site."
The LRAPA investigation began April 5, 2007, when the agency received a
complaint regarding asbestos and open burning on the property. The city had
taken possession of the property three days earlier from longtime owner Ralph
Hogrefe.
Oakridge paid US$40,000 for the property. Soon after the city took
possession, an attorney for Oakridge residents Don and Audrey Hadley came to
a city council meeting to charge that the city had torn down manufactured
homes containing "friable asbestos" and moved the debris to a burn pile on
property within the city's industrial park.
LRAPA Director Merlyn Hough said friable asbestos is loosened, so it can be
released into the air and inhaled into the lungs. Non-friable asbestos, by
contrast, is contained, "such as in an intact floor tile."
Mr. Zimmerman, on Sept. 13, 2007, said that Oakridge has paid certified
specialists US$17,000 to contain and dispose of all the industrial park pile.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds $3.4M Verdict in Jones Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Virginia Supreme Court upheld a US$3.4 million jury verdict to the family
of Garland F. “Buddy” Jones Jr., a former Newport News, Va., shipyard worker,
who died in 2005 of mesothelioma, Daily Press reports.
On Sept. 14, 2007, the court said it unanimously rejected an appeal by John
Crane Inc., the Illinois-based maker of gaskets and other asbestos parts that
were handled by Mr. Jones in the 1960s.
Mr. Jones’s three children are the beneficiaries.
In July 2006, a Newport News jury determined that the Jones family deserved
US$10.4 million in the wrongful death suit filed by Mr. Jones against three
companies that made equipment with asbestos components.
Aside from John Crane, the defendants were Johns Manville Corp., and Garlock
Sealing Technologies of Palmyra, N.Y.
A judge reduced the jury verdict to US$10 million, the amount the family
initially sought. John Crane, the jury said, was responsible for US$3.4
million, with Johns Manville and Garlock Sealing each responsible for US$3.3
million.
Bob Hatten, the attorney who handled the case, said that Johns Manville and
Garlock Sealing settled their cases before the verdict - for far less than
the jury-determined amounts.
The $3.4 million award still ranks among the largest verdicts in a Virginia
asbestos case, Mr. Hatten added.
Mr. Jones worked at Newport News Shipbuilding between 1963 and 1967, later
becoming a computer programmer near Richmond, Va. He was diagnosed with that
cancer in January 2005 and died within six months at age 60. He initiated the
lawsuit in Newport News Circuit Court before he died.
Mr. Jones' three children will share two thirds of the US$3.4 million verdict
against John Crane, or US$2.27 million. Because the family had spent
US$100,000 for expert testimony at the trial, their effective award is
US$2.17 million.
The lawyers on the case, Patten Wornom, Hatten and Diamonstein, and the
Colorado firm of Trine & Metcalf, will share the remaining one third of the
verdict, or US$1.13 million.
John Crane could still appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The company
could also seek a rehearing by the Virginia Supreme Court.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Town Reaches $1.8M Settlement in Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The town of New Canaan, Conn., has reached a US$1.8 million settlement with
one of the parties involved in the asbestos abatement during the renovation
of New Canaan High School, New Canaan Advertiser reports.
On Sept. 12, 2007, First Selectman Judy Neville said that the insurance
carrier for Brooks Laboratories Inc. has agreed to pay the full amount of
Brooks’ available insurance to settle the case.
The settlement involves no admission of wrongdoing by Brooks, which is one of
four defendants in the case.
The agreement was reached on the eve of a hearing scheduled for Sept. 10,
2007 at State Superior Court in Stamford, Conn.
David S. Golub of the law firm of Silver Golub & Teitell, special counsel for
the Town, indicated that “the Town will now focus on its claims against
O&G/AP Construction, and Kastle Boos Associates, the contractor and architect
involved in the renovation of the high school.”
Of the US$1.8 million, after paying all legal bills, all consulting bills,
additional money for auditors and other expenses, Ms. Neville said the town
still netted about US$900,000.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: London Sports Center Closed Due to Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Sports Centre (NSC) in Crystal Palace Park, Crystal Palace,
London, has been closed after asbestos was discovered in the building, News
Shopper reports.
The substance was found during a London Development Agency (LDA)
investigation at the sports center. It was testing the site in preparation
for the closure in November 2007 when all the mechanical and electrical
systems are due to be refurbished.
Test results came back positive so the LDA decided to close the centre down
as a precaution.
Further investigations will now be carried out and the asbestos will be dealt
with.
The LDA says recent visitors can be assured that all samples taken to date
show no dangerous levels of asbestos in the air.
The LDA’s director of risk Dr. David Hancock said, "We are closing the centre
as a precautionary measure as we do not want to expose the public or anybody
to unnecessary risk."
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crews Remove Hazard at Canadian Water Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.S. Morgan Construction crews are removing asbestos from inside the Parry
Sound Waste Water Treatment Plant in Parry Sound, Ontario, Canada, Beacon
Star reports.
Parry Sound council gave approval for the CDN38,796 removal at its Sept. 4,
2007 meeting.
Brian Sheridan, town director of operations, said, “Removal of asbestos
throughout the plant is being undertaken as part of the (plant’s) rebuild
(project) and to ensure compliance with environmental and labour regulations.
To allow the work to be completed in the absence of other on-site
contractors, we put the tender out in isolation, rather than combining it
with other components of the rebuild project.”
Martha Childerhose, the operations department administrative assistant, said
the asbestos has to be removed because of on-site renovations.
Between the 1950s and 1980s asbestos was used to insulate walls and water
tanks until it was discovered that exposure to asbestos can cause major
health affects including cancer.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Worker Launches GBP250,000 Payout Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Shepherdson has launched a legal battle in London’s High Court for up
to GBP250,000 in compensation, claiming that he developed malignant
mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos while working for DH Allan and Sons,
Biggleswade Chronicle reports.
The 61-year-old Mr. Shepherdson says the company failed to protect him from
asbestos danger.
The writ, issued in London’s High Court, says Mr. Sheperdson developed
mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos when he worked for the company
as a shop fitter and joiner between 1960 and 1970.
The writ says that during his time with the company he worked at the
company's workshop in Newcastle Upon Tyne and at premises which included
Marks and Spencer at Newcastle, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Stockton,
Darlington, Barnsley, Worksop, Hull, Carlisle, Redcar, and Barrow in Furness.
Mr. Shepherdson worked close to others who were moving asbestos insulation
sheets, and cut insulation sheets to size, swept up dust and debris, and used
circular saws and handsaws to cut sheets, the writ says.
It is alleged that Mr. Shepherdson also scribed the edges of cut sheets,
loaded and unloaded insulation, drilled sheets, and screwed and fixed them
into position, which allowed dust to fall onto his face.
The writ accuses the company of negligence and breach of statutory duty. It
says the company negligently failed to provide a safe place or system of
work, failed to warn him of the dangers of asbestos, and failed to keep his
workplace properly ventilated.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Court Grants Plaintiff’s Remand Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, D. Oregon, granted Lafaye Burkholder’s Motion for
Remand in an asbestos-related action filed against various defendants,
including Federated Development Co.
Judge Brown entered decision of Case No. 07-CV-781-BR on Aug. 28, 2007.
Ms. Burkholder, of Georgia, filed a complaint in Multnomah County Circuit
Court on Oct. 6, 2005, asserting damages for asbestos-related injuries.
Out of the initial group of 11 named defendants, only C.H. Murphy/Clark-
Ullman Inc. is an Oregon company. C.H. Murphy was served with a copy of the
complaint and summons on Oct. 20, 2005.
According to Ms. Burkholder, she settled her claim against C.H. Murphy on
about May 12, 2006. However, she did not file any pleading or other notice in
the state court record effectively dismissing C.H. Murphy from the case.
Thus, it appears C.H. Murphy remains an active defendant.
On Aug. 15, 2006, Ms. Burkholder filed a second amended complaint in
Multnomah County Circuit Court. In her second amended complaint, she added
Federated Development Co. as a defendant and continued to name C.H. Murphy as
a defendant. However, Federated was not served with a copy of the second
amended complaint and summons until May 1, 2007.
On May 25, 2007, Federated removed the action to the District Court on the
basis of diversity jurisdiction. On June 6, 2007, Federated filed an Answer
to Ms. Burkholder’s second amended complaint. On June 22, 2007, she filed her
Motion to Remand.
The District Court heard oral argument regarding Ms. Burkholder’s Motion on
Aug. 6, 2007. The Court took her Motion under advisement on Aug. 6, 2007.
This matter came before the District Court on Ms. Burkholder’s Motion to
Remand and request for attorneys' fees and costs.
The District Court granted Ms. Burkholder’s Motion to Remand but denied her
request for attorneys' fees and costs.
James H. Gidley, Kevin M. Sali, Perkins Coie, LLP, Portland, Ore.,
represented Federated Development Co.
James E. Shadduck, Brayton Purcell LLP, Portland, Ore., represented Lafaye
Burkholder.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Family of Tokyo Factory Worker Gets Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Japan’s Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry has awarded compensation to the
family of an unnamed woman who died of lung cancer after deeming that
asbestos at a brake parts factory in Tokyo caused her cancer, Mainichi Daily
News reports.
Tokyo Labor Bureau officials used an X-ray photograph of a man who worked at
the same factory as the woman as evidence to conclude asbestos caused her to
suffer from lung cancer.
In 1988, the woman died at age 68 after working for the factory.
Officials from an activist group for sufferers of asbestos-caused ailments
said that X-ray photographs of the woman were not maintained at the hospital
where she underwent treatment. (Mainichi)
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Carries Out Health Checks in Businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive and Environmental Health departments are
inspecting businesses in Suffolk, England, U.K., to ensure employees are not
exposed to asbestos, BBC News reports.
The inspections follow a letter to 1,000 companies in the county reminding
them of their responsibilities to staff.
There are some 4,000 deaths per year from asbestos-related diseases and 25
percent of the victims have worked in building, maintenance or repair trades.
Firms are required to take reasonable steps to find any asbestos in premises
and prepare and implement a plan to manage risks.
Mark Jordan, HSE inspector said, “The proportion of deaths from asbestos
continues to increase across the county. The challenge for HSE enforcement
officers is to raise awareness among businesses and promote the proper use of
the sensible precautions that are needed to stem these deaths."
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Attorney Pleads Guilty to Mail Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louis S. Robles, a Miami attorney, has pleaded guilty to three counts of
federal mail fraud for misusing US$13.5 million for clients in asbestos
injury cases, South Florida Business Journal reports.
The 59-year-old Mr. Robles, who pleaded guilty before U.S. District Court
Judge Alan S. Gold, faces up to 15 years in prison. He allegedly used the
funds to support a luxury oceanfront home, travel and other business
investments.
According to court documents, Mr. Robles misappropriated settlement proceeds
in a pyramid scheme from trust accounts that he maintained on behalf of his
asbestos clients. From the 1980s through February 2003, he represented more
than 7,000 asbestos clients.
A press release from the U.S. attorney's office said clients experienced ever-
increasing delays in receiving settlement proceeds, as Mr. Robles defrauded
them of ever-increasing sums. The US$13.5 million was taken from 4,393
defrauded clients over several years.
In an attempt to stem off complaints from his defrauded asbestos clients, Mr.
Robles sent out newsletters that falsely claimed that he was withholding
settlement proceeds until the various clients' suits were settled against all
asbestos defendants who had been sued on behalf of the clients.
As part of the plea agreement, Mr. Robles agreed to an order requiring him to
pay US$13,522,159.92 in restitution to the victims of his offenses and
forfeit about US$1 million in funds previously frozen by court order.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael S. Davis, Luis M. Perez, and Charles E.
Duross are prosecuting the case with the assistance of financial auditor
Harold Weiss.
R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and
Jonathan I. Solomon, FBI special agent in charge, announced the pleas.
Sentencing is set before Judge Gold on Dec. 4, 2007.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navy Electrician’s Death Linked to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Malcolm MacRitchie, an electrician of the
Royal Navy of the United Kingdom, was linked to asbestos exposure on ships,
NS-City reports.
Chief petty officer MacRitchie contracted cancer from mixing asbestos on
ships.
Mr. MacRitchie died at the age of 70 at Queen Alexandra Hospital on Sept. 21,
2006. His wife, 71-year-old Maureen, told the inquest her husband had spent
22 years as an electrician with the Navy.
Mrs. MacRitchie said that before he became ill, Mr. MacRitchie said he would
frequently mix asbestos and use it as cladding.
Mr. MacRitchie underwent a successful operation to remove a tumor from his
spine, but the wound became infected.
Pathologist Dr. Donal Tansey said there were numerous tumors around Mr.
MacRitchie's spine and asbestos fibers in his lungs.
Penny Schofield, assistant deputy coroner, recorded a verdict of death by
industrial disease.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Developer to Pay $12T for Renovation Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Guttman, the owner of Cabotville Industrial Park in Chicopee, Mass.,
has been fined US$12,000 by the state Department of Environmental Protection
for asbestos violations that occurred during renovations inside the old mill
on Front Street in March 2006, The Republican reports.
The fine was levied against Tillary LLC, of Brooklyn, N.Y. Mr. Guttman will
pay US$6,000, with the remainder suspended during a two-year probation.
"It's a significant penalty," said Eva V. Tor, spokeswoman for the state
Department of Environmental Protection.
Department of Environmental Protection asbestos inspectors responded to a
complaint from tenants who were still occupying sections of the fourth floor
when the renovations began.
Workers were gutting the fourth floor when they damaged asbestos-containing
floor tiles and exposed damaged asbestos-containing pipe insulation that was
previously covered by partition walls.
A few weeks ago, Mr. Guttman filed a petition with the Board of Aldermen for
a special permit to convert a portion of the old mill into condominiums. He
is proposing 227 residential units inside the brick building.
Since purchasing the mill two years ago for US$4 million, Mr. Guttman has
invested more than US$2 million gutting and updating sections of it in
preparation for its renovation.
Ms. Tor said Mr. Guttman violated state asbestos regulations three times:
-- By not notifying the state agency of asbestos remediation or renovation;
-- By not notifying the state before demolition or construction began; and
-- By disturbing asbestos-containing materials that resulted in asbestos
becoming airborne.
Aside from the fine, Mr. Guttman agreed to institute "best management
practices" to ensure future compliance with local, state and federal asbestos
regulations. That will include having a licensed asbestos consultant inspect
any areas where renovations are planned and having asbestos removed by
licensed professionals.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Slows Repairs at Calif. University
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos in the ceiling panels of Butte Hall of the California State
University, Chico, makes the repair of lighting problems difficult, The Orion
Online reports.
Joe Wills, director of Public Affairs and Publications, said, “The asbestos
in Butte is not harmful to students as long as it is held in place.”
However, the asbestos is preventing repair of lights and ballasts that
control the electrical current, said James Jessee, director of Academic
Publications, Facilities and Database Operations.
Mr. Jessee estimates complete renovation of the building would cost more than
US$50 million.
However, the asbestos is becoming harder and harder to ignore, said Robert
Jackson, a professor in the political science department who teaches in Butte
Hall. Many of the building's classrooms are in the same condition they were
in 35 years ago.
Plans to renovate the 35-year-old building have been in the works for 15
years, but the repairs are not always easy to do, Mr. Jessee said.
Abatement consists of proper checking of the asbestos by an inspector and
removal of the material. This process keeps getting put off because of lack
of funding from the state, Mr. Jessee added.
The Public Health Commission reports that abatement can cost from US$5,000 to
US$150,000, depending on space and amount of asbestos.
Michael Bates, director of Facilities Management and Services, said that in
the event that a maintenance issue arises that requires workers to come into
contact with asbestos-containing material, a licensed state contractor and a
third-party overseer must check that required safety precautions are in place
and that the work complies with all safety rules and regulations.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Israel Creates Central Asbestos Dump Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
A national planning council approved the burial of asbestos waste at the
Negev, Israel, dump site Efeh, Haaretz.com reports.
Efeh is slated to become Israel's central asbestos dumping site.
All of Israel's most toxic waste is now buried in the Negev, which also is
the destination for most urban garbage.
In 2006, new guidelines took effect prohibiting construction with asbestos
and regulating the demolition of buildings containing asbestos.
The isolated Efeh was chosen because the area receives a very small amount of
rainfall, which could spread the asbestos. Eventually, waste will be
transported there by train.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Threatens CRA Miami Housing Project
----------------------------------------------------------------
Work at North Miami, Fla.’s Community Redevelopment Agency's first affordable
housing project may be halted after asbestos pipes and other issues were
found on the site, MiamiHerald.com reports.
The CRA project was expected to bring 136 affordable housing units to the
city by 2009.
CRA director Tony Crapp advised the panel the CRA Advisory Committee had
recommended that all work on the project stop.
In July 2007, Mr. Crapp reported to the board that the cost for demolition of
the city's old water plant on the site, at Northeast 137th Street and Fifth
Avenue, had gone up, from US$174,629 to US$325,000, because underground
tanks, pipes and other such equipment were found.
Those discoveries delayed the construction start from April 2007 to December
2007.
At the time, Mr. Crapp anticipated the cleanup would be completed by the end
of August 2007, but the more-recent findings put the plans on hold.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Broadway Kin Seeks Workmates in Payout Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Eric Broadway, of Islington, London, U.K., is seeking for his
former workmates to clarify the working conditions, which brought about his
death, Islington Gazette reports.
Mr. Eric Broadway died last May 2007, 10 weeks after being diagnosed with
mesothelioma, at the age of 81. He was believed to have allegedly contracted
mesothelioma while working as an electrician.
Mr. Broadway began working with the City Electrical Co., Emerald Street,
Holborn, in 1941, until serving with the armed forces from 1943 to 1946.
After the war, Mr. Broadway returned to City Electrical and continued working
as an electrician for most of his working life.
Following Mr. Broadway's death, the family took specialist legal advice from
Corries Solicitors, a firm of asbestos disease lawyers, and are seeking help
with the case from former colleagues and workmates with regard to his work in
London and Hampshire.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. School Board OKs $15,000 for Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALTON — The Alton School Board in Alton, Ill., on Sept. 18, 2007, voted to
approve a US$15,000 asbestos abatement project at West Elementary School, The
Telegraph reports.
General Waste Services Inc. will remove and dispose of asbestos at the State
Street school because of a water leak on floor tiles, which contain asbestos.
The US$15,495 project will be paid for out of the Operations and Maintenance
Fund and is not covered under the Alton School District’s insurance policy.
However, the new tiles will be paid for with insurance money, Superintendent
David Elson said.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amerex Completes Abatement at Oklahoma Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amerex Group Inc. announced the completion of asbestos abatement activities
on their 153 acre industrial site in Pryor, Okla., according to a Company
press release dated Sept. 19, 2007.
Completion of this year-long project will now free-up US$800,000 of cash
previously restricted via a letter of credit. It also enables the Company to
sell the property which has recently been placed on the market with a US$3
million price tag.
Stephen Onody, the Company’s Chief Operating Officer, stated, "We are glad to
have finished this project to the standards required by the regulators and
satisfaction of former owners. We will soon ship the remainder of scrap metal
and are about to enter into a contract for sale of the property."
New York-based Amerex Group Inc. is a hazardous waste transportation and
logistics firm. The Company has multiple facilities including a hazardous
waste treatment, storage and disposal facility licensed under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Part B and a trucking fleet to transport
hazardous waste throughout the U.S.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Housing Demolition in S.C. Raises Concerns
----------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina State inspectors are to investigate asbestos-related concerns
about asbestos at the Jesse Jackson Townhomes, wyff4.com reports.
State Rep. Fletcher Smith said that a fire at a former Head Start center last
August 2007 likely released the cancer-causing material.
Rept. Smith said that the asbestos in the building had not been removed.
Investigators said they believe the fire was started by an arsonist.
A community meeting about the demolition and related health concerns will be
held on Sept. 27, 2007.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement of Asbestos Ongoing at R.I. Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Piccerelli, superintendent at the Barrington Department of Public
Works in Barrington, R.I., said that asbestos abatement is underway at The
Place, a town-owned barn located on College Lane, EastBayRI.com reports.
As soon as that work is complete, the barn and a small storage shed on the
site will be demolished.
Mr. Piccerelli said heavy equipment will be moved in and demolition should be
rather quick due to the deteriorating condition of the buildings.
Town officials decided to raze the building, which had been used for teenage
dances in the past, because cost estimates to repair the site were reportedly
very expensive.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hauler to Pay $55,700 for Disposal Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow, on Sept. 19, 2007, sentenced Terrance
Yates, the owner of a waste-hauling firm, to five years of probation and
ordered him to pay US$55,700 in restitution after abandoning eight trailers
with asbestos-containing material on a Severn, Md., parking lot, The
Baltimore Sun reports.
The 43-year-old Mr. Yates, of Pasadena, Calif., pleaded guilty in U.S.
District Court in Greenbelt, Md. to falsifying Environmental Protection
Agency documents verifying that he had properly dumped the material in an
approved site in Pennsylvania, said Marcia Murphy, a spokeswoman for the U.S.
attorney's office.
Judge Chasanow also sentenced Mr. Yates to 200 hours of community service.
Mr. Yates owned and operated Hazport Solutions Inc. in Severn. From August
2004 through July 2006, he contracted with at least five companies to take
between 12 and 17 trailers full of asbestos from sites in Maryland, Virginia
and the District of Columbia to the EPA's approved landfill in Pennsylvania.
The companies paid him, but Mr. Yates left the trailers on an unidentified
lot in Severn for more than a year until state regulators discovered them.
Authorities said that Mr. Yates then sent waste shipment records to the
companies, falsely certifying that the asbestos had been disposed of at the
Pennsylvania landfill.
On July 18, 2006, EPA investigators found 12 trailers leased to Hazport,
eight of which were full of asbestos-containing waste materials, on the lot.
The trailers were not lined with plastic, and no signs were posted indicating
that they contained asbestos, as required by federal regulations. Some of the
bags containing asbestos had been damaged, and loose asbestos-containing
debris was found in the trailers.
The EPA required the original contractors for the renovation and demolition
sites to remove the asbestos and properly dispose of it. The cleanup took
four months and cost about US$57,000.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Firm Responds to Illegal Abatement Incident
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patti L. Burshtyn, an attorney in the Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. Asbestos
Litigation department, has responded to an illegal asbestos abatement
incident, wherein John Edward Callahan was found to have hired untrained
homeless individuals to perform asbestos abatement work, according to a Weitz
& Luxenberg press release dated Sept. 18, 2007.
Ms. Burshtyn said, “What makes the case of the Callahan asbestos removal
investigation particularly disheartening was Callahan's exploitation of the
homeless by needlessly exposing them to asbestos.”
Mr. Callahan was sentenced in August 2007 to 21 months in prison for
violating federal environmental laws.
In March 2004, Mr. Callahan, a two-time convicted felon, was contracted to
remove asbestos from a building in Roanoke, Va. He then commissioned indigent
workers to perform the abatement, paying them an hourly wage of US$10.
Mr. Callahan instructed those in his charge to cut the asbestos without
wetting it, a clear violation of federal regulations pertaining to the proper
removal of asbestos.
Mr. Callahan also broke federal laws related to asbestos disposal, improperly
labeling bags of the material. These bags were taken to a landfill site that
had a section designated for asbestos waste, but, due to the mislabeling,
were dumped in the general trash.
Ms. Burshtyn explained that given the long latency period for developing
asbestos-related disease after exposure to the mineral, these workers may
develop mesothelioma or asbestos-related lung cancer 30 or 40 years in the
future.
Ms. Burshtyn added, “In addition to the myriad economic and health issues the
homeless face every day, these workers were unwittingly exposed to a toxic
substance and may potentially contract a fatal lung disease as a result.”
Weitz & Luxenberg is known for its preeminent role in the prosecution of
asbestos cases. In 2007, the firm won a US$37 million asbestos verdict in two
lung cancer cases in a reverse bifurcated trial.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Promptly Contained at Colorado Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lowry Assumption Corp., the contractor responsible for the demolition of an
old dental laboratory that exposed asbestos in the soil near the Aurora
Community Garden in Aurora, Colo., said that it secured the site within an
hour of the pollutant’s discovery, Rocky Mountain News reports.
Officials from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment's hazardous
materials division said an unannounced inspection of the site on Aug. 30,
2007 found that a worker using a large back hoe was excavating soil that
contained asbestos without a spotter to monitor the work, which would violate
state health regulations.
The department suspended the demolition operations and is trying to determine
what penalties, if any, to impose Lowry Assumption.
The state inspectors immediately halted the project, and the contractor
placed a fence around the parcel and plastic over the asbestos.
Brent Anderson, president of Lowry Assumption, which is responsible for some
of the building demolitions and environmental cleanups at the former Lowry
Air Force Base, issued a statement saying the company took prompt action when
it discovered the asbestos.
Jeff Edson, who manages remediation and restoration projects of federal
facilities for the state, said Lowry Assumption received permission to begin
abatement work on the former dental lab building.
Health officials are trying to determine whether the asbestos was in the soil
under the building when it was disturbed or if it came from the structure.
Lowry Assumption was required to advise the city and users of the community
garden of the asbestos incident.
Monica Sheets, legal regulatory specialist and inspector for the hazardous
materials and waste management division, said health officials are concerned
that the contractor removed the debris that may have been contaminated with
asbestos and then hauled it to the Denver landfill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ariz. Laborer Sues 84 Companies in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
George Maxwell of Arizona, on Sept. 13, 2007, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against 84 corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The
Madison St. Clair Record reports.
Mr. Maxwell alleges that he was exposed to asbestos while working from 1949
to 1997 as a plumber, steamfitter and sales manager at various locations in
Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico and Arizona.
Mr. Maxwell claims that during the course of his employment and during home
and automotive repairs he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise
absorbed asbestos fibers emanating from certain products he was working with
and around.
According to the complaint, Mr. Maxwell was diagnosed with mesothelioma on
Feb.12, 2007.
Mr. Maxwell claims the defendants knew or should have known that the asbestos
fibers contained in their products had a toxic, poisonous and highly
deleterious effect upon the health of people.
Mr. Maxwell alleges that the defendants included asbestos in their products
even when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide any or
adequate instructions concerning the safe methods of working with and around
asbestos.
Mr. Maxwell claims that the defendants failed to require and advise employees
of hygiene practices designed to reduce or prevent carrying asbestos fibers
home.
Mr. Maxwell claims that he has sought, but has been unable to obtain, full
disclosure of relevant documents and information from the defendants leading
him to believe the defendants destroyed documents related to asbestos.
Mr. Maxwell claims that as a result of each defendant breaching its duty to
preserve material evidence by destroying documents and information he has
been prejudiced and impaired in proving claims against all potential parties.
Mr. Maxwell seeks damages to help pay for the cost of his treatment.
The complaint states that Mr. Maxwell also suffers "great physical pain and
mental anguish, and also will be hindered and prevented from pursuing his
normal course of employment, thereby losing large sums of money."
Mr. Maxwell seeks at least US$550,000 in damages for negligence, willful and
wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of evidence.
John Barnerd and Amy Garrett of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent
Mr. Maxwell.
Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack has been assigned Case No. 07 L 820.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wis. Laborer Sues 88 Companies in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Cieslek of Wisconsin, on Sept. 6, 2007, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against 88 corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The
Madison St. Clair Record reports.
Mr. Cieslek alleges that he was exposed to asbestos while working from 1959
to 2003 as a laborer, environmental engineer, and wastewater treatment
supervisor at various locations.
Mr. Cieslek claims that during the course of his employment and during home
and automotive repairs he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise
absorbed asbestos fibers emanating from certain products he was working with
and around.
According to the complaint, Mr. Cieslek was diagnosed with mesothelioma on
May 21, 2007.
Mr. Cieslek claims the defendants knew or should have known that the asbestos
fibers contained in their products had a toxic, poisonous and highly
deleterious effect upon the health of people.
Mr. Cieslek alleges that the defendants included asbestos in their products
even when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide any or
adequate instructions concerning the safe methods of working with and around
asbestos.
Mr. Cieslek also claims that the defendants failed to require and advise
employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or prevent carrying
asbestos fibers home.
Mr. Cieslek also claims that he has sought, but has been unable to obtain,
full disclosure of relevant documents and information from the defendants
leading him to believe the defendants destroyed documents related to asbestos.
Mr. Cieslek claims that as a result of each defendant breaching its duty to
preserve material evidence by destroying documents and information he has
been prejudiced and impaired in proving claims against all potential parties.
The complaint states, as a result of the alleged negligence, Mr. Cieslek
claims he was exposed to fibers containing asbestos. He developed a disease
caused only by asbestos which has disabled and disfigured him. He seeks
damages to help pay for the cost of his treatment.
The complaint states that Mr. Cieslek also suffers "great physical pain and
mental anguish, and also will be hindered and prevented from pursuing his
normal course of employment, thereby losing large sums of money."
Mr. Cieslek seeks least US$550,000 in damages for negligence, willful and
wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of evidence.
Shane Hampton and Tim Thompson of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
represent Mr. Cieslek.
Case No. 07 L 794 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DNA Test Could be Useful in Workers’ Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Experts say that a new DNA test may be useful in civil cases where workers
seek compensation for illnesses caused by things like asbestos, BBC News
reports.
The technique was developed by Dr. Bruce Gillis at the University of Illinois.
More than 3,000 people a year die from asbestos-related diseases in the U.K.
and the numbers are predicted to rise to 10,000 by 2020.
Scientists say the new test may help prove if people have had their health
damaged by exposure to chemicals.
Samples of DNA are taken from a healthy person and exposed to the chemicals
to see which genes are affected. This is then compared to the claimants' DNA.
Dr. Gillis said civil courts in California have already heard more than 20
cases that used evidence from the technique.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Specialists Deal with Hazard at U.K. Church
----------------------------------------------------------------
A specialist team has been called in to deal with asbestos at the Haven Bank
Methodist Church in New York, Lincolnshire, U.K., Boston Standard reports.
The church was destroyed in an arson attack on Aug. 31, 2007.
Stones of tremendous sentimental value which were laid in the church more
than 70 years ago, some of which are engraved, remain on the site. They
cannot be recovered due to the danger of the asbestos.
An investigation has been launched and police have appealed for information
from anyone who may have seen suspicious activity in the area on the day of
the fire.
Det. Con. Adam Petty said local people were “distraught” at the loss of the
chapel, which had been at the heart of the community for many years.
The cost of the damage has been estimated at GBP100,000 and no decision has
yet been taken on whether the church will be re-built.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Couple Sues 51 Companies in W.Va. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roger and Sally Broughton, of Ashland, Ky., on Aug. 17, 2007, sued 51
companies, 14 of which are West Virginia-based, in an asbestos-related
lawsuit filed in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record
reports.
The suit was filed through Charleston, W.Va.-based attorney Samuel Elswick.
According to the suit, Mr. Broughton was exposed to asbestos dust while
working as a locomotive repairman for Armco Steel, from 1958 to 1997. He
claims the asbestos exposure caused him to contract lung cancer.
Mr. Broughton claims he has suffered medical expenses, great pain of body and
mind, embarrassment, inconvenience and loss of quality and enjoyment of life.
The suit also claims the defendants knew their employees would inhale large
amounts of asbestos dust and fibers at the work place, yet did not warn their
workers.
In the nine-count suit, Mr. Broughton seeks punitive and compensatory
damages. Mrs. Broughton also claims she has lost the financial support of her
husband, as well as his services, companionship and society.
Together, they seek compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages in an
unspecified amount, awarded by a jury.
Kanawha Circuit Court case number 07-C-1738 will be assigned to a visiting
judge.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms Board Ruling in Fredette Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Connecticut upheld a Compensation Review Board ruling,
which granted Rita Fredette’s motion, which sought to preclude the
Connecticut Air National Guard from contesting her right to receive benefits
under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Justices Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer, and Zarella entered decision of Case
No. 17777 on Sept. 18, 2007.
From 1960 to 1992, John O. Fredette, Mrs. Fredette’s husband, was a civilian
aircraft technician employed by the Connecticut Air National Guard. He was
exposed to asbestos, which contributed to his Sept. 25, 2000 diagnosis of
pulmonary asbestosis. He died from respiratory failure on March 25, 2003.
On May 28, 2003, Mrs. Fredette filed notice of workers' compensation claims
on behalf of Mr. Fredette’s estate and herself. Before his death, Mr.
Fredette had not filed a claim under the act.
Because the state claims administrator had failed to contest her claims in a
timely manner, Mrs. Fredette moved to preclude the Connecticut Air National
Guard from contesting the compensability of those claims. The workers’
compensation commissioner for the 8th district granted that motion.
The Connecticut Air National Guard then moved to correct that ruling. The
commissioner granted in part the Connecticut Air National Guard’s motion to
include those certain undisputed facts, but denied that part of the motion to
correct the commissioner's ruling to find that he did not have subject matter
jurisdiction over the claim for dependents' benefits.
The Connecticut Air National Guard subsequently appealed to the board from
the commissioner's decision granting Mrs. Fredette’s motion to preclude,
claiming that the commissioner lacked subject matter jurisdiction because
Mrs. Fredette’s notice of her dependent's claim was untimely.
The board dismissed the Connecticut Air National Guard’s appeal and affirmed
that decision. This appeal followed.
The Connecticut Air National Guard claimed that the commissioner improperly
construed General Statutes s 31-294c (a) to allow Mrs. Fredette to maintain a
claim for dependent's benefits following the death of Mr. Fredette.
Specifically, the question the Supreme Court considered was whether a
dependent has filed a timely claim for benefits when Mr. Fredette, who had
not made a claim for occupational disease benefits during his life, died more
than two years after the first manifestation of his occupational disease, and
the dependent filed a claim within three years from that first manifestation.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the board.
Philip M. Schulz, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney
general, and William J. McCullough, assistant attorney general, represented
the Connecticut Air National Guard.
Amy M. Stone, with whom was Richard L. Gross, represented Rita Fredette.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Moves to Settle 54 Time-Barred Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to approve their Settlement
Agreements with 54 asbestos property damage claimants.
The Debtors negotiated separate agreements with 53 asbestos property damage
creditors represented by Dies & Hile, LLP, to settle all of the Claimants' PD
Claims against the Debtors.
Under the Agreements, the Debtors will to pay Settlement Amounts to 10
Claimants. They are:
-- Arizona Courts - East Court (Claim No. 6067) for US$3,506,077
-- Arizona Courts - West Court (Claim No. 6073) for US$3,222,845
-- Six Hundred Corp. (Claim No. 5689/5690) for US$300,000
-- Health Clinic Building (Claim No. 6071) for US$284,966
-- Hospital Power Plant Bldg. (Claim No. 6069) for US$225,685
-- Court Complex-Sheriff Offices (Claim No. 6074) for US$145,689
-- Board of Supervisors (Claim No. 6068) for US$41,567
-- Sabine River Authority (Claim No. 5660) for US$40,000
-- Juvenile Court Building (Claim No. 6072) for US$12,814
-- Public Health Administration (Claim No. 6070) for US$10,352
The Debtors also agree to pay undisclosed Settlement Amounts to more than 40
Claimants.
James E. O'Neill, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, LLP, in Wilmington,
Del., says that the Settlement Amounts represent final liquidation and
allowance of the PD Claims.
The Settlement, according to Mr. O'Neill, is predicated on the Debtors'
intention for the Settlement Amounts to be paid in full, in cash, without any
deduction or proration, not later than 30 days after the Effective Date of a
plan of reorganization, with the payments to be made by an asbestos trust
established by a reorganization plan, the reorganized Debtors, or a paying
agent designated under a reorganization plan.
The Claimants and the Debtors release all asbestos-related claims against
each other, but reserve claims and defenses relating to tax obligations and
refunds or credits that may be due to the Debtors.
(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 138, Bankruptcy Creditors' Service
Inc., 215-945-7000, Fax: 215-945-7001)
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Seeks to Disallow 55 Claims in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to disallow and expunge 55
remaining asbestos property damage claims in Canada.
The Debtors inform the Court that of the 88 asbestos property damage claims
filed by Canadian Claimants, 33 have been voluntarily withdrawn or expunged.
Of the remaining 55 Canadian PD Claims, the Debtors assert that:
-- Claim No. 11632 is barred by British Columbia's 30-year ultimate
limitation period;
-- Claim No. 11620 is barred by Manitoba's 30-year ultimate limitation
period; and
-- 33 PD Claims are barred by Alberta's 10-year ultimate limitation period.
In addition, 20 PD Claims are barred by Canadian normal limitation periods.
(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 138, Bankruptcy Creditors' Service
Inc., 215-945-7000, Fax: 215-945-7001)
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Charges Can Be Reinstated, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals, on Sept. 20, 2007, states that federal
prosecutors can reinstate criminal charges of knowing endangerment against
W.R. Grace & Co. and seven of its current or former officials, Seattle Post-
Intelligencer reports.
Knowing endangerment was the most serious in a lengthy list of charges
brought in 2005 in what the U.S. Government characterized as "one of the most
significant environmental criminal indictments in U.S. history."
A conviction on this charge can bring imprisonment of up to 15 years per
count.
The U.S. Department of Justice originally charged that Grace had known for
decades that the vermiculite it mined in Libby, Mont., contained lethal
levels of asbestos and that the company concealed the danger from its miners,
the community and consumers throughout the world that bought and used the
tainted vermiculite products.
On Sept. 20, 2007, the panel of senior judges overruled decisions made in
2006 by Montana U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy that brought the
federal prosecution to a screeching halt.
The actions of Judge Molloy, who has heard and ruled on years of legal
sparring between Grace and the government, issued several decisions in the
workup for the criminal trial that tossed out the government's plans to bring
the knowing endangerment charges. He also disallowed a long list of evidence
to be presented in the trial.
For 30 years, Grace mined vermiculite. The Company's own records documented
that the ore was shipped to more than 200 processing and packaging plants
throughout North America, including Seattle, Spokane and Portland, where it
was made into lawn and garden products and attic and wall insulation.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/332499_grace21.html?source=rss
New Securities Fraud Cases
FREMONT GENERAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of all purchasers of securities of Fremont General Corporation from
May 9, 2006 through February 27, 2007, inclusive.
The Complaint charges Fremont General and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:
(1) that the Company had under-reserved for loan losses as
conditions in the subprime industry deteriorated;
(2) as such, the Company's financial statements were
materially misstated;
(3) that the Company's underwriting guidelines were not
adequately restrictive for borrowers in the subprime
loan market;
(4) that the Company had engaged in unsatisfactory lending
practices;
(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company would
be forced to exit the subprime lending business;
(6) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and
(7) that, as a result of the above, the Company's
statements about its financial well-being and future
business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis
when made.
On February 27, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it reported that it
would delay filing its fourth quarter 10-Q and fiscal year 2006 10-K with the
SEC. On this news, the Company's shares declined $2.84 per share, or 24
percent, to close on February 28, 2007 at $8.81 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
Then on March 2, 2007, the Company revealed that it had mismanaged its
subprime lending operations and that it was exiting the industry altogether.
Additionally, the Company revealed that it had entered into a cease and
desist order with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation which detailed
how the Company had operated with inadequate underwriting criteria, had
engaging in unsatisfactory lending practices, had a large volume of "poor
quality loans," had engaged in unsafe and unsound marketing practices, and
had operated with improper methodology concerning its allowance for loan
losses.
On this news, the Company's shares declined an additional $2.82 per share, or
32 percent, to close on March 5, 2007 at $5.89 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.
Interested parties may move the court no later than November 19, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.
Fremont General is a financial services holding company which engages in real
estate lending operations primarily through its wholly owned subsidiary,
Fremont Loan & Investment.
For more information, contact:
Darren J. Check, Esq.
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com
LJ INTERNATIONAL: Coughlin Stoia Files Cal. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of purchasers of LJ International Inc. common stock
during the period between February 15, 2007 and September 6, 2007.
The complaint charges LJ and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants provided
false and misleading reports overstating the Company's fiscal 2005 and 2006
financial results. As a result of those false statements, the Company's stock
traded at inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $13.15
by May 14, 2007.
On July 16, 2007, the Company announced that it was delaying the release of
its fourth quarter 2006 through second quarter 2007 financial results because
the Company's new auditors were unable to sign off on the Company's
accounting. Then on September 6, 2007, LJ disclosed that it had not achieved
the fourth quarter and fiscal 2006 financial results it had previously
provided on January 8, 2007, and upgraded on February 15, 2007, due to
a "potential tax provision," and that its fiscal 2006 earnings report of $3
million would "likely be adversely impacted." On this news the Company's
stock price fell on extremely high trading volume, trading below $6 per share
in the weeks following the July 16, 2007 disclosure and below $5 per share
after the September 6, 2007 disclosure.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by defendants
but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as
follows:
(a) defendants had understated LJ's fiscal 2005 and 2006
tax liability and overstated the Company's earnings and
EPS prior to and during the Class Period and those
false statements remained alive in the market during
the Class Period;
(b) revenues in LJ's wholesale division had softened during
the Class Period;
(c) defendants made materially false and misleading
representations regarding the Company's ability to
report the earnings required to facilitate meeting its
stated goal of growing its Chinese stores to 100 in
advance of the 2008 Beijing Olympics; and
(d) the Company did not have the financial controls in
place to accurately report financial results or to
provide meaningful forward guidance during the Class
Period.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of LJ common
stock during the Class Period.
LJ is engaged in the design, branding, marketing and distribution of jewelry
to jewelers, department stores, national jewelry chains and electronic and
specialty retailers.
For more information, contact:
Darren Robbins
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
E-mail: djr@csgrr.com
TUBE MEDIA: Vianale & Vianale Files Securities Suit in Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
Vianale & Vianale LLP filed a class action on September 19, 2007 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of The Tube Media Corp. (PINKSHEETS: TUBM)
between August 19, 2005 and May 10, 2007.
The complaint alleges that Tube Media, and certain of its officers and
directors, violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. During the class
period, defendants made false public statements and omitted material
information about Tube Media's failure to pay employee payroll taxes to the
government.
The Company also failed to account properly on its financial statements for
compensation expense.
Tube Media currently trades at $0.015.
Interested parties may move the court no later than November 19, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq.
Julie Prag Vianale, Esq.
Vianale & Vianale LLP
2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: 888-657-9960 (Toll Free) or 561-392-4750
*********
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, Editors.
Copyright 2007. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in
any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and
photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the
publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of
the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription
information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *